Site Logo

STPrism

Geoffrey Vickers - 1000

25 min read

2. Distinction between Systems Thinking and Complexity Science

The distinction between traditional systems thinking and the emerging science of complexity (particularly regarding human and social systems) is a recurring theme in the work of Sir Geoffrey Vickers, Peter Checkland, and Humberto Maturana. This distinction rests heavily on how each paradigm models behavior, the nature of goals, causality, and the role of the observer.

**Traditional Systems Thinking (Hard Systems & Cybernetics)**Early systems thinking, heavily influenced by post-WWII technical rationality, operations research, and classic cybernetics, relied on biological and mechanical metaphors[8],[56],[57]. In this “hard systems” paradigm, organizations and situations are viewed through an engineering lens. The defining attribute of this approach is “goal-seeking.” Systems are modeled much like a thermostat or an automatic pilot[58],[43]. They operate based on a given set of objectives or “reference levels” defined from the outside. Feedback loops serve to detect deviation from these fixed, externally provided goals and trigger corrective action to return the system to a state of equilibrium[59],[60]. Furthermore, hard systems thinking assumes linear causality—problems can be isolated, modeled quantitatively, and “solved” as discrete puzzles[61],[62]. It also assumes an objective “real world out there” independent of the observer[63].

**Complexity Science and Soft Systems (Human Systems)**Complexity science, as interpreted through Vickers’ “Appreciative System” and Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), rejects the mechanical assumptions of hard systems when applied to human and social spheres[64],[65]. In complex systems, behavior is emergent—meaning the behavior of the whole cannot be deduced simply from the behavior of its components[66].

The most profound shift is from “goal-seeking” to “relationship-maintaining”[67],[40]. In complexity, human systems are not merely goal-seeking mechanisms; they are goal-setting[68],[69]. Their standards and norms are not given by an external engineer but are internally generated and constantly evolving through the historical interaction of the system with its environment[70],[71]. Instead of seeking a final “solution” or state of equilibrium, complex systems navigate a state of continuous flux or “bounded instability,” aiming to maintain or elude a dynamic web of relationships[72],[73].

Additionally, complexity science acknowledges that causality is circular rather than linear[74]. An action creates a new reality, which in turn alters the observer’s “appreciative setting” (their readiness to see and value), which changes the rules of the system itself[59],[75]. Consequently, there is no purely objective observer in complex human systems; the observer and their interpretations are integral parts of the system’s ongoing creation[76].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Concept of Environment vs. The System

In the systems approach pioneered by Vickers, the relationship between the system and its environment is not merely a spatial boundary but a deeply dialectical and epistemological interaction. Understanding the differentiation between them is fundamental to appreciating how human organizations survive and adapt.

The Environment as Flux and Social ConstructVickers defines the environment as a continuous “flux of interacting events and ideas”[77],[78]. For early biological organisms, the environment is strictly physical, supplying energy and matter. However, for human and institutional systems, the environment is increasingly a social and man-made artifact[79],[80]. The environment provides both enablements (resources, opportunities) and constraints (limitations, demands from others)[81],[82]. Importantly, no system can perceive its environment objectively in its totality. Instead, the environment is perceived through the system’s “appreciative settings”—a filtering mechanism that decides which signals from the “blooming, buzzing confusion” are relevant[83],[84].

Differentiating the System from the EnvironmentThe defining characteristic that differentiates a system from its environment is regulation[85]. While the environment fluctuates, a system is defined as a “regulated set of relationships”[57]. A system strives to maintain its form and internal coherence against the disturbances of the environment. For example, a river’s form is dictated by its external catchment area, but an organism maintains internal stasis (like blood temperature) regardless of external temperature changes[86].

However, in human systems, the boundary between system and environment is not a fixed physical reality; it is a “boundary of convenience” established by the observer based on the scope of their inquiry or concern[87]. The system interacts with the environment through “outer relations” (maintaining viable connections to secure resources) and regulates itself through “inner relations” (maintaining structural coherence)[86],[88].

