> ...pointing out that my theory kind of totally ignores the role of political power
Admittedly I work in the organisational domain rather than the public one, but I believe that VSM does handle power well enough if you ask if its relationships are "healthy and productive" before going straight to Ashby's law. Not only is that kind of language helpfully generative if other participants are involved, I'd expect problems to have some translation into variety terms if required. Communication isn't only about physical channels, although for reasons of (say) access that may have particular relevance. Power also affects people's willingness to speak up and their willingness to listen. I touch on theses issues in my forthcoming book (nudge).
I think that assumption that VSM doesn't tackle power is an error, its just that it doesn't do it in a way that those of a political persuasion expect.
From a VSM perspective, power is intrinsic to the system and a function of the system's capability and VSM is very very good at showing how that is built, maintained and distributed. Then there's the viabbility principle which is central to VSM and the power structuration theorem about how and why power should be distributed.
That said, if I wanted a systems approach that dealt explicitly with issues of power, I'd look to Nigel Howard's CONAN (Confrontation Analysis) which is brilliant for that - but you do need a mind like a rat trap to use it....
Patrick Hoverstadt is an expert practitioner of Cybernetics. As luck would have it, he's presenting to the Agile Strategy Meetup Group today (Thu 16 Jan, 5pm CET). I realize that's too short notice for many, but sign up in the next 90 min and you'll get the recording: https://lnkd.in/dYBzMwbd
That said, Cybernetics may not be the theme of his talk. But there should be Q&A :)
> ...pointing out that my theory kind of totally ignores the role of political power
Admittedly I work in the organisational domain rather than the public one, but I believe that VSM does handle power well enough if you ask if its relationships are "healthy and productive" before going straight to Ashby's law. Not only is that kind of language helpfully generative if other participants are involved, I'd expect problems to have some translation into variety terms if required. Communication isn't only about physical channels, although for reasons of (say) access that may have particular relevance. Power also affects people's willingness to speak up and their willingness to listen. I touch on theses issues in my forthcoming book (nudge).
I think that assumption that VSM doesn't tackle power is an error, its just that it doesn't do it in a way that those of a political persuasion expect.
From a VSM perspective, power is intrinsic to the system and a function of the system's capability and VSM is very very good at showing how that is built, maintained and distributed. Then there's the viabbility principle which is central to VSM and the power structuration theorem about how and why power should be distributed.
That said, if I wanted a systems approach that dealt explicitly with issues of power, I'd look to Nigel Howard's CONAN (Confrontation Analysis) which is brilliant for that - but you do need a mind like a rat trap to use it....
Patrick Hoverstadt is an expert practitioner of Cybernetics. As luck would have it, he's presenting to the Agile Strategy Meetup Group today (Thu 16 Jan, 5pm CET). I realize that's too short notice for many, but sign up in the next 90 min and you'll get the recording: https://lnkd.in/dYBzMwbd
That said, Cybernetics may not be the theme of his talk. But there should be Q&A :)
Looks like the recording is here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f9w94fuiERs
Thanks for the mention Angus.
Was mostly talking about Patterns of Strategy in that talk... but always ahppy to talk VSMy stuff when called to do so :)