Facilitating Change

Today I am fascinated by Michael Thompson and his book, Organising and Disorganising: A Dynamic and Non-Linear Theory of Institutional Emergence and its Implications.

Listen to him on EarIdeas or read the text of the talk on the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce (RSA) website.

He’s writing theory. And like all good theory, it’s simple. Thompson lays out five “fundamental modes of societal life” —  hierarchical (government, public goods), individualistic (markets, private goods), egalitarian (equality with fettered competition, common-pool goods), fatalistic (inequality with unfettered competition, club goods), and autonomous. He does not talk much about the autonomous mode, I assume because it means opting out — not engaging.

The problem, he says, is that we’ve been stuck swinging back and forth between the hierarchical and individualistic, the old public versus private debate. He calls this “the pendulum model” and explains that it is inadequate and misleading. Instead, he suggests we imagine the four modes as four different colours of algae competing over the surface of a ping-pong ball. When one gets bigger the others shrink. The edges are constantly changing. It’s possible for one to take over the whole ball. This is a dynamic model — a “transactional sphere” — that allows for deeper debate and the development of a broader range of solutions to social issues.

Take, for example, the Brent Spar oil storage structure, the deep ocean disposal of which was proposed by the market actor – Shell – and approved by the hierarchical actor – the British government’s regulatory agency. Had there been only markets and hierarchies, the Brent Spar would now be mouldering in its watery grave. But of course it isn’t. Another actor – Greenpeace – from a third way of organising (egalitarianism), forced its way in by audaciously, and very publicly, landing a helicopter on the structure as it was being towed out into the Atlantic. The disposal plans were abruptly abandoned by Shell (motorists, particularly in Germany, having stopped buying its petrol) and the British government was left with egg all over its face (John Major, the prime minister at the time, called Shell’s senior managers “wimps”). Shell then entered into lengthy discussions with Greenpeace and the Brent Spar has been cut up into cylindrical sections to form a ferry terminal in Norway. Those British citizens who managed to remain ignorant of the whole affair (and there were many) or who found themselves convinced by whomever they happened to have last seen arguing their case on television, were evidently bound into none of these ‘active’ ways of organising – individualism, hierarchy or egalitarianism – and constituted a fourth and rather inactive way – fatalism – assuring one another either that ignorance is bliss or that “nothing we could do would make any difference anyway”.

What’s interesting about this? Five things. First, the dynamic push and pull: each approach attempts to disorganize the other, each needs the other to organize against.  (Reminds me of the Amity-Enmity Complex). Second, it allows for difference to be creative and constructive. Third, it provides a framework for thinking, arguing, and coming up with the best solution (or re-solution). We need more deep, intelligent debate. To explore all options. No more ad hominem arguments — against individuals or groups. Fourth, it shows that we can make a difference — Greenpeace succeeded in changing the course of events. Fifth, the concept of “clumsy institutions”:

So, are there any practical guidelines that we can draw, once we’ve detached ourselves from the inadequate and misleading pendulum model and embraced this indeterminate and disequilibrating table tennis ball? Yes there are, and I’ll mention just two of them. First, Ashby’s law of requisite variety tells us that a control system must always contain a variety equal to that which exists within that which it aspires to control. In other words, if one or more of our coloured patches are being reduced to points (as they likely will be if the control system we are applying lacks the requisite variety), watch out! And this principle, slightly more elaborated and tied-in with the classic theory of pluralist democracy, leads us towards the somewhat counterintuitive notion of ‘clumsiness’. Clumsiness is where each voice (each of the policy stories that are generated by the four ways of organising) is (a) able to make itself heard and (b) is then responsive to the others (see Figure 2).

Here’s Figure 2:

See? Isn’t that a nice way to imagine making decisions and developing policy? Clumsily fighting and finding a good solution. Together whether we like it or not.

Finally, there’s Thompson himself. Read his bio or see him on video: soldier, himalayan mountaineer, anthropologist, researcher, environmentalist, thinker. Amazing cool guy. Would I ever like to find a man like this ;)