Chris Corrigan Chris Corrigan Menu
  • Blog
  • Chaordic design
  • Resources for Facilitators
    • Facilitation Resources
    • Books, Papers, Interviews, and Videos
    • Books in my library
    • Open Space Resources
      • Planning an Open Space Technology Meeting
  • Courses
  • About Me
    • Services
      • What I do
      • How I work with you
    • CV and Client list
    • Music
    • Who I am
  • Contact me
  • Blog
  • Chaordic design
  • Resources for Facilitators
    • Facilitation Resources
    • Books, Papers, Interviews, and Videos
    • Books in my library
    • Open Space Resources
      • Planning an Open Space Technology Meeting
  • Courses
  • About Me
    • Services
      • What I do
      • How I work with you
    • CV and Client list
    • Music
    • Who I am
  • Contact me

Moving in a direction

December 18, 2018 By Chris Corrigan Collaboration, Complexity, Featured, Organization

Many times when clients contact me they ask if I can help them come to consensus or alignment on their shared purpose or desired outcomes.  They expect facilitation will help them to do this.

Sometimes this is a good idea.  If we are working in a highly constrained project, like building a new building, getting everyone on the same page is important. But it’s also easy. All you have to do is bring in the experts, design a good implementation plan for a good solution and have project managers keep everyone on track, step by step. Most organizations are good at that, and if they aren’t they can easily learn the skills to do it.  

Its not the linear project managers that are the problem. Its the problem that is the problem.  

Conditioned to planning and implementing in this linear fashion, many organizations get flummoxed when they confront a problem with no obvious solution and no clear pathway forward.  There may be multiple ways to think about the issues, multiple experiences of what is happening, and divergent and even contradictory desires around where we should be going.  These kinds of wicked, seemingly intractable problems breed conflict, and the only recourse for leaders is to tolerate it for a while and then impose a solution with no guarantee that folks will be happy, or even that the solution is the best one possible.

These kinds of problems are complex: wicked, sticky, intractable, Volitile Uncertain Ccomplex and Ambiguous. Tough nuts to crack. There are lots of ways to describe them and lots of ways they drive frustration and conflict.

The common reactive response to these situations seems to be to first gather more information and try harder to find the obvious answer and try to get everyone on the same page. When I’m first working with clients experiencing these kinds of issues, I try to steer them away from certainty and alignment. I point out that in complex environments you don;t get to predict outcomes and you need to look for emergent practices and emergent solutions. Innovation never looks like something you’ve ever done before. Studying the present for the answer will not turn up the gold lying just out of eyesight under a rock.  Complex solutions are for all practical purposes, infinitely unpredictable.

So what is the answer? Throw a bunch of ideas at teh wall and see what sticks?

Well, sometimes that can work, especially if you are truly out of ideas.  But generally you have something to go on: a sense of direction, a sense that HERE isn’t where we want to be and that there is probably a better THERE that we should get to.

The issues is that, if we truly knew how to get from the undesirable HERE to the much coveted THERE, we probably would have done it by now.  In complexity work, the first step here is admitting that trying to achieve pre-planned outcomes simply won’t work. Instead we need to go in a direction of travel towards a better place.  

There are a couple of key ways to get started here. First, I always have groups spend time describing their current situation. We are looking for the patterns and dynamics that keep the system stuck in a place that isn’t working. Sometimes this can involve sophisticated research and narrative capture and other times it’s a simpler process of observation and pattern detection. Understanding the state of play helps us to discover an important secret, and that is, the inclination of the system to change.

Imagine an organization whose culture is fragmented and siloed with petty conflicts and turf wars over resources. Politics is rampant and some people seem to be at work only to stir the pot and not actually do the work. If you are a leader you might want to try to ay down the law and tell everyone to smarten up and focus on the organization’s mission.  That never works.  You can’t simply command a culture to change. 

