Geoffrey Vickers - old

2. Distinction between Systems Thinking and Complexity Science

Based on the provided sources, the distinction between systems thinking (particularly its earlier forms like cybernetics and “hard” systems) and complexity science (or the study of complex human systems) centers on the nature of regulation, the source of goals, and the predictability of behavior. Sir Geoffrey Vickers’ work is presented as a bridge that critiques the mechanical assumptions of early systems thinking to embrace the attributes of complexity.

Here are the key distinctions identified in the texts:

1. Goal-Seeking vs. Relationship-Maintaining

• Systems Thinking (Goal-Seeking): Traditional systems approaches, influenced by cybernetics, often view systems as “goal-seeking” mechanisms (e.g., a thermostat or a rat in a maze). In this model, the system strives to attain a specific state or “stop”[1]. The standard or goal is often considered to be set from outside the system[4].

• Complexity (Relationship-Maintaining): In complex human systems, Vickers argues that actors do not merely seek goals but maintain relationships over time. This process is continuous and has no “stop”[1][2]. Unlike mechanical systems, complex human systems are “goal-setting” rather than just “goal-seeking”; they generate their own standards (norms) internally, which change over time through the process of “appreciation”[3].

2. Linearity vs. Emergence

• Systems Thinking (Linear/Sum of Parts): Earlier management and systems theories often assumed linear cause-and-effect relationships where the behavior of the whole could be inferred from the behavior of the parts[7]. This approach leads to an “engineering” model of problem-solving, attempting to solve “puzzles” in isolation[8][9].

• Complexity (Emergence): A complex system is defined as one formed of many components whose behavior is emergent, meaning it cannot be simply inferred from the behavior of its individual components[7]. Complex systems are characterized by “strongly interacting problems” (what Ackoff calls a “mess”) where solving one part in isolation may intensify the mess[10][11].

3. Stability vs. Bounded Instability

• Systems Thinking (Equilibrium): Traditional management and systems theory often strive for “stable equilibrium,” assuming that long-term success flows from harmony, predictability, and control[12].

• Complexity (Flux/Instability): Complexity science, represented by authors like Ralph Stacey, suggests that successful organizations operate in a state of “bounded instability”[13]. They exist in a dynamic “flux of events and ideas”[14][15]. Paradoxically, attempting to impose too much stability or “equilibrium” can stifle the creativity and innovation necessary for the system to survive and adapt[12][16].

4. The Role of the Observer and History

• Systems Thinking (Objective/Ahistorical): Hard systems approaches often treat problems as objective “givens” to be solved, independent of the observer’s history or perspective[17][18].

• Complexity (Subjective/Historical): In Vickers’ “appreciative system” (a complexity-oriented view), the system is historically path-dependent. The “catchment area” of a river, for example, is not a fixed datum but a product of history[19]. Furthermore, the observer is part of the system; there is no objective “reality” separate from the “appreciative settings” (values and readinesses to see) of the participants[20][21].

Summary Table

Feature	Systems Thinking (Traditional/Cybernetic)	Complexity Science (Vickers/Soft Systems)
Primary Mode	Goal-Seeking (Getting to a state)[2]	Relationship-Maintaining (Managing norms over time)[2]
Regulation	External reference levels (Thermostat)[4]	Internal, self-generated, and changing standards[4]
Structure	Whole is sum of parts (Linear)[7]	Emergent properties (Non-linear)[7]
State	Stable Equilibrium[12]	Bounded Instability / Dynamic Flux[13][14]
Problem Type	Puzzles / Problems[8]	Messes (Systems of interacting problems)[10]

3. The Concept of Environment vs. The System

Based on the provided sources, the concept of the environment is central to Sir Geoffrey Vickers’ systems thinking and his theory of “appreciative systems.” The environment is not merely a passive backdrop but an active constituent in a dialectical process of regulation and relationship maintenance.

1. The Concept of Environment in Open Systems

Vickers utilizes the model of open systems to describe human and social entities. An open system maintains itself by exchanging matter, energy, and information with its environment[1].

• Metabolic and Functional Relations: The environment is the source of resources necessary for the system’s survival. Vickers uses the analogy of an organization maintaining itself by appropriating money, men, and materials from its “surround,” much like a cow appropriates grass, air, and water[2]. These are termed “metabolic relations”[2].

• The “Flux”: The environment is often described as a “flux of interacting events and ideas”[3],[4]. It is a dynamic process rather than a static state, containing a history of events that develop according to their own logic and time-scale[5].

• Physical vs. Social Environment: Vickers distinguishes between the physical milieu (modified by energy) and the social milieu (modified by information and communication)[6]. Modern environments are increasingly “man-made” or institutional, meaning the environment consists largely of other people, organizations, and the expectations they hold[7],[8].

2. Differentiating the System from the Environment

The distinction between the system and its environment is defined by regulation, boundaries, and observer perspective.

