REPLY Society Strategy Development (SD7075)

[SDMAIL Jack Harich]

Posted by  Jack Harich <register at thwink.org>


SDMAIL peter Luttik wrote:
> I have followed the discussion on the strategic direction of the SD 
> society with great interest.  From 25 years involvement in strategic 
> transformation processes - often in the public domain, I fully 
> recognize the trackrecord Jack quoted Kotter on. 
> My favorite system thinking rule is, that if a problem is resistant to 
> change then the common solution could well be part of the problem.  

Such as the oxymoron of "sustainable development"? ;-)

> So maybe strategic change processes are part of the problem of making 
> organisations respond effectively.  
(long snip)
> The main problem in this is that its all more of the same.   

> Maybe we can try to *reframe things* in such a way that they become 
> current, challenging and interesting again. 

Peter,

Wow, some very powerful thoughts. Let me throw out two possible 
reframings that may help with what you suggest:


*Reframing 1. A new problem decomposition*

Currently the world sees The Sustainability Problem. There is great 
confusion and disagreement on what the problem is and how to approach 
solving it. Now suppose we decompose that one big problem into three 
smaller subproblems:

A. How to overcome change resistance
B. How to achieve proper coupling
C. How to avoid excessive model drift

Here's a few key propositions:

- The problems are sequential. In particular, it is impossible to solve 
B before A.

- The world has focused on B for the last 30 years as THE problem to solve.

- Analyzing the three subproblems together in one big jumble, as is the 
norm, leads to very different conclusions from analyzing them separately.

- The terms change resistance, proper coupling, and model drift allow 
discourse on what was previously undiscoursable. They provide the 
missing abstractions so necessary to see the problem from a new, more 
productive line of inquiry. These three terms and their implications are 
essentially the foundation of a new paradigm.

The conclusions that follow from the above should make the problem 
"challenging and interesting again."


*Reframing 2. Problem restatement at a higher level*

The sustainability problem, believe it or not, is a symptom of a bigger, 
deeper problem: the Progressive Paradox.

To understand what this paradox is, consider this definition: 
"Progressive philosophy is a comprehensive rationale and value set whose 
goal is optimizing the human system for the common good of all and their 
descendants."

There are other social problems just as big as the sustainability 
problem, like war, institutional poverty, corruption, and the negative 
aspects of religious fundamentalism. Any of these can cause nations to 
suffer horribly. What do these problems have in common? First, solving 
them would benefit the common good. Second, none of these problems are 
new. The human system has been unable to solve them for thousands of 
years. Third, not solving these problems benefits special interests. (I 
hope there's a little light bulb starting to glow right now!!!)

Given the above, we arrive at a statement of the Progressive Paradox 
with this line of reasoning:

- Most people are progressives.

- The goal of progressive philosophy is to promote the common good.

- In theory this is also the goal of democracy.

- Why then do democratic systems so strongly resist changing their 
behavior from what benefits the special interest few to what benefits 
the common good of all?


Well Peter, does that do the job?

Jack
Posted by  Jack Harich <register at thwink.org>
posting date  Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:59:53 -0400