FILE: 'Bob Williams.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-02T12:28:12.088Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Bob Williams on 💬People Dynamics
aliases:
  - IPB
tags:
  - Bob-Williams
  - Dialectic
author: Bob Williams
---
Based on the provided sources, the **Inter-relationships, Perspectives, and Boundaries (IPB)** framework handles the dynamics of different people holding different opinions by treating these differences not as obstacles to be removed, but as essential data for understanding the complexity of a "wicked problem."

Rather than seeking immediate consensus or determining who is "right," IPB uses these diverging viewpoints to construct a richer picture of the situation and to rigorously test the logic of potential interventions.

Here is an explanation of how these dynamics are handled within the IPB approach:

### 1\. Perspectives as "Framing" rather than just "Opinions"

IPB distinguishes between simple opinions and "perspectives" (or "framings"). A perspective is not just a view on a situation; it is a fundamental way of understanding reality that dictates how a person acts\[1\].

• **Subjectivity as Reality:** The framework assumes that nothing is objective or independent of its context. A system is a mental construct; therefore, the "reality" of a situation depends entirely on the "eye of the beholder"\[2\].

• **The "Holon":** To handle this, IPB uses the concept of a "holon"—a specific, purposeful perspective used to describe a real-world activity\[3\]. For example, a project might be framed by one group as "a way to improve efficiency" and by another as "a way to cut jobs." IPB handles this by validating both as legitimate "holons" to be modeled and analyzed separately, rather than forcing them into one compromised definition\[4\].

### 2\. The Dialectical Approach (Managing Conflict)

Instead of forcing consensus (which can hide uncomfortable truths) or allowing adversarial conflict (which hides valid information), IPB encourages a **dialectical process**.

• **Using Tension:** The framework uses the tension between opposing views to generate new insights. It compares "what is" (reality) with "what ought to be" (the ideal)\[5\].

• **Option One-and-a-Half:** This technique is used to combine the best aspects of an "ideal" world (held by one perspective) with the constraints of the "actual" world (held by another) to design a realistic intervention. It manages the dynamic by looking for synthesis rather than compromise\[5\].

• **Disagreement as a Resource:** Dialectical processes use disagreements to generate agreement. They manage the motivation to compete and the motivation to cooperate simultaneously, ensuring that discrepant information is not denied but used to improve the final decision\[6\],\[7\].

### 3\. Methodological Tools for Handling Perspectives

IPB employs specific tools to rigorously structure and interrogate different perspectives, ensuring that "soft" opinions are treated with "hard" analytical rigor.

• **Rich Pictures:** Before defining the problem, participants draw the situation. This allows different stakeholders to express emotional climates, conflicts, and politics visually, capturing the "mess" without requiring a single agreed-upon verbal definition\[8\],\[9\].

• **Stakeholder Analysis:** This involves mapping who is involved and, crucially, analyzing their specific "stakes" (interests) and "encuadre" (framing). It asks not just who they are, but "what are the different ways this situation can be understood?" from their specific vantage point\[10\],\[11\].

• **CATWOE:** To handle a specific perspective rigorously, IPB applies the **CATWOE** checklist (Customers, Actors, Transformation, Worldview, Owner, Environment). This forces the analyst to explicitly define the logic of a specific perspective (e.g., if this is the _Worldview_, then who must be the _Owner_ and who is the _Victim_?). This prevents perspectives from remaining vague complaints and turns them into structured models\[12\],\[13\].

### 4\. Linking Perspectives to Boundaries (Power and Ethics)

The framework handles the dynamics of differing opinions by revealing that they are actually debates about **boundaries**—decisions about what is included (valued) and what is excluded (marginalized)\[14\].

• **Boundary Critique:** Using Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH), IPB asks stakeholders to define who _ought_ to be the beneficiary and who _ought_ to control resources. This moves the dynamic from a technical debate to an ethical one, exposing power relations\[15\],\[16\].

• **Marginalization:** The approach explicitly looks for perspectives that are being excluded. It recognizes that whoever defines the dominant perspective controls the boundaries of the system. Therefore, handling these dynamics requires making boundary judgments transparent so they can be challenged\[17\],\[18\].

### 5\. Practical Application in Teams

In practice, IPB handles these dynamics by recommending that interventions be designed by teams of people with radically different viewpoints.

• **Working with Others:** The sources advise that addressing complex situations is best done with others, specifically bringing in people with opposing standpoints to reveal perspectives one would never think of alone\[19\].

• **Separating Reality from Models:** A key mechanism is distinguishing between the "real world" (where the messy dynamics exist) and the "systems world" (where we build logical models of those perspectives). We then compare the models to the real world to see where they differ, generating learning without immediately forcing a solution\[20\],\[21\].

In summary, IPB handles the dynamics of different people by validating their subjective truths as distinct system models, using rigorous tools to map the logic of those models, and then employing dialectical methods to negotiate a "wicked solution" that acknowledges conflicting values rather than suppressing them.

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [2] 118-The idea and practice of systems thinking and their rele.pdf
> [3] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [4] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [5] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [6] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [7] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [8] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [9] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [10] Libro-Bob-Williams.pdf
> [11] Libro-Bob-Williams.pdf
> [12] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [13] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [14] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [15] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [16] CAP0901_37_ENG_DEF_LR Small.pdf
> [17] CAP0901_37_ENG_DEF_LR Small.pdf
> [18] CAP0901_37_ENG_DEF_LR Small.pdf
> [19] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [20] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [21] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf


FILE: 'Colin Eden.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-02T12:20:22.917Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Colin Eden on 💬People Dynamics
aliases:
  - SODA
tags:
  - Colin-Eden
  - Dialectic
author: Colin Eden
---
Based on the provided sources, the Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) approach handles the dynamics of differing perspectives by treating problems as subjective social constructs rather than objective facts. The methodology is designed to manage the "messiness" of organizational life, where uncertainty, conflict, and political power plays are central rather than nuisance elements to be eliminated\[1\].

Here is an explanation of how SODA manages these dynamics:

### 1\. Legitimizing Subjectivity and "Intersubjectivity"

SODA starts from the premise that individuals inhabit their own "subjective worlds"\[2\]. Different people interpret the same situation differently based on their specific roles, beliefs, and values\[3\],\[4\].

• **No Single Objective Truth:** SODA rejects the idea that there is a single "right" definition of a problem. Instead, it seeks to capture the "intersubjective" reality—the areas of agreement and shared meaning that exist alongside individual differences\[5\].