• Regulation and Control: The primary differentiator is the capacity for regulation. A system is defined as a “regulated set of relationships”[9]. While a snake’s internal temperature fluctuates with the environment, a human’s temperature is regulated to remain constant despite environmental changes; this internal regulative mechanism distinguishes the system from the environment[9].

• The Boundary of Convenience: The boundary between a system and its environment is not always absolute; it is often a matter of convenience decided by the observer based on what relations they wish to study[10]. For example, a river catchment area is a product of history and context, not just a fixed datum[11].

• Internal vs. External Relations: Systems are composed of inner relations (which maintain coherence) and outer relations (which regulate the system’s interaction with the milieu)[12],[1]. The system must match its internal needs/resources with external demands/opportunities to survive[1].

3. Importance to the Appreciative Approach

The differentiation between system and environment is critical to the “appreciative” approach because it shifts the focus from linear “goal-seeking” to cyclical relationship maintenance.

A. Appreciation as a Filter

The environment is not perceived directly as raw data; it is filtered through the system’s appreciative settings[13],[14].

• Reality Judgments: The system selects specific aspects of the environmental “flux” to notice and classify. Facts are “mental artifacts” abstracted from the environment through a screen of readinesses[14].

• Value Judgments: The system compares these perceived environmental facts against internal norms or standards[15].

• Implication: This means no organization or individual can ever know the “real” environment, only an interpretation of it based on their current interests and expectations[16].

B. Maintenance of Relationships (Stability)

Vickers argues that the primary activity of human systems is not seeking a final goal, but maintaining relationships with the environment over time[17],[18].

• Stability: The system seeks to keep essential relations with the environment within acceptable limits (stability)[12].

• Mismatch Signals: When the perception of the environment (what is) deviates from the system’s internal standards (what ought to be), a “mismatch signal” is generated[19]. This signal triggers action to either alter the environment, alter the system’s behavior, or alter the internal standard[20].

C. Constraints and Enablements

The environment is the source of both constraints and enablements[21].

• Interdependence: As systems (e.g., organizations or societies) grow, they become more interdependent with their environment. The “outer world” becomes largely a social construct of other organizations[6].

• Feedback Loops: Actions taken by the system to modify the environment feed back into the system, often creating unintended consequences because the environment is a dynamic system itself[22],[23].

In summary, in Vickers’ approach, the system is the entity attempting to maintain coherence and identity through time, while the environment is the dynamic, often social context that provides the resources, constraints, and disturbances that the system must interpret and navigate through the continuous process of appreciation[24],[25].

4. Gist and Principles Behind the Collection from the Author

Based on the sources provided, the collection in question is “The Vickers Papers”, edited by The Open Systems Group. This volume was compiled to make the work of Sir Geoffrey Vickers (1894–1982) accessible to a wider audience, particularly professionals in management, planning, psychology, and policy sciences[1][2].

The “gist” of the collection is an exploration of “governance”—defined by Vickers not merely as political rule, but as the art of maintaining stable relationships over time within complex human systems[3]. The collection represents a coherent body of thought that bridges ethics, epistemology, and systems theory[4].

Here are the core principles and organizing themes behind this collection:

1. The Principle of “Appreciation” vs. “Goal-Seeking”

The most distinct principle in Vickers’ work is the rejection of the “goal-seeking” model (often derived from studying rats in mazes or mechanical engineering) as the primary explanation for human behavior[5][6].

• Relationship Maintenance: Vickers argued that human life does not consist of seeking a final “goal” or “stop,” but of maintaining relationships. As he famously stated, “The goals we seek are changes in our relations or in our opportunities for relating; but the bulk of our activity consists in the ‘relating’ itself”[7][8].

• The Appreciative System: Vickers proposed that human action is guided by an “appreciative system”—a mental activity that links judgments of reality (what is) with judgments of value (what ought to be)[9][10]. This system acts as a screen or filter through which we perceive and value the world[11][12].

2. The Inseparability of Fact and Value

A foundational epistemological principle in the collection is that facts and values cannot be sharply separated.

• Normative Perception: Vickers argued that “facts” are mental artifacts selected by our interests. We only notice certain aspects of reality based on our “readinesses” to see them, which are determined by our values[12][13].

• The Tacit Norm: Our judgments are guided by tacit (unspoken) standards of what is acceptable. These norms are developed through experience and are constantly reshaped by the process of applying them[14][15].

3. Classification by System Levels

The editors of The Vickers Papers organized the collection not by topic (e.g., health, planning) but by system levels, reflecting the systemic nature of Vickers’ thinking. The book is divided into four parts[16][17]:

• Level I: Planetary: Addressing global issues, the limits of the earth’s resources, and the weakness of Western culture[17].

• Level II: Society: Focusing on public health, community medicine, and the management of conflict[17].

• Level III: Organizations: Covering institutional roles, the nature of professions, and judgment in management[17].

• Level IV: The Individual: Exploring the psychology of policymaking, stress, and human communication[18].