Why This Is Important to the ApproachThis distinction is crucial because it shifts the focus of management and governance. If the system is merely a goal-seeking machine in a static environment, management is simply engineering the most efficient path. But if the system is a historically evolving entity within a dynamic, man-made environment, management becomes the art of relationship maintenance[67],[40]. It means that any action taken by the system to manipulate the environment will feed back into the system, altering its own nature and the environment simultaneously[59],[89]. Consequently, navigating this requires continuous “appreciation”—matching internal needs and values with external constraints and opportunities, adjusting both the environment and the system’s own expectations to survive[90],[91].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Gist and Principles Behind the Collection from the Author

The collection of works by Sir Geoffrey Vickers (synthesized in texts like The Art of Judgment, Value Systems and Social Process, and The Vickers Papers) represents a profound interdisciplinary effort to rethink human governance, epistemology, and ethics in the face of modern complexity. The “gist” of his work is a critique of the mechanistic, goal-seeking models of human behavior inherited from the Enlightenment and industrial age, offering in their place a systemic, culturally embedded theory of human action based on “appreciation”[92],[93],[94].

Core Principles:

1. **The Rejection of “Goal-Seeking” for “Relationship-Maintenance”:**Vickers argued that framing human behavior as simply “goal-seeking” (like a rat in a maze) is a poverty-stricken model[67],[95]. Goals are merely transient states. The true essence of human and organizational life is the continuous maintenance of desired relationships and the elusion of undesired ones over time[41],[96]. Action is not about reaching a final stop, but about regulating a dynamic balance.

2. **The Appreciative System:**Central to Vickers’ thought is “appreciation.” Humans do not respond directly to an objective reality. They respond to reality as filtered through an “appreciative system”—a set of readinesses to notice certain things and value them in specific ways[97],[98]. Facts and values are inseparable; facts are “mental artifacts” selected by our interests, and values give those facts meaning[99],[100].

3. **The Three Judgments:**Appreciation consists of three interdependent judgments:

    ◦ Reality Judgment: What is the case? (Structuring facts from the flux)[101].    ◦ Value Judgment: What ought to be? (Comparing reality to internal norms/standards)[101].    ◦ Instrumental Judgment: What should we do to reduce the mismatch between what is and what ought to be?[102]. 4. **Enablements and Constraints:**Systems thinking reveals that all systems simultaneously enable and constrain[19]. Modern technology and institutions have vastly expanded human enablements (power, wealth), but this requires an equally massive expansion of constraints (regulation, responsibility) to prevent systemic breakdown[103],[104].

5. **Historical and Non-Ergodic Nature of Systems:**Human systems are historical and non-ergodic; their past dictates their future, and their “rules” change as they learn[75]. Therefore, linear trends (like infinite economic growth) cannot continue indefinitely without breeding their own reversals or destroying the system[17].

6. **Responsibility Over Autonomy:**Vickers heavily critiqued the liberal emphasis on the “autonomous individual.” In a highly interdependent world, stability relies on shared cultural norms, mutual expectations, and the exercise of individual and collective responsibility to the systems that sustain us[105],[106],[107].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. How-To Guide for an Investigation (Appreciative Inquiry)

To conduct an investigation using Vickers’ Appreciative System and Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) adapted for complex “messes”, one must abandon the search for a single, objective “root cause” and instead explore the multiple, intersecting worldviews of the stakeholders. Here is a practical guide structured around the “Triple E” model (Explore, Experiment, Experience) combined with the phases of Appreciation[36],[108].

Phase 1: Explore (Mapping the Lebenswelt and Reality Judgments)

The goal is to understand the “flux of events and ideas” and how different actors perceive “what is”[77],[109].

• Question 1 (Context): What is the history of this situation? How did we arrive at the current state of affairs?[74].

• Question 2 (Selective Perception): What facts are we currently noticing, and what facts might we be ignoring? (Recognize that data is filtered through existing appreciative settings)[83],[98].

• Question 3 (Multiple Perspectives): Who are the stakeholders, and how does each group describe the reality of the situation differently? (Identify the different Weltanschauungen or worldviews)[110].

• Question 4 (System State): What are the current internal relationships maintaining the organization, and what are the external relationships with the environment?[90].

Phase 2: Experiment (Value Judgments and Mismatch Signals)

This phase evaluates the perceived reality against the tacit norms, standards, and values of the stakeholders to identify where the system is failing to maintain desired relationships[101],[99].