• **Theories-in-Use:** The approach seeks to capture "theories-in-use" (what people actually believe and do) rather than "espoused theories" (what they say they do), acknowledging that people filter information through their own cognitive frameworks\[6\],\[7\].

### 2\. Capturing Individual Views First

To handle diverse opinions, SODA often begins by capturing individual views separately before bringing the group together.

• **Individual Interviews:** Facilitators often conduct one-to-one interviews using cognitive mapping to capture the unique "wisdom" and "deep knowledge" of individuals\[8\],\[9\]. This avoids "groupthink" (where people conform to the majority) and "social loafing" (where people stay silent), allowing outlier views to be expressed without immediate peer pressure\[10\],\[11\].

• **Ownership:** By capturing an individual's specific wording and logic, the process ensures that participants feel their personal perspective has been "heard" and valued, which is crucial for building trust\[12\],\[13\].

### 3\. Merging Views into a "Transitional Object"

Once individual views are captured, they are aggregated into a single "group map" or "strategy map." This merged map acts as a "transitional object"—a tangible artifact that the group can negotiate around\[14\],\[15\],\[16\].

• **Depersonalization of Conflict:** The map displays conflicting views in a "depersonalized way." This allows the group to attack or analyze the logic on the screen/wall rather than attacking the person who holds the view\[17\]. It helps participants "save face" if they need to change their minds, as they are critiquing a model rather than defending a personal stance\[18\],\[19\].

• **Contextualization:** The merged map allows individuals to see their own ideas within the context of others' ideas. This often leads to a shift in perspective as participants realize how their issues interact with or impact different parts of the organization\[20\],\[21\].

• **Retaining Complexity:** Unlike methods that average out views, the merged map retains the richness, conflicts, and contradictions of the group's thinking, allowing them to be explored rather than ignored\[22\],\[23\].

### 4\. Facilitating Negotiation and "New Social Order"

SODA views strategy making as a process of negotiation\[24\],\[25\]. The goal is not just to solve a puzzle but to negotiate a new "social order" (relationships) and "negotiated order" (ways of working)\[26\],\[27\].

• **Procedural Justice:** The process is designed to ensure "procedural justice"—the feeling that the decision-making process was fair, even if the outcome isn't exactly what an individual wanted\[28\],\[29\]. If participants feel their diverse views were genuinely considered, they are more likely to commit to the group decision\[30\],\[31\].

• **Managing Power and Politics:** The facilitator acknowledges that facts are often determined by power\[32\]. The process aims to balance the "social order" (maintaining relationships) with the need for change, preventing the group from settling for the "lowest common denominator" or compromise just to keep the peace\[33\],\[34\].

### 5\. Utilizing Technology for Anonymity

When using computer-supported SODA workshops (Group Support Systems), technology is used to manage the dynamics of differing opinions by altering the power structure.

• **Anonymity:** Participants can enter ideas or vote on priorities anonymously. This creates a "safe space" for raising controversial issues, "undiscussables," or challenging powerful figures without fear of retribution\[35\],\[36\],\[37\].

• **Equalizing Participation:** The technology helps ensure that social skills or loudness do not determine who gets heard. It allows for "multivocal" contributions where quiet members can contribute as much as dominant ones\[38\],\[39\].

### 6\. Synthesis and Creativity

Finally, SODA handles diverse opinions by aiming for synthesis rather than just compromise.

• **Creative Friction:** The friction between different perspectives is used as a source of energy for creativity\[40\]. The facilitator uses the map to spot links between different viewpoints, encouraging the group to say "yes, and..." rather than "yes, but..."\[41\],\[42\].

• **New Knowledge:** By knitting together alternative views, the group creates new knowledge that no single individual possessed, moving the group toward a shared understanding\[43\]. The group map becomes a "holistic view" that transcends individual functional silos (e.g., marketing vs. production)\[44\],\[4\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [2] [Book] Eden et al - 1979 - Thinking in organizations - Macmillan.pdf
> [3] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [4] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [5] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [6] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [7] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [8] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [9] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [10] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [11] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [12] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [13] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [14] Ackermann - Extending the scope of problem structuring methods.pdf
> [15] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [16] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [17] [Book] Eden et al - 1979 - Thinking in organizations - Macmillan.pdf
> [18] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [19] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [20] [Book] Eden et al - 1979 - Thinking in organizations - Macmillan.pdf
> [21] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [22] [Book] Eden et al - 1979 - Thinking in organizations - Macmillan.pdf
> [23] [Book] Eden et al - 1979 - Thinking in organizations - Macmillan.pdf
> [24] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [25] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [26] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [27] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [28] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [29] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [30] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [31] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [32] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [33] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [34] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [35] Ackermann - Extending the scope of problem structuring methods.pdf
> [36] Ackermann - Extending the scope of problem structuring methods.pdf
> [37] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [38] Ackermann - Extending the scope of problem structuring methods.pdf
> [39] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [40] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [41] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [42] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [43] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [44] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf


FILE: 'Dave Snowden.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-02T12:24:13.009Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Dave Snowden on 💬People Dynamics
aliases:
  - Anthrocomplexity
tags:
  - Dave-Snowden
  - Dialectic
author: Dave Snowden
---
Based on the sources provided, **anthrocomplexity** (the study of complexity in human systems) handles the dynamics of differing perspectives and opinions fundamentally differently than traditional management approaches. Instead of viewing diverse opinions as "noise" to be filtered out or a problem to be solved through consensus, anthrocomplexity treats them as essential data points within a **human sensor network**.

Here is an explanation of how these dynamics are handled:

### 1\. Moving from Consensus to Coherence

Traditional systems thinking often seeks "shared mental models" or alignment around a single vision. Anthrocomplexity argues that enforcing common values or shared reasoning is an "idealist fallacy"\[1\].

• **Requisite Diversity:** To navigate complex systems, organizations need "requisite diversity"—a sufficient level of divergent perspectives to detect weak signals of change\[2\]\[3\]. If everyone holds the same perspective, the system suffers from "inattentional blindness" (illustrated by the famous experiment where radiologists focus so hard on a task they fail to see a gorilla in the X-ray)\[4\]\[5\].

• **Messy Coherence:** Rather than seeking total agreement, the approach seeks "messy coherence." This allows for competing hypotheses and different views to exist simultaneously, provided they are coherent enough to justify safe-to-fail experiments\[6\]\[7\].