4. The Responsible Person vs. The Autonomous Individual

Ethically, the collection emphasizes responsibility over the modern cult of the “autonomous individual.”

• Interdependence: Vickers believed that the “autonomous individual” was a dangerous myth that ignored the reality of social interdependence[19].

• Role of Culture: He argued that human systems depend on a shared “appreciative setting” or culture to maintain coherence. The “responsible person” is one who accepts the constraints and commitments necessary to maintain the social web[20][21].

5. Regulation and Control

Vickers viewed a “system” fundamentally as a “regulated set of relationships”[22].

• Cybernetic Influence: Influenced by cybernetics (control theory), Vickers applied concepts like feedback and “mismatch signals” to human society. However, he distinguished human systems from mechanical ones by their capacity to set their own standards (norms) rather than just seeking externally imposed goals[23][24].

• Stability: The aim of regulation is stability, defined as maintaining essential variables (relationships) within acceptable limits over time[25].

In summary, The Vickers Papers presents a philosophy of governance and responsibility. It argues that the primary human activity is “appreciating” our situation—making judgments of reality and value—to maintain the complex web of relationships that sustain our social and planetary existence[3][26].

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

Based on the works of Sir Geoffrey Vickers and the interpretative frameworks provided in the sources (particularly by Checkland, Casar, and Burt), the following is a guide for conducting an investigation using the concept of Appreciation or the Appreciative System.

Unlike standard problem-solving, which often assumes a linear path to a fixed goal, this approach views investigation as a cyclical process of maintaining relationships and regulating norms[1][2].

Core Principle: The Appreciative Cycle

Before asking questions, the investigator must understand that human action is not merely “goal-seeking” (like a rat in a maze) but “norm-setting” and “relationship-maintaining”[3][4]. The investigation seeks to uncover the Appreciative Settings: the tacit standards, values, and readinesses to notice certain things and ignore others[5][6].

The investigation revolves around three inseparable types of judgment: Reality, Value, and Instrumental[1].

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

Step-by-Step Guide to an Appreciative Investigation

Phase 1: Reality Judgment (Making Sense of “What Is”)

The goal here is not just to gather raw data, but to understand how the situation is perceived and constructed by the participants. Facts are relevant only in relation to the values of the observer[9][10].

Key Task: Select relevant facts from the “flux of events and ideas” and identify the history of the situation[11][12].

Questions to Ask:

• Contextual History: “How did we get here?” and “Where are we currently located in the stream of time?”[13].

• Selective Perception: “What aspects of the situation are we noticing, and what are we ignoring?” (Recognizing that our interests define what we see as factual)[14].

• Systemic State: “What is the current ‘state of the system,’ both internally and in its external relations?”[9][15].

• Prediction: “What is likely to happen in the future if current trends continue?” (This is a prediction based on the current reality judgment)[16][17].

• Shared Perceptions: “Do the different stakeholders see the ‘same’ reality? Where do their descriptions differ?”[18].

Phase 2: Value Judgment (Determining “What Ought to Be”)

This phase involves comparing the perceived reality against norms and standards. It is not about finding an objective “truth” but determining what is acceptable or unacceptable to those involved[10][19].

Key Task: Identify the norms (standards of what is expected) and values (principles) that generate “mismatch signals” (dissatisfaction) or “match signals” (reassurance)[1][20].

Questions to Ask:

• Norm Identification: “What are the standards by which we are judging success or failure in this situation?”[21].

• Mismatch Signals: “Is the current situation acceptable or unacceptable? If unacceptable, what specific relationship is out of balance?”[1][22].

• Value Conflict: “Are there conflicting values or norms at play here?” (e.g., Is the drive for efficiency conflicting with the need for stability?)[22][23].

• Relationship Maintenance: “What relationships are we trying to maintain, modify, or elude?”[1][24].

• Expectations: “What are our self-expectations and our mutual expectations of each other?”[25].

Phase 3: Instrumental Judgment (Deciding “What To Do”)

This is the executive phase where actions are selected to reduce the mismatch between “what is” and “what ought to be.” However, in Vickers’ view, the action must also be “appreciated” (evaluated) before being taken[26].

Key Task: Derive action from the discrepancy between reality and value, while acknowledging constraints.

Questions to Ask:

• Options: “What can be done to reconcile the difference between the observed reality and our expected standards?”[1].

• Constraints: “What is ‘for us’ and what is ‘not for us’?” (Role assumptions that limit available actions)[27].

• Feasibility: “Is the proposed action actually possible within our current resources and constraints?”[26].

• Feedback: “If we take this action, how will it alter the situation and, crucially, how will it alter our view (appreciation) of the situation?”[28][29].

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

Practical Framework: The Triple ‘E’ Model

For a practical application of Vickers’ concepts in an organizational setting (e.g., project management or policy reform), you can utilize the Triple ‘E’ Model (Explore, Experiment, Experience) developed to synthesize Vickers’ work with Ackoff’s problem structuring[30][31].