Instead you might convene a group of people to talk about what would be better. And people may say that they want a place that is more collaborative, more connected, and more fun to be at. What you have there is a group of people describing a preferred direction. It’s different from an outcome. It is instead a starting place, a place to orient their inquiry and their work to change things.  

One thing you can do is begin by looking for places of positive deviency in the system.  Bad as it is, there may well be people that are nevertheless already working in the preferred way, even in small ways.  Those stories give you something to experiment with, and they reveal an inclination in the system that might lead to change.  Conversely you may find that literally no one is working in this way and that the organization is truly mired in a pattern of deep dysfunction. In this case, the way forward is a radical breaking of the patterns that keep it in place. 

Doing both of these things is a wise way to get started. INstead of requiring everyone to work together towards a common goal, you give space to people to work in small and diverse ways to discover how they might nudge the system towards a better THERE.

If you watch a river for a while you will notice that the river flows in both directions at once. Little obstacles in the river, like logs and rocks, create eddies that cause the current to turn back on itself. A living river is full of these back eddies and contradictory currents. Small creatures take refuge there, food and nutrients get trapped there and don’t all wash away to the sea.  At the finest granularity of scale, it may even seem that the river is flowing backwards.

And yet the direction of the water i undeniable. It flows down, towards the sea and will always find the low point in its terrain.  

That’s how strategic direction looks in complexity. Choose a direction, try multiple things that might work or might not. Contradict each other. Find the places where someone is working against the current and thriving in that little back eddy. Commit to a direction and see what can get you to go that way.

Rivers sit in a topography and changing the landscape is very hard. But changing the culture of a team or and organization can be easier if you work at the level of patterns.  Find the patterns that hold behaviours in place and try small things to shift them . See what happens. In organizations you do get the shift the river banks.

It’s more work than making everyone sign your pledge of values, but it’s more meaningful, because the change you get is creative, co-owned and sustainable.

Share:

  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

From the feed: More complexity

December 17, 2018 By Chris Corrigan Complexity, Evaluation, Links

I’m moving these posts to Monday morning and will try to provide a theme each week to connect the five links. Enjoy.

Dave Snowden’s 12 Shibboleth’s of Christmas

Back in 2015, Dave Snowden took on 12 aspects of organizational and corporate culture that were basically enemies of complexity thinking.  The list is still very valuable these days.  In each post Dave offers the problem and the way complexity theory helps you do better.

Evaluation and complexity – lesson from 5 big evaluations in the UK

I’ve recently found the blog of Marcus Jenal, who is yet another guy who is saying a bunch of stuff that I say too. Here’s a piece he wrote reviewing his work with complexity and evaluation, starting with the question: ““When is understanding complexity important for evaluation?” 

Defining complexity as a messy human

Another blog new to me is Human Current. They have a podcast which serves as a place for them to talk about and learn more about these ideas.  This post is an index to some of their episodes that have helped them understand and and explain complexity science and complexity thinking.   

Collective presencing applied

My friend Ria Baeck has been writing a book for years that combines her thinking about self, source, hosting and theory with harvests from the workshops and conversations she has hosted over the past decade.  The book is being released like expressions of fine whisky, one barrel at a time at her blog.  This chapter delves in complexity through Cynefin thusly: 

I have already talked about ‘sourcing’, and ‘collective sourcing’ as collective embodied revelation. It takes some courage to learn to voice our subtle sensing, because we have to overcome our conditioned assumption that this is not ‘real’ or ‘true’ or ‘useful’ information. At the present juncture, though, I wish to give some attention to a next step that follows on from the subtle sensing: the precision of language and making (subtle) distinctions. 

How chaos makes the multiverse unnecessary

Lastly, this wide ranging piece from the always interesting Nautilus takes my weekly reading on complexity back out to the cosmological level, through trying to understand why we see structure when we look at things in a fundamentally chaotic universe.