### 2\. The Mechanism of Self-Signification (Epistemic Justice)

A core problem in traditional research is that an expert (analyst or consultant) interprets other people's opinions, inevitably introducing their own cognitive bias\[8\]\[9\]. Anthrocomplexity handles this through **self-signification**.

• **The Method:** People (agents) share micro-narratives (anecdotes) about their experiences. They then "tag" or index their own stories using abstract shapes, such as triangles (e.g., placing a dot on a triangle with corners labeled "Altruistic," "Assertive," and "Analytical")\[8\]\[10\].

• **The Result:** Because the contributor interprets the meaning of their own story, the data retains the original perspective without being filtered by an intermediary. This ensures **epistemic justice**—giving power to the voice of the person who lived the experience rather than privileging the expert\[11\]\[12\].

### 3\. Human Sensor Networks

Anthrocomplexity treats the workforce or population as a **human sensor network**. This network is used to provide real-time situational assessment\[13\]\[14\].

• **Distributed Cognition:** No single leader can understand a complex system. Intelligence is distributed among the agents\[15\]. By accessing the fragmented narratives of the network, leaders can see patterns that no individual could see alone\[16\]\[17\].

• **Weak Signal Detection:** The approach specifically looks for "outliers"—the lone voices or small clusters of opinions that differ from the majority. In a standard survey, these would be averaged out; in anthrocomplexity, they are highlighted as potential early warnings of risks or opportunities\[18\].

### 4\. Managing Conflict through the "Disorder" Domain

The Cynefin framework includes a central domain called **Disorder** (or Confusion/Aporia), which is the state of not knowing which system dynamics are in play\[21\]\[22\].

• **The Tug-of-War:** In this domain, people interpret the situation based on their personal preference. Bureaucrats will see a failure of process (Simple), experts will see a need for analysis (Complicated), and politicians will see a need for networking (Complex)\[23\]\[24\].

• **Resolution:** The framework handles this conflict not by forcing one view, but by breaking the situation down into constituent parts. The group discusses the extremes of the domains to create a shared language, allowing them to agree on which parts of the problem are ordered (and require rules) and which are complex (and require experimentation)\[25\]\[26\].

### 5\. Ritualized Dissent

To prevent "groupthink" and "entrained thinking" (where experts become blind to new possibilities), anthrocomplexity utilizes **Ritual Dissent**.

• **The Process:** This is a technique where a spokesperson presents an idea to a group, then turns their back. The group then critiques or attacks the idea while the spokesperson listens in silence. This ritualizes the conflict, attacking the _idea_ rather than the _person_, and forces the listener to absorb diverse and critical perspectives without immediately defending themselves\[27\]\[28\].

### Summary: Visualizing the Landscape

Finally, these diverse perspectives are often visualized using **fitness landscapes** (3D contour maps).

• **Clusters:** High peaks or deep valleys show where opinions have stabilized or entrenched (strong attractors).

• **Outliers:** Isolated dots show where a few people hold a radically different view.

• **Action:** Leaders do not ask "who is right?" but rather look at the topography to ask, "How can we shift the energy from this dominant negative narrative to this adjacent positive one?"\[29\].

In summary, anthrocomplexity handles diverse perspectives by removing the intermediary expert, visualizing the raw landscape of opinion, and using the differences between people as a sensory mechanism to navigate uncertainty.

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] snowden_archive.pdf
> [2] Snowden - Multi ontology sense making v2-May05.pdf
> [3] snowden multi-ontology sense making 578-1421-1-PB.pdf
> [4] 100816 Narrative-Research_Snowden FINAL.pdf
> [5] Snowden - As through the glass darkly a complex systems approach to futures.pdf
> [6] The-Cynefin-Mini-book-online.pdf
> [7] snowden the new dynamics of strategy.pdf
> [8] 044_ Making Sense of Human Systems an interview with Professor Dave Snowden.pdf
> [9] 100816 Narrative-Research_Snowden FINAL.pdf
> [10] Rettig.Snowden-ComplexityTheoryAndNarrativeResearch_notes.pdf
> [11] Cynefin Climate Change Brochure March 2022.pdf
> [12] Snowden - As through the glass darkly a complex systems approach to futures.pdf
> [13] Cynefin vector theory of change.pdf
> [14] EU Managing Complexity (and chaos) in Times of Crisis.pdf
> [15] Snowden - Naturalising Knowledge Management.pdf
> [16] Rettig.Snowden-ComplexityTheoryAndNarrativeResearch_notes.pdf
> [17] Snowden 2011 - Naturalising sense-making.pdf
> [18] 100816 Narrative-Research_Snowden FINAL.pdf
> [21] Cynefin Paper report.pdf
> [22] EU Managing Complexity (and chaos) in Times of Crisis.pdf
> [23] Snowden - Anticipatory Models for Counter-Terrorism.pdf
> [24] The Cynefin Framework and the Technical Leadership - How to Handle the Complexity.pdf
> [25] kurtz snowden - IBM Sys Journal.pdf
> [26] kurtz snowden - IBM Sys Journal.pdf
> [27] Snowden & Boone HBR Leaders Framework.pdf
> [28] The-Cynefin-Mini-book-online.pdf
> [29] 100816 Narrative-Research_Snowden FINAL.pdf


FILE: 'Dee Hock.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-02T13:08:18.046Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Dee Hock on 💬People Dynamics
aliases:
  - CST
tags:
  - Dee-Hock
  - Dialectic
author: Dee Hock
---
Based on the provided sources, the chaordic approach handles the dynamics of differing perspectives and opinions not by eliminating conflict or enforcing uniformity, but by creating structures and processes that harness diversity as a resource for innovation and self-organization.

Here is an explanation of how these dynamics are handled, ranging from foundational principles to specific practical tools.

### 1\. Foundational Philosophy: Embracing Diversity

In a chaordic system, diversity of opinion is viewed as essential rather than detrimental.

• **Harmonious Blending:** The definition of a chaord implies a system that harmoniously blends characteristics of both competition and cooperation\[1\].

• **Institutional Genetic Code:** A core principle of the VISA organization was that it "must embrace diversity and change" and attract people comfortable with such conditions\[2\].

• **Holonic Perspective:** Individuals are viewed as "holons"—entities that are simultaneously independent wholes and parts of a larger whole. Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST) emphasizes the need to value the "interior" of these individuals (their thoughts, feelings, and cultures) just as much as their exterior behaviors\[3\],\[4\].