1. Explore (Inquiry and Discussion)

• Activity: Engage stakeholders to discuss their perspectives.

• Goal: Gain an appreciation of the context and the expectations of different actors.

• Guide: Do not look for a single problem definition; look for the “mess” of interacting problems and conflicting worldviews[32][33].

2. Experiment (Testing Ideas)

• Activity: Float ideas and assess responses.

• Goal: Test potential instrumental judgments.

• Guide: See how colleagues respond to proposed changes. Does the new idea fit their “appreciative setting” or does it require them to learn new ways of seeing?[34][35].

3. Experience (Situated Practice)

• Activity: Share, collate, and evaluate the results of actions.

• Goal: Continuous learning.

• Guide: Use the experience to “reset” the appreciative system—updating the norms and readinesses to see for the next cycle[35][36].

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

Summary Checklist for the Investigator

When conducting this inquiry, the investigator must remember that the Appreciative System is a filter[37]. You are not observing an objective world, but a world filtered through interests and values.

1. Map the Flux: Identify the events, ideas, people, and organizations moving through time[11][12].

2. Identify the Norms: What are the tacit standards governing behavior?[38].

3. Detect the Mismatch: Where does “what is” deviate from “what ought to be”?[22].

4. Analyze the Constraints: What limits the ability to act?[39].

5. Monitor the Learning: How has the act of investigation itself changed the views (the appreciative settings) of the participants?[28][40].

6. Process Map for Dealing with Complexity

Based on the provided sources, dealing with complexity requires shifting from a linear “goal-seeking” mindset to a cyclical “appreciative” mindset. Sir Geoffrey Vickers argues that in complex human systems, we do not simply solve problems once and for all; rather, we regulate relationships over time through a continuous process of learning and adaptation[1],[2],[3].

Here is a process map and guide based on Vickers’ Appreciative System, supplemented by the Triple ‘E’ practical framework found in the texts.

Guide: Managing Complexity via the Appreciative Cycle

In complex situations, you are not a rat seeking a piece of cheese (a fixed goal); you are a navigator trying to maintain stability in a changing sea[2],[4]. To do this, you must cycle through three specific types of judgment.

Phase 1: The Input (The Flux)

You exist in a continuous “flux of events and ideas”[5],[6]. You cannot see everything. What you notice is filtered by your Appreciative Settings—your readiness to see certain things and value them in specific ways[7],[6].

Phase 2: The Three Judgments

To deal with a complex situation, you must perform three types of judgment, often simultaneously:

1. Reality Judgment (“What is?“)

    ◦ Task: Make sense of the current state of the system[8],[9].    ◦ Action: Select relevant facts from the noise. Ask: “What is actually happening?” and “What is likely to happen next?”[10],[11].    ◦ Note: Facts are not objective data; they are mental artifacts created by your interests[12],[13]. 2. Value Judgment (“What ought to be?“)

    ◦ Task: Compare the reality against norms and standards[8],[9].    ◦ Action: Ask: “Is this situation acceptable?” or “Is it good or bad?”[14].    ◦ Outcome: This comparison generates a Mismatch Signal (a discrepancy between “is” and “ought”) or a Match Signal (reassurance)[15],[16],[17]. 3. Instrumental Judgment (“What to do?“)

    ◦ Task: Devise means to reduce the mismatch[8],[18].    ◦ Action: Ask: “How can we alter the situation to bring ‘what is’ closer to ‘what ought to be’?”[14].    ◦ Constraint: You must determine what is possible and “for us” (role definition) versus what is impossible[19].

Phase 3: The Output (Action & Learning)

• Action: You take action to modify the environment or your relationship to it[20].

• Feedback (The Loop): This is the most critical step. Your action changes the situation (the Flux), but it also changes you. The experience of acting updates your Appreciative Settings (your standards and readiness to see) for the next cycle[21],[20],[22].

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

Practical Framework: The Triple ‘E’ Model

For practical application in organizations, the sources suggest the Triple ‘E’ Model (Explore, Experiment, Experience) as a way to structure this inquiry[23],[24].

1. Explore: Engage stakeholders to discuss their perspectives. Uncover the tacit norms and reality judgments people hold[24].

2. Experiment: Float ideas and test instrumental judgments. See how the system responds to proposed changes[25].

3. Experience: Share results and reflect. Use this experience to “reset” the appreciative settings (learning)[25].

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

Process Map (Mermaid Diagram)

This diagram visualizes the Appreciative Cycle described by Checkland and Casar based on Vickers’ work[5],[20],[26].

graph TD
     Connections
    Flux -->|Perceives| Filter
    Filter -->|Informs| RJ
    Filter -->|Informs| VJ
    
    RJ --> Compare
    VJ --> Compare
    
    Compare -->|Mismatch Detected| IJ
    Compare -->|Match Detected| Maintain[Maintain Relationships]
    
    IJ -->|Select Response| Action
    Maintain --> Action
    
     Styling
    style Flux fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style Filter fill:#ff9,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style Action fill:#9f9,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style Compare fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px

Key Takeaway for Handling Complexity

In this model, you do not “solve” a complex problem like a puzzle. Instead, you regulate it. You constantly adjust your understanding of reality and your standards of value to maintain stability over time[3],[27]. If a mismatch cannot be fixed by action (Instrumental Judgment), you may need to adjust your expectations (Value Judgment) to fit reality[14],[28].