• Question 5 (Norms and Standards): What are the tacit and explicit standards defining “success” or “acceptable behavior” in this context?[111].

• Question 6 (Mismatch Detection): Where does the perceived reality deviate from our expectations of what “ought to be”? What specific relationships are out of balance or generating stress?[58],[112].

• Question 7 (Value Conflicts): Are there competing or conflicting values at play between different groups? (e.g., efficiency vs. safety, growth vs. stability)[113].

Phase 3: Experience (Instrumental Judgments and Action)

This phase involves devising interventions not to “solve” the problem permanently, but to adjust the system’s trajectory to better align with value standards, thereby generating new learning[102],[114].

• Question 8 (Instrumental Options): What actions are possible within our current constraints to reduce the mismatch between reality and our values?[101].

• Question 9 (Systemic Impact): If we take this action to modify one relationship, what unintended consequences might ripple through the rest of the system?[115].

• Question 10 (Learning Loop): How will taking this action force us to revise our original norms, standards, and readinesses to see (our Appreciative Settings) for the next cycle?[59],[96].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Process Map for Dealing with Complexity

Dealing with complexity requires an iterative, cyclical approach rather than a linear step-by-step resolution. Based on the Checkland and Casar model of Vickers’ Appreciative System, dealing with a “mess” involves continuous feedback between the environment (the flux), our filters (settings), our judgments, and our actions[116],[117],[78].

Below is a Mermaid diagram illustrating this continuous cycle of learning, judgment, and relationship maintenance.

graph TD
     The Appreciative System
    subgraph The Appreciative System
        Settings(Appreciative Settings<br/>Readiness to See & Value)
        
        Settings -->|Informs| RJ[Reality Judgment<br/>What is the case?]
        Settings -->|Informs| VJ[Value Judgment<br/>What ought to be?]
        
        RJ --> Compare{Compare<br/>Is vs. Ought}
        VJ --> Compare
        
        Compare -->|Mismatch Signal| IJ[Instrumental Judgment<br/>What should we do?]
        Compare -->|Match Signal| Maintain[Maintain Current Relations]
    end

     The crucial feedback loops of learning
    Action -->|Alters| Flux
    Action -->|Modifies/Updates| Settings
    Compare -->|Refines Standards| Settings

    %% Styling
    style Flux fill:#e1f5fe,stroke:#01579b,stroke-width:2px
    style Settings fill:#fff9c4,stroke:#fbc02d,stroke-width:2px
    style Action fill:#e8f5e9,stroke:#2e7d32,stroke-width:2px
    style Compare fill:#f3e5f5,stroke:#1b5e20,stroke-width:2px

Simple Guide to the Map:

1. Acknowledge the Flux: You operate in a changing stream of events. You cannot control it all.

2. Recognize your Settings: Your past experiences form a filter. You only see what you are ready to see.

3. Make the 3 Judgments: Evaluate what is happening (Reality), compare it to your standards (Value), and decide how to bridge the gap (Instrumental).

4. Look for Mismatches: Discomfort or failure is a “mismatch signal” between reality and values.

5. Act and Learn: Action changes the world, but it also changes you. Update your standards and filters based on the results of your actions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Key Concepts, Principles, and Theories (Keywords & Glossary)

• Appreciation / Appreciative System: The central cognitive and social process by which individuals and groups make sense of their world. It is the interdependent exercise of making reality judgments (what is) and value judgments (what ought to be), filtered through a set of readinesses to notice and value specific things[97],[109],[102].

• Appreciative Setting: The state of an appreciative system at any given moment. It is the tacit, historically conditioned filter or “mesh” through which an observer perceives the world. It determines what is selected as “signal” and what is ignored as “noise”[118],[119].

• Lebenswelt (The Flux): The day-to-day experienced life; the continuous, interacting stream of events, ideas, people, and organizations unfolding through time[120],[109].

• Relationship-Maintaining (vs. Goal-Seeking): The principle that human and social systems do not merely seek finite end-states (goals), but actively regulate themselves to sustain desired relationships and elude undesired ones over time[67],[40].