### 2\. Design Process: The Chaordic Stepping Stones

When designing an initiative or holding a meeting, specific steps are taken to manage differing views constructively:

• **Principles of Cooperation:** Before discussing _what_ to do, the group must agree on _how_ they will work together. These principles (e.g., "speak respectfully," "ensure everyone has a chance to speak") act as behavioral agreements that guide the group when plans break down or conflict arises\[5\],\[6\].

• **Mapping the People:** The process explicitly identifies who is involved, ensuring that those with different levels of commitment (Core Team, Essential Stakeholders) are included. It forces the group to check for bias to ensure they are not excluding anyone based on habit or assumption\[7\],\[8\].

• **Confronting Limiting Beliefs:** This step asks the group to investigate their own judgments and fears. Participants are encouraged to ask, "Who am I judging or in conflict with?" and "Can we absolutely know that belief is 100% true?" This moves the dynamic from entrenched opinion to self-inquiry\[9\],\[10\].

• **Parking Lots:** To handle immediate disagreements without stalling momentum, "parking lots" (visible note spaces) are used to record concerns and conflicting perspectives. These must be revisited before final decisions are made to build trust that all views were heard\[11\],\[12\].

### 3\. Communication Mechanisms: Dialogue and Multilogue

Chaordic practice utilizes specific modes of communication to handle diverse viewpoints:

• **Dialogue:** Unlike discussion (which often involves defending positions), dialogue allows a "stream of meaning" to flow among the group. It slows down the thought process to help individuals identify their own assumptions and inconsistencies\[13\].

• **Multilogue:** This is a comprehensive dynamic where groups of different stakeholders interact. It creates new ideas through the prolonged interaction of these different "position groups," sometimes utilizing "antagonistic dialogues" to generate learning\[14\].

• **Participatory Harvesting:** When recording the outputs of a meeting (the "harvest"), the group itself must make meaning of the information. Facilitators are warned not to impose their own ordering schemes on the data, ensuring the insight belongs to the collective diversity of the group\[15\],\[16\].

### 4\. Governance and Decision Making: The VISA Model

Dee Hock’s design of VISA provides a concrete example of managing powerful, conflicting opinions (e.g., between large and small banks, or different nations):

• **Distributive Governance:** The organization was structured so that no single institution, individual, or combination could dominate deliberations. Power was distributed to the maximum degree\[2\],\[17\].

• **The Grace to Compromise:** In a specific instance where international members were in an unbreakable stalemate regarding the organization's formation, Hock presented them with cufflinks engraved with the motto: "The will to succeed, the grace to compromise." This symbolic act reframed the conflict, allowing the members to release their rigid positions for the good of the whole\[18\],\[19\].

• **Testing over Arguing:** When management was divided on whether to shrink the VISA logo on the card (a move opposed by powerful directors), the team did not rely on argument. They counterfeited their own cards with the new design and used them in the real world to gather data. This moved the conflict from subjective opinion to shared experience\[20\],\[21\].

### 5\. Leadership Mindset

Leaders in a chaordic context manage diverse opinions by abandoning "command and control" in favor of "educing" (drawing forth) behavior:

• **Managing Peers:** Leaders are expected to devote significant time (20%) to managing peers—associates and competitors over whom they have no authority. This requires persuasion, understanding, and influence rather than force\[22\],\[23\].

• **Self-Management:** The primary responsibility of a leader is managing one's own integrity and temperament (50% of their time), which prevents the leader from imposing their own ego or rigid opinions on the diverse group\[24\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] the_art_of_chaordic_leadership_hock.pdf
> [2] Dee Hock - The Chaordic Organization Review.pdf
> [3] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [4] Vaneijnatten 2004 chaordic systems thinking - learning organization.pdf
> [5] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [6] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [7] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [8] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [9] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [10] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [11] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [12] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [13] Vaneijnatten 2004 chaordic systems thinking - learning organization.pdf
> [14] Vaneijnatten 2004 chaordic systems thinking - learning organization.pdf
> [15] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [16] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [17] dee-hock-the-chaordic-organization.pdf
> [18] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [19] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [20] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [21] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [22] the_art_of_chaordic_leadership_hock.pdf
> [23] the_art_of_chaordic_leadership_hock.pdf
> [24] the_art_of_chaordic_leadership_hock.pdf


FILE: 'Derek Cabrera.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-04T22:55:25.054Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Derek Cabrera on 💬People Dynamics
tags:
  - Derek-Cabrera
author: Derek Cabrera
---

In the DSRP (Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives) framework, the dynamics of different people holding varying perspectives and opinions are handled by treating **perspectives as a formal, universal cognitive structure** composed of two co-implying elements: a **Point** (the observer) and a **View** (that which is seen)\[1\].

The framework approaches these dynamics through several key principles:

### 1\. The Centrality of the Observer

A fundamental tenet of this approach is that **systems are mental constructs dependent on an observer**, rather than objective, external realities\[5\]\[6\]. What one individual labels as "simple" or "complex" is a description afforded by that specific observer’s standards, roles, and experiences\[5\]. Because **no thought happens absent of a perspective**, different stakeholders will naturally conceptualise the same system differently\[5\].

### 2\. Intersubjectivity vs. Objectivism

DSRP is described as **intersubjective** rather than objectively universal\[10\]. It acknowledges that different people find it convenient to divide the world in different ways (making different **Distinctions**) based on their specific intent and context\[11\].

• **Contextual Identity:** A single physical object (e.g., a desk) can have different "existential identities" depending on the observer's mental model and context (e.g., a desk for a staffer vs. a barricade for a rioter)\[14\]\[15\].

• **The "Other" in Distinction:** Whenever a person defines a problem or identity, they simultaneously (and often unconsciously) create an "other"—what that thing is not. Recognizing this "otherness" is essential to avoid marginalising people or ideas\[16\].

### 3\. Managing Bias through Metacognition

The framework recognizes that humans have a natural **egocentric bias**, viewing the world through their own lens nearly 100% of the time\[19\].

• **Metacognitive Awareness:** Systems thinking involves the willful and purposeful attempt to be aware of the perspective structure at work during thought\[22\]\[23\].

• **Critical Systems Thinking (CST):** This is defined as the capacity to become aware of and explicitly articulate subjective viewpoints\[24\]. Research shows that when even a single element of perspective is formulated, it leads to a more diverse and balanced world representation, significantly increasing the complexity of the other DSRP patterns identified\[25\].