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

Keywords

Appreciation, Appreciative System, Reality Judgment, Value Judgment, Instrumental Judgment, Norm-seeking, Relationship Maintenance, Governance, Stability, Weltanschauung (Worldview), Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), Responsibility, Institutional Behavior, Social Cohesion, Strategic Conversation, Moral Inversion, Technical Rationality, Lebenswelt (Lifeworld), Accommodation.

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

Glossary of Key Concepts, Principles, and Theories

AccommodationIn soft systems thinking, this refers to a state where a group of individuals with different worldviews reach an agreement to act together despite their conflicting interests[1][2]. It is contrasted with consensus, which implies total agreement[3].

AppreciationA complex, three-step mental process through which individuals and organizations make sense of their environment[4][5]. It involves the simultaneous judgment of facts (Reality Judgment) and their significance (Value Judgment) to determine an appropriate response (Instrumental Judgment)[6].

Appreciative SystemA mental and cultural mechanism consisting of categories for classifying and criteria for valuing experience[9]. It resides in a “readiness to see and value” situations in characteristic ways, acting as a filter for what is noticed and what is ignored[9][10]. This system is recursive, as its settings are both used to make judgments and modified by the resulting experience[11][12].

Constraint and EnablementA principle stating that all systems both enable action (allowing people to do what they otherwise could not) and constrain it (imposing limitations and responsibilities)[13][14]. Vickers argued that the price of increasing enablements in the modern world is a necessary increase in constraints[15][16].

Double-Loop LearningA learning process where error detection leads not just to a change in action, but to a fundamental modification of the underlying norms, policies, and objectives of the system[17].

Five Levels of ControlA hierarchy of human behavior regulation proposed by Vickers, ranging from Level 1 (Control by Releaser) (innate response) to Level 5 (Control by Self-Determination) (individual and social ethical debate)[18][19].

GovernanceThe “art of maintaining stable relationships over time” within human systems[14][20]. It is concerned with regulating the system to preserve its form and stability in the face of internal and external changes[21][22].

Human Activity SystemsPurposeful systems consisting of people who interpret the world through their individual worldviews and interact through social processes[23].

Instrumental JudgmentA judgment concerning “what can be done” to reduce the mismatch between the current state of reality and the desired norm[6]. It is often described as “strategic choice”[29][30].

**Lebenswelt (Lifeworld)**The “interacting flux of events and ideas” that human beings experience through time[31]. It serves as the experiential source from which appreciative judgments are formed[32].

Moral InversionA cultural phenomenon where moral passion is displaced from the individual onto society and its institutions[34][35]. In this state, individuals demand rights but reject the personal responsibility necessary to sustain the institutions providing those rights[36][37].

Norm-seekingThe principle that human regulative behavior is primarily about maintaining standards or “governing relations” through time, rather than just pursuing discrete, once-and-for-all goals[38].

Reality JudgmentA judgment of fact concerning “what is the case” or the state of a system, both internally and in its external relations[6]. These judgments are not objective data but are selective and influenced by the observer’s concerns[43][44].

Relationship MaintenanceThe concept that human activity consists mainly of sustaining satisfactory relationships (with people, objects, or institutions) over time[25]. Vickers proposed this as a richer alternative to the “goal-seeking” model of organization[25][47].

ResponsibilityThe state of having accepted a commitment and the constraints it imposes[48][49]. Vickers argued that responsibility—to oneself, one’s roles, and the culture at large—is the fundamental regulator of human society[50][51].

**Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)**An approach developed by Peter Checkland that uses systems models as epistemological devices to structure a debate about the world, rather than to describe the world as it is[52][53]. It focuses on learning rather than optimization[52].

StabilityThe state where the key parameters of a system are maintained within critical limits[14]. In human systems, stability is the foundation of sustainability and depends on effective governance[21].

Technical RationalityA way of thinking that emphasizes scientific-analytic logic and a belief in technological progress, often ignoring the contextual, intuitive, and ethical dimensions of human problems[8].

Value JudgmentA judgment concerning “what ought to be” or the significance of facts to the agent[6]. It involves comparing reality against norms and standards to determine acceptability[28][56].

**Weltanschauung (Worldview)**The set of unexamined assumptions or the “in-built image of the world” that makes a particular human activity system meaningful to an observer[57][58]. In SSM, exploring and changing these worldviews is the central task[58][59].

8. Handling Different Perspectives and Opinions

Based on the provided sources, different points of view between different observers are not treated as errors to be corrected by finding a single “objective” truth. Instead, they are viewed as inherent to the human condition, arising from the unique “appreciative settings” of each individual or group. Handling these differences is a central task of governance, management, and social life.