• Mismatch Signal: A concept borrowed from cybernetics but applied to human cognition. It is the psychological or systemic friction generated when the perceived reality (“what is”) deviates from the system’s tacit standards or norms (“what ought to be”), triggering instrumental action[121],[58].

• Reality Judgment: The act of abstracting and structuring facts from the surrounding flux to determine “what is the case”[101],[102].

• Value Judgment: The act of comparing perceived reality against established internal norms, standards, or ethical criteria to determine “what ought to be”[101],[102].

• Instrumental Judgment: The executive decision-making process concerning the best means available to reduce the mismatch between the reality judgment and the value judgment[101],[102].

• Weltanschauung: A German term used heavily in Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) denoting the overarching “worldview” or built-in image of the world that makes a particular interpretation of reality meaningful for an observer[110].

• Messes (vs. Problems/Puzzles): A concept from Ackoff defining complex situations consisting of strongly interacting, inseparable problems. Messes cannot be solved analytically by breaking them into parts; they must be managed or “dissolved” systemically[122],[62].

• Double-Loop Learning: A process of learning where not only are errors corrected to achieve a goal (single-loop), but the underlying norms, values, and objectives themselves are modified based on experience[123].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Handling Different Perspectives and Opinions

In the methodologies of Vickers and Peter Checkland (Soft Systems Methodology), the existence of different points of view is not viewed as a barrier to finding an objective “truth,” but as an inherent and necessary feature of human systems. Because human beings process the world through unique “appreciative settings,” they literally perceive different realities[110],[124].

**1. Facts as Artifacts of Value:**Observers hold different perspectives because they select different facts from the environment. “Facts” are not objective entities; they are “mental artifacts” selected based on the observer’s specific interests[83],[99]. For example, a new housing development is viewed by a social worker as a solution to homelessness, by an environmentalist as a threat to green space, and by a traffic engineer as a load problem[125]. None are factually incorrect; they are operating from different appreciative settings.

**2. Dialogue and Mutual Persuasion:**Differences are handled primarily through communication, which Vickers defines not just as passing data, but as the attempt to alter the appreciative settings of others[126]. This involves “mutual persuasion.” The goal is to build a shared, communicable world where parties can understand the tacit norms guiding the other’s judgments[127].

**3. Seeking Accommodation, Not Consensus:**SSM and Vickers’ approach do not strive for perfect consensus (where everyone agrees on the exact same values and goals). Instead, the methodology seeks accommodation[128],[129]. Accommodation occurs when differing parties debate their systemic models and find a version of the situation, or a course of action, that all parties can “live with” or accept as a basis for moving forward, even if their underlying motives remain different.

**4. Role Playing and Institutional Constraints:**When personal accommodation fails or is impossible due to scale, differing perspectives are handled through roles and institutions[130],[131]. Roles (e.g., manager, citizen, judge) create a “net of mutual expectations.” Institutions mediate conflict by imposing constraints and formal rules that allow people with vastly different private worldviews to cooperate securely in the public sphere[132],[133].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Structure based on Questions

When attempting to structure an inquiry into a complex system or a highly uncertain scientific endeavor (such as life detection in astrobiology or structuring a management “mess”), structuring the methodology around iterative questions is highly effective.

Drawing from both the NfoLD/NExSS framework for life detection[134],[135] and the Soft Systems/Triple ‘E’ frameworks[36],[136], an investigation can be structured through the following overarching questions:

A. The Epistemological Questions (Detection & Identification):

• Have you detected an authentic signal? (Are we observing a real phenomenon or an artifact of our instruments/biases?)

• Have you adequately identified the signal? (What is the precise nature of the “fact” we have abstracted from the noise?)

B. The Contextual & Alternative Questions (Exploration of Possibility Space):

• Are there alternative/abiotic sources for this detection? (Have we explored the “unconceived alternatives” that might also explain this phenomenon outside of our preferred hypothesis?)[137],[138].

• Is it likely that this phenomenon would be produced in this specific environment? (Contextual dependency).

C. The Value & Evaluation Questions (The Appreciative Filter):

• What are the tacit norms or assumptions driving our interpretation of this data?

• Are there independent lines of evidence to support the explanation?

• From whose perspective does this definition of the problem make sense? (Identifying the Weltanschauung).