There is another, more interesting, explanation for the structure of the laws of nature. Rather than saying that the universe is very structured, say that the universe is mostly chaotic and for the most part lacks structure. The reason why we see the structure we do is that scientists act like a sieve and focus only on those phenomena that have structure and are predictable. They do not take into account all phenomena; rather, they select those phenomena they can deal with.

Share:

  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

What do I need to understand before I act?

December 11, 2018 By Chris Corrigan Complexity, Emergence, Featured 2 Comments

Things change in different ways.  

A couple of weeks ago, I took a deep dive into Glenda Eoyang’s Human Systems Dynamics, learning about her theory of complexity and getting my hands on the tools and methods that HSD uses to work in complex adaptive systems. (The tools are very good by the way, and highly recommended as ways to both get a good introductory grasp on complex problems, and work within those contexts to make decisions and lead).

One of the useful ways of looking at things concerns the kinds of change that happen, and if you’ve been reading my blog lately, you’ll know that accurately describing your theory of change is a key discipline for me.

In HSD we talk about three kinds of change: static, dynamic and dynamical. I’m not 100% sold on the terminology, but I invite you to think of these are ways of describing the start and end points of an intervention.

Static change begins and ends with a fairly stable system.  An example is nailing drywall to a frame.  You start with a frame, a sheet of drywall and some nails.  The act of change is a predictable and controllable action that fastens the drywall to the framing and creates a wall. The system is stable to begin with and stable after the intervention. 

Dynamic change is change that is full of motion and movement but that motion follow a predictable trajectory and also begins with a fairly stable beginning and end point.  To extend our metaphor, this is about building a house, or using a crane to raise and lower materials on the building site.  There are dynamics at play but the beginning is knowable and the end state is predictable.  The interventions are dynamic, requiring little adjustments as you go, applied with expertise.  Hire a crane operator if you want to avoid accidents.

Dynamical change comes from the world of physics, where small perturbations in a system result in massive changes and emergent outcomes.  The beginning state is in motion and has a history that matters.  The end state is also in motion and has a trajectory that matters.  The intervention will alter the the future state in unpredictable ways. This is what happens in most complex systems.  Small changes make big and unpredictable differences.  Extending our house building metaphor even further, this is what happens when you build a variety of structures in a neighbourhood and fill them with people.  The neighbourhood changes, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.  

We can try to reduce the amount of unpredictability in our work but there are limits to that. Externalizing the results of our decisions is not without peril, and in fact I would say that there is a moral imperative to taking responsibility for the kinds of interventions that we make in a system.  While we can’t know everything that is going to happen, we need to bear some responsibility for our actions.  In highly ordered systems where causality is attributable, we can do this with solid accountability mechanisms.  In highly unordered, complex and emergent systems, we can’t attribute causality and accountability, but we can take care to use the right tools and views. This sometimes paralyzes people into not acting – the well known “analysis paralysis” situation. Sometimes not acting, or simply ignoring consequences, comes with some moral peril.  The problem is that, despite the nature of the problem, we still need to act.

I find in general that it helps to know that complexity is fundamentally unknowable in its totality. in this kind of system, no amount of data and research will give us definitive answers before making decisions about what to do. This is why adaptive action is so important. It shortens the feedback loop between planning, acting and evaluating so that you can start small and being to watch for the effects of your decisions right away. Of course with large scale system work, the process of understanding the system is important, but it’s a never-ending process. One studies it but one shouldn’t treat a large complex system as if it is always subject to static change: moving between one state and another. We need to learn to see that and operate within a dynamic and changing environment, finding “just enough” information to initiate changes and then watching for what happens, adjusting as we go.

Share:

  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

From the feed

December 9, 2018 By Chris Corrigan Art of Harvesting, Art of Hosting, Collaboration, Complexity, Evaluation, Links, Philanthropy

Some interesting links that caught my eye this week.

Why Black Hole Interiors Grow (Almost) Forever

Leonard Susskind has linked the growth of black holes to increasing complexity. Is it true that the world is becoming more complex?