Here is how these differences are understood and handled within this framework:

1. The Root of Divergence: Appreciative Settings

Different observers hold different views because they do not perceive the world directly. They perceive it through a filter called an appreciative system or appreciative setting[1].

• Selective Perception: “Facts” are not objective data waiting to be picked up; they are “mental artifacts” created by the observer[6][7]. We notice only what our interests and values condition us to notice. For example, a housing development might be viewed by one person as a “solution to homelessness,” by another as a “threat to the Green Belt,” and by a third as an “increase in traffic”[8][9]. All are valid “facts” within their respective appreciative settings.

• Tacit Norms: Our judgments of reality (what is) and value (what ought to be) are guided by tacit norms that are often unstated and unconscious[10].

2. Handling Differences through Communication

The primary mechanism for managing divergent views is communication, which Vickers describes not merely as the transfer of information, but as the process of changing the appreciative settings of the participants[11].

• Mutual Persuasion: This involves trying to change how another person sees (classifies) or values a situation[15]. It is an attempt to align the “inner worlds” of the participants so they can agree on a common definition of the situation[16][19].

• Dialogue: This is the highest level of communication. In true dialogue, parties suspend their own judgments and engage in a joint effort to reach a common appreciation[20]. The goal is not just to manipulate the other, but to learn and potentially change one’s own view in the process[21][22].

• Meta-communication: Sometimes parties must stop discussing the issue at hand and discuss how they are communicating (e.g., clarifying the meaning of words or concepts) to resolve misunderstandings before they can address their substantive differences[23][24].

3. Seeking “Accommodation” rather than Consensus

A crucial distinction in this approach is the goal of accommodation rather than total consensus.

• Living with Differences: It is not always possible (or necessary) for everyone to agree on the same values or ultimate goals. Accommodation is finding a course of action that different parties can accept (“live with”), even if they do so for different reasons or motives[25].

• Integrative Solutions: The ideal outcome is an “integrative solution” where the situation is redefined in a way that satisfies the diverse claims of contestants without requiring mere compromise[28][29].

• Example: Vickers cites the Quaker business meeting, where the goal is to find the “sense of the meeting”—a shared agreement on the right course of action that transcends individual voting[30].

4. The Role of Roles and Institutions

In large-scale systems where personal dialogue is impossible between everyone, roles and institutions manage differences by stabilizing expectations[31].

• Mutual Expectations: Roles (e.g., teacher, doctor, citizen) create a “net of expectations”[34][35]. Even if two people have different personal views, they can cooperate because they know what to expect from each other’s role[36][37].

• Institutional Constraints: Institutions mediate conflicting demands (e.g., creating a budget that balances competing needs for roads vs. schools) by establishing rules and procedures that contain conflict within acceptable limits[34].

5. Methodological Approaches

Specific methodologies have been developed to explicitly handle these multiple viewpoints:

• Soft Systems Methodology (SSM): This approach explicitly models the different Weltanschauungen (worldviews) of stakeholders. It uses these models not to represent the “real world,” but to structure a debate that can lead to accommodation[40].

• Scenario Planning: This technique uses “strategic conversation” to surface and share diverse perceptions. By exploring alternative future scenarios, an organization can challenge “group-think” and align different mental models[26].

• Pluralist Function Interrogation: This method uncovers the explicit and unacknowledged beliefs people hold about the function of an object or practice (e.g., a safety procedure). By juxtaposing these different beliefs (e.g., manager vs. operator), it exposes the diversity of views that shape practice[45].

In summary, different points of view are handled by acknowledging that there is no single “correct” view, and then using dialogue, role definition, and institutional frameworks to align expectations and find a practical way forward (accommodation) despite inherent differences in values and perceptions.

9. Structure based on Questions

Based on the sources, the concept of a “structure based on questions” is central to Sir Geoffrey Vickers’ philosophy of appreciation and the systems thinking methodologies derived from it. Rather than viewing decision-making as a linear process of finding “the right answer,” Vickers and his interpreters suggest that human organization and understanding are structured by the specific types of questions we ask about our situation.

Here is an analysis of how questions structure human systems and inquiry, according to the texts:

1. The Core Structure: The Appreciative System as a Cycle of Questions

Vickers argues that human action is not merely “goal-seeking” but “norm-seeking.” This process is regulated by three specific types of judgments, which essentially function as a structural sequence of questions that individuals and organizations constantly ask[1],[2].

• The Reality Question (“What is the case?“): This corresponds to the reality judgment. It asks what the state of the system is, both internally and externally[1],[3]. This is not just observing raw data but interpreting “what is happening” based on a specific readiness to see certain facts as relevant[4].

• The Value Question (“What ought to be the case?“): This corresponds to the value judgment. It asks how the current reality compares to our norms or standards of success[1]. If there is a mismatch between “what is” and “what ought to be,” a problem is defined[5].