D. The Action & Reflection Questions (Instrumental Judgment):

• What actions can be taken to reduce the mismatch between our current state and our desired state?

• If we intervene, what are the likely systemic repercussions?

• How must our standards or “appreciative settings” adapt based on the results of this inquiry?

Using questions rather than rigid, linear steps prevents the premature closure of inquiry and forces continuous, double-loop learning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. How the Author Interprets Uncertainty

Uncertainty is treated conceptually differently across the sources, particularly contrasting Vickers’ sociological view with the scientific view presented in the astrobiology paper by P. Vickers et al.

**1. Sociological/Systemic Uncertainty (Geoffrey Vickers):**Sir Geoffrey Vickers interprets uncertainty as an inherent, inescapable feature of human systems due to their historical and non-ergodic nature[17],[139]. Because human systems learn and constantly rewrite their own rules (appreciative settings), the past is not a reliable statistical predictor of the future. Furthermore, technological enablements have created a man-made environment where “an ever more technological world was never less controllable”[140]. Uncertainty, therefore, cannot be eliminated by better data or more powerful computers; it must be managed through dynamic regulation, ethical judgment, and the continuous updating of expectations[59],[141].

**2. Scientific Uncertainty and “Unconceived Alternatives” (Peter Vickers et al.):**In the realm of astrobiology and life detection, uncertainty is interpreted through the lens of the “Problem of Unconceived Alternatives”[39],[142]. The authors argue that traditional Bayesian probability or linear confidence scales (like the CoLD scale) fail because we often do not know the full “possibility space” of abiotic (non-life) mechanisms that could mimic a biosignature[137].

• If we haven’t thoroughly explored all alternative explanations, we cannot responsibly assign a probability to our detection.

• Therefore, uncertainty should not be forced into a rigid, one-dimensional mathematical scale. Instead, the authors advocate for the IPCC uncertainty language framework, which separates uncertainty into two distinct metrics:

    1. Evidence (Type, amount, quality, consistency).    2. Agreement (The degree of consensus within the scientific community)[143],[144].This allows scientists to communicate deep uncertainty honestly without feigning mathematical precision where the parameters are fundamentally unknown. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. What is Complexity and What is the Advice in How to Deal With It?

**Defining Complexity:**In the context of systems thinking and management, complexity is not merely “complicatedness” (having many moving parts, like a jet engine). Complexity refers to systems formed of many interacting components whose behavior is emergent—meaning the behavior of the whole cannot be deduced from analyzing the parts in isolation[66].

Ackoff defines complex situations as “messes”—a system of strongly interacting problems[122],[62]. In a mess, problems are entangled with social values, human perceptions, and dynamic environmental feedback loops. Furthermore, complexity is characterized by “bounded instability”[73]; it is a state of constant flux where linear cause-and-effect breaks down, and interventions often lead to unintended consequences[145],[146].

Advice on Dealing with Complexity:

1. **Do Not Treat Messes like Puzzles:**The greatest mistake in complexity is to carve off a piece of a “mess,” treat it as an isolated “puzzle,” and optimize a solution for it[147]. This reductionist approach usually intensifies the overall mess because it ignores systemic links.

2. **Shift from Problem-Solving to Relationship-Maintaining:**Abandon the idea of finding a permanent “solution” or a final goal. Instead, view intervention as the continuous regulation and maintenance of desired relationships over time[67],[40].

3. **Explore Multiple Perspectives:**Because complexity involves human actors, there is no single objective reality. You must explore the different appreciative settings (worldviews) of the stakeholders to understand how they construct the problem[148],[149].

4. Use the “Triple E” Approach:

    ◦ Explore: Engage stakeholders to map the mess and uncover tacit norms[36].    ◦ Experiment: Float ideas and test actions to see how the complex system reacts, knowing you cannot perfectly predict the outcome.    ◦ Experience: Use the results to learn and “reset” your appreciative settings for the next iteration[108]. 5. **Embrace Synthesis over Analysis:**While analysis (breaking things down) is useful for puzzles, dealing with complexity requires synthesis (understanding how things fit together in a broader context)[18],[150]. Rely on intuition, pattern recognition, and ethical judgment alongside rational calculation.

Graph View