### 4\. Tools for Handling Multiple Perspectives

To facilitate the interaction of different opinions, the sources suggest specific tools:

• **The Perspective Circle (P-Circle):** This "cognitive jig" maps a single **View** from multiple **Points** simultaneously\[28\]. It allows groups to see how different stakeholders focus on different nodes within the same "Web of Causality"\[31\].

• **Boundary Critique:** Conflict often arises because different parties frame a phenomenon using different boundaries\[34\]. By helping parties identify their **core and peripheral concerns**, DSRP can "short-circuit" stigmatisation and promote better mutual understanding\[36\].

• **Concept Mapping:** This is a participatory methodology that allows diverse groups to develop **shared conceptual frameworks** while preserving individual diversity and individuality in the resulting visual maps\[39\].

### 5\. Prosocial Outcomes

The conscious application of the Perspectives rule is considered foundational to **prosocial behaviors** such as empathy, compassion, and listening\[42\]. By learning to take alternative perspectives—including **conceptual perspectives** (e.g., viewing a problem from an "economic" or "historical" lens)—individuals can reduce stereotyping and increase open-mindedness\[44\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [5] Balan - how to improve systems thinking in aid.pdf
> [6] Dialogues on Systems Thinking and Complexity Theory.pdf
> [10] Cabrera - The Four Waves of Systems Thinking.pdf
> [11] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [14] Cabrera - The Four Waves of Systems Thinking.pdf
> [15] Cabrera - The Four Waves of Systems Thinking.pdf
> [16] Cabrera - Systems Thinking Flash Cards.pdf
> [19] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [22] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [23] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [24] Common Biases in Systems Thinking.pdf
> [25] Common Biases in Systems Thinking.pdf
> [28] Cabrera - DSRP Script.pdf
> [31] Cabrera - From One Cause to Webs of Causality.pdf
> [34] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [36] Cabrera - A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [39] Cabrera - The Complexity of Concept Mapping.pdf
> [42] Cabrera - DRSP A theory of thinking and of things.pdf
> [44] Cabrera Cabrera 2019 Reference Work Entry - What Is Systems Thinking.pdf


FILE: 'Ian Mitroff.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-02T13:06:13.644Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Ian Mitroff on 💬People Dynamics
aliases:
  - SAST
tags:
  - Dialectic
  - Ian-Mitroff
author: Ian Mitroff
---
Based on the provided sources, the Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) methodology handles the dynamics of differing perspectives and opinions by actively engineering and structuring conflict rather than suppressing it. The approach is rooted in the belief that "constructive conflict" is the best guarantor of truth in complex, ill-structured problems\[1\].

Here is an explanation of how these dynamics are managed through the specific phases of SAST:

### 1\. Segregation: Maximizing Differences _Between_ Groups

Instead of trying to force a large, diverse group to reach an immediate consensus (which often leads to "groupthink" or superficial agreement), SAST begins by separating people into smaller, homogeneous groups\[2\].

• **The Strategy:** The methodology explicitly seeks to **maximize the differences between groups** while **minimizing the interpersonal conflict within groups**. This ensures that each group can function effectively to articulate a strong, coherent worldview without internal bickering, while guaranteeing that the organization as a whole is exposed to radically different perspectives\[2\].

• **How People are Grouped:** Participants are assigned to groups based on characteristics that are likely to produce opposing views:

    ◦ **Personality Type:** Using the Myers-Briggs (Jungian) framework, "Sensing-Thinking" (ST) types might be grouped together to focus on technical/economic details, while "Intuitive-Feeling" (NF) types are grouped to focus on humanistic/holistic concerns\[3\],\[4\].    ◦ **Policy Preference:** People are grouped by their preferred solution (e.g., those favoring "Status Quo" vs. "Radical Change")\[5\],\[6\].    ◦ **Functional Area:** Grouping by department (e.g., Marketing vs. Finance) to capture distinct organizational perspectives\[7\],\[8\].
### 2\. Anchoring: Grounding Opinions in Stakeholders

Opinions often clash because they are abstract. SAST manages this dynamic by forcing participants to ground their opinions in the concrete reality of **stakeholders**.

• **The Mechanism:** Participants cannot simply argue _for_ a policy; they must identify the stakeholders (people, groups, organizations) affected by it\[5\].

• **Defining Assumptions:** Once stakeholders are listed, the group must list what they are assuming about those stakeholders to make their policy work. Assumptions are defined as the "presumed properties of stakeholders"\[5\],\[9\].

• **The Result:** This shifts the dynamic from "I think X is right" to "I am assuming Stakeholder Y behaves in manner Z." For example, in a drug pricing case, one group assumed physicians were price-sensitive, while another assumed they were quality-sensitive\[10\],\[11\]. This converts vague disagreements into specific, testable counter-assumptions.

### 3\. Adversarial Debate: The Dialectical Inquiry

SAST utilizes a **Dialectical Inquiry System (Hegelian)** rather than a Consensual (Lockean) one. The dynamic here is structured so that data is not treated as neutral "fact" but is interpreted differently by opposing worldviews\[12\],\[13\].

• **Structured Debate:** Groups present their most critical assumptions to one another. The opposing groups do not just listen; they look for the "takens" (unwarranted assumptions) that the presenting group considers "givens"\[12\],\[14\].

• **Importance/Certainty Mapping:** To manage the volume of opinions, groups plot their assumptions on a chart. The discussion focuses only on assumptions rated as **High Importance/Low Certainty**. This focuses the interpersonal dynamic on the areas of greatest risk and disagreement rather than wasting time on things everyone agrees on\[12\],\[15\].

• **No Compromise (Yet):** At this stage, groups are encouraged to make the "strongest case possible" for their specific worldview, often engaging in role-playing to fully embody that perspective\[16\],\[17\].

### 4\. Synthesis: Negotiation and Recombination

Once the conflicting assumptions are fully exposed, the dynamic shifts from adversarial to integrative. The goal changes from "winning the debate" to achieving a synthesis that encompasses the complexity revealed by the conflict\[18\],\[19\].

• **Assumption Negotiation:** Groups identify which of their opponents' assumptions are most troubling. They then attempt to modify their own assumptions to bridge the gap, asking if they can relax their views while still supporting their core policy\[18\],\[20\].

• **Recombining Groups:** To break down the "win-lose" psychology established in the debate phase, the groups are often dissolved and reformed. New groups are created containing one member from each of the original opposing teams. These new heterogeneous groups are tasked with creating a "synergistic solution" that integrates the best insights from the previous debate\[21\],\[22\].