• The Instrumental Question (“What can be done?“): This corresponds to the instrumental judgment. Once a mismatch is identified, the agent asks what means are available to reduce the difference between the reality and the norm[1],[6]. This question is often phrased as “What shall I do about it?”[7].

These questions form a recursive loop; the answer to “What shall I do?” creates a new reality, which must then be re-evaluated by asking “What is the case?” again[7],[8].

2. Structuring Education and Inquiry

Vickers proposed that education and general human understanding should be structured not around disciplines or subjects, but around fundamental human questions.

• The Four Questions of Existence: Vickers suggested that general education should provide the best answers an age can give to four specific questions: “What am I? Where am I? How did we get here?” and “What does it require of me?”[9].

• Problem-Centric Organization: He argued that education should be organized around problems rather than professions. The “perpetual censoring question” for such an inquiry would be: “What are the issues which we should most like to understand better?”[10].

• The Existential Question: Drawing on Viktor Frankl, Vickers emphasized that life addresses a question to the individual, rather than the other way around. That question is: “What does this situation require of you?”[11],[12].

3. Structuring Policy vs. Science vs. Technology

Vickers used questions to structurally differentiate between different fields of human endeavor. The type of question asked determines the domain of the system[13]:

• Scientific Questions: Ask “Why?” (seeking causal explanations).

• Technological Questions: Ask “How?” or “How best?” (where the criteria for “best” are already given).

• Policy Questions: Ask “What is best?” (where the criteria themselves are multiple, conflicting, and must be decided upon).

4. Questions in Methodological Frameworks

Several methodologies discussed in the sources utilize a structure based on questions to facilitate learning and decision-making:

• Soft Systems Methodology (SSM):

    ◦ SSM is described as a formal organization of the thinking process[14]. It revolves around answering the “What” question (What is the system? What is the worldview?) and the “How” question (How can we take action?)[15],[16].    ◦ The methodology uses “Root Definitions” which structure the inquiry through specific constraints (often mnemonicized as CATWOE, though not explicitly named in these excerpts, the components are alluded to), asking who is doing what, to whom, and why[17]. • Futures Studies and Scenario Planning:

    ◦ In scenario planning, the primary objective is often finding the right questions rather than the answers[18].    ◦ The process moves from “What is happening?” (Reality) to “What does it mean for us?” (Value) to “What options do we have?” (Instrumental)[19]. • Pluralist Function Interrogation:

    ◦ This safety analysis methodology structures its inquiry around “Why” (goals/intentions) and “How” (mechanisms)[20]. • Life Detection Framework (Astrobiology):

    ◦ Even in hard sciences, frameworks are established through ordered questions. One source outlines a five-question framework for assessing life detection, starting with “Have you detected an authentic signal?” and moving through interpretation to independent evidence[21].

5. The “Censoring” Function of Questions

Vickers emphasizes that the questions we ask act as filters (or “censors”) for our attention. An appreciative system is defined by the questions it is ready to ask. If an organization is not organized to ask a specific type of question, it will likely fail to notice the relevant reality[22]. Therefore, structuring a system based on questions is essentially an act of designing what the system will notice and what it will ignore.

10. How the Author Interprets Uncertainty

Sir Geoffrey Vickers interprets uncertainty not as a simple lack of data, but as a fundamental characteristic of human experience and a primary driver of the appreciative system. He views it as a source of psychological stress, a byproduct of technological expansion, and an inescapable feature of complex decision-making.

Vickers’ interpretation of uncertainty can be broken down into several key themes:

1. Uncertainty of Expectation and Stress

Vickers identifies “certainty-uncertainty of expectation” as a value inherent in the appreciative process itself[1][2].

• A Source of Stress: Humans have a recently evolved capacity to appreciate the future, which brings stress because we constantly scan the present for confirmation or disproof of our expectations[1][3].

• The Value of Confirmation: Even unwelcome information is often positively valued if it confirms an expectation, because it reassures the agent of the validity of their reality judgment[1][2].

• Erosion of Structure: Conversely, when expectations are disproved, it erodes the “structure of expectation” and challenges the validity of the mental processes used to form those judgments[1][2].

2. Unpredictability in the Technological Age

Vickers argues that modern technology has paradoxically made the world less predictable and less controllable[4][5].

• The Illusion of Control: He describes the belief that increased power over the environment leads to increased control as a “manifest delusion”[6].

• Unintended Repercussions: Because the world is a system, any technological intervention has numberless, unpredictable repercussions[6][7].

• Rapid Change: Change is now so rapid that the past has become a “less reliable guide to the future,” leaving human beings with an appreciative system “ill-suited to our needs”[8][9].

3. The Dilemma of Flexibility vs. Rigidity

Uncertainty creates a fundamental dilemma for policymakers and governors[10].

• Massive Change vs. Unforeseen Events: Massive systemic change requires massive commitments and thus rigidity, yet unpredictable change requires flexibility[10].