“It’s not only black hole interiors that grow with time. The space of cosmology grows with time,” he said. “I think it’s a very, very interesting question whether the cosmological growth of space is connected to the growth of some kind of complexity. And whether the cosmic clock, the evolution of the universe, is connected with the evolution of complexity. There, I don’t know the answer.”

With a Green New Deal, here’s what the world could look like for the next generation

This is the vision I have been asking for from our governments.  This vision is the one that would get me on board with using our existing oil and gas resources to manufacture and fund and infrastructure to accelerate this future for my kids. The cost of increasing fossil fuel use is so high, it needs to be accompanied by a commitment to faster transition to this kind of world. Read the whole thing.

Why we suck at ‘solving wicked problems”

Sonja Blignault is one of the people in the world with whom I share the greatest overlap of theory and practice curiosities regarding complexity. I know this, because whenever she posts something on her blog I almost always find myself wishing I had written that!  Here’s a great post of five things we can do to disrupt thinking about problem solving to enable us to work much better with complexity.

Money and technology are hugely valuable resources:  they are certaintly necessary but they are not sufficient.  Simply throwing more money and/or more advanced technology at a problem will not make it go away.  We need to fundamentally change our thinking paradigm and approach things in context-appropriate ways, otherwise we will never move the needle on these so-called wicked problems.

rock/paper/scissors and beyond

I miss Bernie DeKoven. Since he died earlier this year I’ve missed seeing his poetic and playful blog posts about games and fun.  Here is one from his archives about variations on rock/paper/scissors

The relationship between the two players is both playful and intimate. The contest is both strategic and arbitrary. There are rumors that some strategies actually work. Unless, of course, the players know what those strategies are. Sometimes, choosing a symbol at random, without logic or forethought, is strategically brilliant. Other times, it’s just plain silly.

So they play, nevertheless. Believing whatever it is that they want or need to believe about the efficacy of their strategies, knowing that there is no way to know.

The longer they play together, the more mystical the game becomes.

They play between mind and mindlessness. For the duration of the game, they occupy both worlds. The fun may not feel special, certainly not mystical. But the reality they are sharing is most definitely something that can only be found in play.

How Evaluation Supports Systems Change

An unassuming little article that outlines five key practices that could be the basis of a five-day deep dive into complexity and evaluation. I found this article earlier in the year, and notice that my own practice and attention has come back to these five points over and over.

While evaluation is often conducted as a means to learn about the progress or impact of an initiative, evaluative thinking and continuous learning can be particularly important when working on complex issues in a constantly evolving system. And, when evaluation goes hand in hand with strategy, it helps organizations challenge their assumptions, gather information on the progress, effects, and influence of their work, and see new opportunities for adaptation and change. 

Share:

  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Becoming a supporter of feminism.

December 6, 2018 By Chris Corrigan Uncategorized

I was always a social justice minded kid. But on December 6, 1989, when I was 21, my lifelong support for the feminist struggle was cemented.

Every year I publish the list of women who died that day and whose deaths changed the lives of so many of us.

Never forgotten are:

• Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), mechanical engineering student

• Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student

• Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student

• Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student

• Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student

• Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student

• Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique’s finance department

• Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student

• Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student

• Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student

• Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student

• Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student

• Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student

• Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student

Share:

  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • More
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

1 … 67 68 69 70 71 … 526

Find Interesting Things
Events
  • Art of Hosting November 12-14, 2025, with Caitlin Frost, Kelly Poirier and Kris Archie Vancouver, Canada
  • The Art of Hosting and Reimagining Education, October 16-19, Elgin Ontario Canada, with Jenn Williams, Cédric Jamet and Troy Maracle
Resources
  • A list of books in my library
  • Facilitation Resources
  • Open Space Resources
  • Planning an Open Space Technology meeting
SIGN UP

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
  

Find Interesting Things

© 2015 Chris Corrigan. All rights reserved. | Site by Square Wave Studio

%d