### 5\. Managing Psychological Types (Jungian Framework)

SAST specifically addresses the dynamic where people "talk past one another" because they process information differently.

• **The Dynamic:** An "ST" type (detail-oriented, logical) often views an "NF" type (idealistic, people-oriented) as "muddle-headed," while the NF views the ST as "cold"\[23\],\[24\].

• **The Handling:** By grouping them separately first, SAST validates both worldviews. When they later present their "Tinkertoy" models or arguments to each other, the mystification usually turns to insight, allowing the organization to see that the problem has both technical and human dimensions that must be addressed\[23\],\[25\].

In summary, SAST handles different perspectives not by averaging them out (consensus), but by amplifying them in a controlled setting (dialectic) to reveal the deep assumptions driving the disagreement, and then reintegrating the participants to build a more robust, "systemic" solution\[26\],\[27\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [2] Mitroff - Assumptional Analysis A methodology for strategic problem solving.pdf
> [3] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [4] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [5] Mitroff - Assumptional Analysis A methodology for strategic problem solving.pdf
> [6] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [7] Mitroff - Assumptional Analysis A methodology for strategic problem solving.pdf
> [8] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [9] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [10] Mitroff - Assumptional Analysis A methodology for strategic problem solving.pdf
> [11] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [12] Mitroff - Assumptional Analysis A methodology for strategic problem solving.pdf
> [13] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [14] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [15] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [16] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [17] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [18] Mitroff - Assumptional Analysis A methodology for strategic problem solving.pdf
> [19] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [20] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [21] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [22] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [23] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [24] [Book] Mitroff - Technology Run Amok Crisis Management in the Digital Age.pdf
> [25] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [26] [Book] Mitroff - Dirty Rotten Strategies How We Trick Ourselves and Others into Solving the Wrong Problems Precisely.pdf
> [27] [Book] Mitroff - Dirty Rotten Strategies How We Trick Ourselves and Others into Solving the Wrong Problems Precisely.pdf


FILE: 'John Warfield.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-02T12:22:18.102Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: John Warfield on 💬People Dynamics
aliases:
  - ISM
tags:
  - Dialectic
  - John-Warfield
author: John Warfield
---

Based on the provided sources, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) handles the dynamics of differing perspectives not by suppressing them, but by utilizing a rigorous, mathematically supported process designed to integrate individual views into a coherent group model. The methodology assumes that dealing with complex issues inherently involves conflict and diverse beliefs, a phenomenon John Warfield termed "Spreadthink"\[1\],\[2\].

Here is an explanation of how ISM manages these dynamics:

### 1\. Acknowledging "Spreadthink" and "Cognitive Burden"

The ISM process begins with the premise that in any complex situation, individual views on the relative importance of problems will be "literally spread all over the map"\[3\]. Empirical data shows that there is almost never a majority viewpoint on which problems are most important at the outset\[4\]. Furthermore, individuals face cognitive limitations (the "magical number seven"), meaning they cannot mentally grasp the full web of relationships in a complex system without assistance\[5\],\[6\]. ISM is designed to "recover" groups from this chaotic state\[7\].

### 2\. Establishing a Shared Language (Clarification)

Before structuring begins, the group typically engages in the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to generate ideas. Crucially, this includes a dedicated **clarification phase**\[8\].

• **The Problem:** Participants often use the same words to mean different things, leading to "linguistic pollution" or a lack of a shared linguistic domain\[9\],\[10\].

• **The Solution:** The facilitator ensures every item is clarified through serial discussion before any voting or structuring occurs. This prevents the group from structuring based on misunderstandings and ensures that when they disagree, they are disagreeing about the _content_, not the definitions\[11\],\[12\].

### 3\. Focused Pairwise Comparison

The core mechanism for handling differing opinions is the **pairwise comparison**. Instead of asking the group to solve the whole problem at once, the computer presents two elements (e.g., Problem A and Problem B) and asks a specific question, such as "Does Problem A aggravate Problem B?"\[13\],\[14\].

• **Focusing Debate:** This reduces the cognitive load and forces the group to debate a specific relationship rather than general philosophies\[13\],\[15\].

• **Constructive Debate:** Participants discuss the specific relationship. If a consensus isn't immediate, the facilitator encourages discussion to uncover _why_ perspectives differ. This discussion often leads to further clarification or editing of the elements to improve accuracy\[14\],\[16\].

### 4\. Voting and the "Double Meaning of No"

Ultimately, the relationship is determined by a vote. The ISM process utilizes a specific logic to handle disagreement during this voting:

• **Majority Rule:** A relationship (a connection in the model) is usually established only if a **majority** (often a qualified majority, e.g., 75%) votes "Yes"\[14\],\[15\],\[4\].

• **The "No" Vote:** A "No" vote is entered if the majority does not say "Yes." Warfield designed this to interpret "No" ambiguously: it can mean "I believe there is no relationship," OR "I do not know/I am unsure"\[17\].

• **Preventing False Positives:** This strategy avoids forcing a relationship where evidence or conviction is weak. It ensures that the final structure consists only of relationships the group strongly agrees upon\[18\].

### 5\. Mathematical Logic (Transitivity) as a Neutral Arbiter

The software employs the mathematical property of **transitivity** (if A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C) to maintain logical consistency\[19\].

• **Handling Inconsistency:** Individuals often hold illogical or cyclic beliefs (e.g., A > B, B > C, C > A). The computer logic helps the group identify and resolve these inconsistencies\[20\].

• **Inference:** By inferring relationships based on previous answers, the software reduces the number of questions the group must answer, keeping them focused and reducing fatigue\[21\],\[15\].

### 6\. Visualizing the "Cycle" of Opinion

When the software detects a **Cycle** (e.g., Problem A causes B, which causes A), it indicates a situation where elements are mutually dependent\[22\].

• This structure helps the group realize that "chicken and egg" debates are futile because the elements are part of a feedback loop that must be treated as a single unit or "bullet-box" in the final structure\[23\]. This visual realization often resolves prolonged circular arguments among stakeholders.

### 7\. Structured Democratic Dialogue (SDD)

In variants of ISM known as Structured Democratic Dialogue (SDD), specific rules are enforced to protect minority opinions and prevent dominance by loud voices:

• **Equivalence:** All participants are treated as experts in their own perspective\[24\].

• **Protection:** Facilitators may intervene if a participant threatens to leave or dominate, ensuring that the process respects the autonomy and authenticity of every participant\[25\],\[24\].