• The Decision to Defer: Policymakers may choose to defer commitment to maintain freedom of action, effectively deciding that a situation is “too uncertain to regulate”[10].

• Limiting Uncertainty: Vickers suggests that we could increase predictability by limiting the sources of uncertainty, specifically by intentionally slowing the rate of change initiated by human action[11][12].

4. Epistemological Groundlessness (“Moored in Vacancy”)

Vickers interprets uncertainty as a permanent feature of human judgment because judgments can never be “proved” correct by objective tests[13][14].

• The Lack of Objective Verification: Value judgments are “logically incapable of being validated by any objective test”[15]. Even reality judgments are matters of inference that can only be challenged by further inferences[16].

• Inconclusive Feedback: Feedback from actions often returns too late or is too intermixed with other variables to provide certain guidance for the future[17][18].

• Groundless Systems: Checkland describes Vickers’ appreciative model as “moored in vacancy,” meaning it is self-creating and lacks absolute, given dogmas or starting points[14].

5. Uncertainty in Learning and Inquiry

In the context of inquiry and science, Vickers distinguishes between explanation and prediction[19].

• Explanatory vs. Predictive Power: A system’s behavior can be explained by understanding its systematic relations, even if “uncertainties prevent us from predicting its future course”[19].

• Muddling Through: Vickers recognizes that much of human behavior is characterized by “muddling through” rather than the pursuit of clear goals, as we adapt to situations that are “puzzling” and “mysterious”[20][21].

• Confidence Intervals: In scientific fields like astrobiology, uncertainty is interpreted through the “problem of unconceived alternatives,” where we cannot quantify confidence until we understand how much of the “possibility space” we have explored[22][23].

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

In the context of human affairs, complexity is defined as a network of multiple interacting relationships that exist through time[1][2]. It is characterised by emergent behaviour, meaning the behaviour of a complex system as a whole cannot be simply inferred from its individual components[3][4]. Furthermore, human complexity often manifests as “messes,” which are systems of strongly interacting and interrelated problems rather than isolated issues[5]. In these systems, every part affects the whole in a recursive manner, and human initiative often adds to this instability by magnifying the powers of technology without a corresponding increase in our understanding of its effects[9].

The sources offer the following advice on how to deal with complexity:

1. Shift from Goal-Seeking to Relationship-Maintenance

While technical fields often focus on “goal-seeking,” dealing with complex human systems requires a shift to relationship-maintenance[12]. Rather than seeking an endless succession of goals, regulation should focus on maintaining satisfactory relationships and eluding unsatisfactory ones over time[12]. Effective governance consists of regulating a system so that these conflicting relations are optimised without destroying the system itself[17].

2. Employ Appreciative Systems

Dealing with complexity requires an “appreciative system,” which is a mental act that combines judgements of fact and value to determine what we notice and how we regard situations[20]. This involves three interrelated types of judgement:

• Reality Judgments: Determining “what is the case” by selecting relevant facts from the general confusion of events[20].

• Value Judgments: Evaluating the situation against standards of “what ought to be,” defining whether things are acceptable or unacceptable[20].

• Instrumental Judgments: Choosing the best means available to reduce the mismatch between “is” and “ought”[20].

3. Avoid Treating “Messes” as “Puzzles”

A major mistake in complex environments is carving off a part of a “mess” and attempting to solve it as a simple “puzzle” while ignoring its links to other problems[29][30]. Solving puzzles may feel productive, but if the underlying complexity is ignored, interventions often have the effect of “tightening the mess” and causing unforeseen catastrophic outcomes[31][32]. Instead, one should aim to “dissolve” the problem by redesigning the system to achieve ideal outcomes[33][34].

4. Adopt “Satisficing” Over Optimisation

In highly complex situations, the human brain cannot review every possible solution[35][36]. Therefore, the criterion for decision-making should be “satisficing”—finding a solution that is “good enough” and acceptable within given constraints, rather than attempting a purely rational but impossible search for the “best” solution[37].

5. Leverage Group Dialogue and Multi-Perspective Learning

Complexity is best navigated through group dialogue and shared sense-making, which makes a larger pool of meaning accessible and can increase the “IQ” of the group as a whole[41]. Advice for practitioners includes:

• Using the Triple ‘E’ model: Explore the situation, Experiment with strategies, and reflect on the Experience[42].

• Seeking accommodations between conflicting interests on which action can be based, rather than forced consensus[46].

• Developing interdisciplinary learning to broaden the “readiness of the mind” to see contextual significance rather than just linear cause-and-effect[49].

6. Accept Uncertainty and Limits

Skill in understanding and accepting uncertainty is a basic requirement for human life[52]. Dealing with complexity requires acknowledging that human systems both enable and constrain, and the price of increasing human capabilities is the acceptance of increased human regulation and restraint[53]. Managers should move away from the “delusion of control” and focus instead on “learning what to want,” which allows the appreciative system to be constantly updated based on experience[56].