### Summary: From Conflict to Learning

The ultimate result of handling these dynamics through ISM is **Group Learning**. Research has shown that while individual votes prior to ISM are uncorrelated (diverse beliefs), the final structure represents a view "owned" by the group\[26\]. The process converts a group of individuals with disparate views into a collective with a shared understanding of the system's structure\[27\],\[28\]. The final map is not just a sum of individual opinions, but a "majority view in every detail"\[29\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [2] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [3] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [4] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [5] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [6] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [7] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [8] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [9] Warfield 1999 - Twenty Laws of Complexity science applicable in organisations.pdf
> [10] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [11] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [12] Warfield - What questions have been answered to study complexity.pdf
> [13] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [14] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [15] Laouris 2017 - Structured Democratic Dialogue.pdf
> [16] Simpson - Augmented Interactive Management.pdf
> [17] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [18] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [19] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [20] 17071793.pdf
> [21] 04309336.pdf
> [22] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [23] warfield 1996 - structural thinking.pdf
> [24] Laouris 2017 - Structured Democratic Dialogue.pdf
> [25] Laouris 2017 - Structured Democratic Dialogue.pdf
> [26] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [27] 05408493.pdf
> [28] Warfield - Measuring Complexity.pdf
> [29] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf


FILE: 'Peter Checkland.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-02T12:26:07.238Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Peter Checkland on 💬People Dynamics
aliases:
  - SSM
tags:
  - Dialectic
  - Peter-Checkland
author: Peter Checkland
---
Based on the provided sources, particularly the writings of Peter Checkland, Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) handles the dynamics of different people holding different perspectives not by trying to eliminate them or force a single "truth," but by treating these differences as the very resource required for learning and improvement.

Here is an explanation of how these dynamics are managed within the methodology:

### **1\. Acknowledging "Multiple Realities"**

The starting point of SSM is the acceptance that in any human situation, there is no single, objective "problem" that everyone agrees on. Instead, there are **"problematical situations"**—complex messes of events and ideas that different people interpret differently\[1\].

• **Weltanschauung (Worldview):** SSM relies on the concept that we all view the world through a filter of taken-for-granted assumptions, known as a _Weltanschauung_ (W). This filter determines what we see as meaningful\[4\]\[5\].

• **No Single Truth:** Because of this, one observer’s "terrorism" is another’s "freedom fighting"\[6\]. SSM handles this dynamic by explicitly accepting that multiple, often conflicting, interpretations of reality exist simultaneously\[6\]\[10\].

### **2\. Modeling "Pure" Perspectives (Not the Real World)**

To handle the confusion of clashing opinions, SSM does **not** try to model the real world (which is too complex and subjective). Instead, it models **pure, logical concepts** based on specific worldviews.

• **Holons/Ideal Types:** The practitioner builds models of "human activity systems" as "ideal types" (intellectual devices)\[11\]\[12\]. Each model is constructed based on **one** specific, declared worldview\[13\]\[14\].

• **Disentangling the Mess:** By creating separate models for different perspectives (e.g., modeling a hospital from the view of a "medical cure system," then again as a "financial control system," and again as a "caring system"), SSM disentangles the complex mix of opinions found in real life\[15\]\[16\]. These models act as clear, logical tools to help structure the subsequent debate\[17\].

### **3\. Structuring Debate and Comparison**

Once these pure models are built, they are brought back to the "real world" to structure a discussion among the people holding these different views.

• **Questioning Reality:** The models are used as a source of questions to ask of the real situation\[2\]\[20\]. For example, "The model says activity X is necessary for this worldview; do we do X in reality? If not, why not?"\[17\]\[21\].

• **Lifting the Level of Discussion:** This process lifts the discussion from a "vulgar brawl" or a chaotic exchange of dogmas to a coherent debate\[22\]\[23\]. It forces participants to examine the _assumptions_ (worldviews) that lie behind their opinions, making the subjective nature of their views explicit\[13\].

### **4\. Seeking Accommodation (Not Consensus)**

A critical distinction in SSM is how it resolves conflict. The goal is **not consensus**, but **accommodation**.

• **Consensus is Rare:** Checkland notes that genuine consensus (total agreement on values and ideas) is the "occasional special case" in human affairs and is extremely rare\[26\].

• **Living with Differences:** Instead, SSM seeks an **accommodation**—a version of the situation that different people with conflicting worldviews can nevertheless "live with"\[2\]\[29\]. This allows action to be taken without requiring everyone to think alike.

• **The Coal Mining Example:** Checkland illustrates this with a 1970s coal strike: The Union and the Coal Board had diametrically opposed worldviews, but they found an accommodation (ending the strike) because neither side wanted to destroy the industry entirely\[30\]\[31\].

### **5\. Cultural and Political Feasibility**

To manage the friction between different people, the logical analysis of worldviews is paired with a **cultural stream of enquiry** (Analyses One, Two, and Three).

• **Power and Politics:** SSM explicitly asks how power is distributed and used (Analysis Three)\[32\]\[33\]. It acknowledges that some perspectives may be backed by more power than others.

• **The Criteria for Action:** For any change to be implemented, it must meet two criteria: it must be **systemically desirable** (logical according to the models) and **culturally feasible**\[34\]. "Culturally feasible" means the change must be meaningful and acceptable to these specific people, with their specific history and politics, even if they hold different opinions\[2\]\[35\].

### **6\. The Role of the Facilitator/User**

The person using SSM acts as a facilitator of this learning process.

• **Neutrality:** The user must be able to entertain a wide range of relevant systems without "owning them psychologically"\[37\].

• **Recursive Learning:** The process is a "learning system"\[38\]\[39\]. By cycling through perceptions, models, and debates, the "appreciative settings" (the standards by which people make judgments) of the participants may shift, allowing new accommodations to emerge\[6\]\[40\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [2] Checkland 2011 - Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Mehthodology.pdf
> [4] Checkland 2011 - The development of soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology.pdf
> [5] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [6] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [10] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [11] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [12] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [13] Checkland 2011 - Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Mehthodology.pdf
> [14] Checkland 2011 - The development of soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology.pdf
> [15] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [16] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [17] Checkland - SSM in encylopedia of operations research.pdf
> [20] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [21] Checkland 2011 - Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Mehthodology.pdf
> [22] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [23] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [26] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [29] Checkland 2011 - The development of soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology.pdf
> [30] Checkland 2011 - The development of soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology.pdf
> [31] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [32] Checkland - SSM in encylopedia of operations research.pdf
> [33] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [34] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [35] OU T306_4 Checkland Systems Practice Managing sustainability - The Inquiring Process which is SSM.pdf
> [37] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [38] Checkland - SSM in encylopedia of operations research.pdf
> [39] Checkland - Soft Systems Methodology A Thirty Year Retrospective.pdf
> [40] Checkland - Soft Systems Methodology A Thirty Year Retrospective.pdf


FILE: 'Stafford Beer.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-02T12:18:24.692Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Stafford Beer on 💬People Dynamics
aliases:
  - Team-Syntegrity
tags:
  - Dialectic
  - Stafford-Beer
author: Stafford Beer
---
Based on the provided sources, **Team Syntegrity** handles the dynamics of differing perspectives and opinions by utilizing a specific geometric structure (the icosahedron) and a set of protocols designed to integrate conflict into a cohesive whole without suppressing individual voices.

Rather than seeking a traditional "consensus," which Stafford Beer argues often results in a "lowest common denominator" or the "mediocre answer"\[1\]\[2\], Team Syntegrity uses the tension between opposing views to build a stronger, more robust outcome.

Here is an explanation of how these dynamics are handled:

### 1\. Structural Equality (The Icosahedron)

The process is built on the geometry of an **icosahedron** (a shape with 20 faces, 30 edges, and 12 vertices). This shape ensures that no individual or opinion has a hierarchical advantage.

• **The Person as an Edge:** Each of the 30 participants represents an "edge" of the icosahedron. Every edge is structurally identical to every other edge; there is "no top, no bottom, no sideways"\[3\]. This creates a "pure democracy" where rank and role distinctions are removed\[4\].

• **The Topic as a Vertex:** The 12 vertices represent the topics selected by the group. Each person (edge) connects two vertices, meaning every participant is a core member of two topic teams\[5\]\[6\].

### 2\. Managing Conflict through "Tensegrity"

Beer adopted Buckminster Fuller’s concept of **Tensegrity** (Tensile Integrity), where a structure maintains its stability through a balance of continuous tension and discontinuous compression\[7\].

• **Conflict as Strength:** In Team Syntegrity, the "compression" members (the team working on a topic) are balanced by "tensile" members (critics). The tension generated by differing opinions is treated as a structural necessity that keeps the infoset (the group) cohesive, rather than a problem to be smoothed over\[8\].

• **Antithetic Management:** The model explicitly pairs "polar opposite" teams—those farthest apart on the structure. This ensures that the widest divergences in perspective are held in balance, preventing the group from splintering\[9\]\[10\].

### 3\. The Role of the Critic

To ensure different perspectives are heard and rigorously tested, the protocol assigns specific "Critic" roles to every participant.

• **Forced Critique:** Each participant is a member of two teams but is also appointed as a **Critic** to two other teams\[3\]\[11\].

• **The Critic’s Function:** Critics observe a team's discussion and are given specific time slots to provide "constructive advice" or "antithetic management"\[11\]\[12\]. They bring information from the other parts of the network, ensuring that a team does not become an isolated echo chamber\[13\].

• **Cross-Pollination:** Because every person plays four distinct roles (Member of Team A, Member of Team B, Critic of Team C, Critic of Team D), they act as carriers of information, cross-pollinating ideas across the entire group\[14\]\[15\].

### 4\. Reverberation (The Iterative Process)

The handling of opinions relies on a dynamic process called **Reverberation**.

• **Iterations:** The event is divided into iterations (usually three). Teams meet, draft statements, receive criticism, and then disperse\[16\]\[17\].

• **The Echo Chamber Effect:** As individuals move between their roles as members and critics, ideas "bounce round" the network. An idea proposed in one group is carried by its members to other groups, critiqued, modified, and returned. This "humming and buzzing" allows the group to filter out weak ideas and reinforce strong ones\[3\].

• **Shared Meaning:** Over time, this rapid, structured exchange allows the group to move from raw data to "Consolidated Statements of Importance" (CSIs) and finally "Final Statements of Importance" (FSIs)\[4\]. This results in a "group consciousness" where participants understand the whole system, not just their specific topic\[3\]\[20\].

### 5\. The "Problem Jostle" and "Topic Auction"

Before the structure is fully populated, the protocols handle the chaotic diversity of initial opinions through specific filtering stages:

• **The Problem Jostle:** This is a self-organizing phase where participants post "Statements of Importance" (SIs) on the walls. It is a "creative explosion" of high variety\[21\]\[22\]. Participants wander, discuss, and group these statements. They "jostle" ideas until the group collectively identifies the 12 most critical topics\[23\]\[24\].

• **The Topic Auction:** Participants bid on which topics they wish to discuss. This ensures that people are working on issues they have a genuine "affinity" for or concern about, rather than being assigned tasks by a hierarchy\[25\].

### Summary of the Dynamic

In summary, Team Syntegrity handles diverse opinions not by averaging them out, but by:

1\. **Capturing high variety** through the Problem Jostle\[21\].

2\. **Structuring conflict** through the Critic and Polar Opposite roles (Tensegrity)\[9\]\[18\].

3\. **Synthesizing views** through iterative sharing (Reverberation)\[4\].

This process allows a group to achieve "logical closure," where the final outcome is an integral whole that reflects the collective intelligence of the group, rather than a compromise dictated by the most powerful voices\[28\]\[29\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [2] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Platform for change - J. Wiley.pdf
> [3] 1454555.pdf
> [4] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [5] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [6] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [7] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [8] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [9] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [10] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [11] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [12] [Book] Beer,Whittaker - 2009 - Think before you think - Wavestone Press.pdf
> [13] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [14] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [15] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [16] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [17] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [18] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [20] Adams 2007 - Stafford Beer Contribution to Management Science.pdf
> [21] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [22] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [23] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [24] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [25] 1454555.pdf
> [28] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [29] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf


FILE: 'TOC.md'
---
tags:
  - Dialectic
  - TOC
title: TOC on 💬People Dynamics
author: TOC
---
> [!question] can you explain how the dynamics of different people holding different perspective and opinions are handled in team syntegrity
> 



FILE: 'index.md'
---
title: 💬People Dynamics
author: index
---
This QSet query is to compare the approaches that different thinkers have of dealing with divergence and the dialectic  between and amongst a group of people.
> [!question] Prompt
> Can you explain how the dynamics of different people holding different perspective and opinions are handled in *methodology*

