Systems and Values

Thursday, May 30, 2002 Copyright © 1993-2002 Dr. Martin L.W. Hall

"Complexity is Just a Word! *

Peter A. Corning, Ph.D.

What is complexity, asks author-journalist George Johnson in a recent "Science Times," the science section of The New York Times (May 5, 1997)? Below the headline, "Researchers on Complexity Ponder What It's All About," Johnson reports that there is still no agreed-upon definition, much less a theoretically-rigorous formalization, despite the fact that complexity is currently a "hot" research topic. Many books and innumerable scholarly papers have been published on the subject in the past few years, and there is even a new journal, Complexity, devoted to this nascent science. Johnson quotes Dan Stein, chairman of the physics department at the University of Arizona: "Everybody talks about it. [But] in the absence of a good definition, complexity is pretty much in the eye of the beholder."
This is not to say that the researchers in this area have not been trying to define it. In the 1970s, Gregory Chaitin and Alexei Kolmogorov (independently) pioneered a mathematical measuring-rod that Chaitin called "algorithmic complexity" -- that is, the length of the shortest "recipe" for the complete reproduction of a mathematical treatment. The problem with this definition, as Chaitin concedes, is that random sequences are invariably more complex because in each case the recipe is as long as the whole thing being specified; it cannot be "compressed".
More recently, Charles Bennett has focussed on the concept of "logical depth" -- the computational requirements for converting a recipe into a finished product. Though useful, it seems to be limited to processes in which there is a logical structure of some sort. It would seem to exclude the "booming, buzzing confusion" of the real world, where the internal logic may be problematical or only partially knowable -- say the immense number of context-specific chaotic interactions that are responsible for producing global weather "patterns", or the imponderable forces that will determine the future course of the evolutionary process itself.
A number of researchers, especially those who are associated with the Santa Fe Institute, believe that the key lies in the so-called "phase transitions" between highly ordered and highly disordered physical systems. An often-cited analogy is water, whose complex physical properties lie between the highly ordered state of ice crystals and the highly disordered movements of steam molecules. While the "Santa Fe Paradigm" may be useful, it also sets strict limits on what can be termed "complex". For instance, it seems to exclude the extremes associated with highly ordered or strictly random phenomena, even though there can be more or less complex patterns of order and more or less complex forms of disorder -- degrees of complexity that are not associated with phase transitions. (Indeed, random phenomena seem to be excluded by fiat from some definitions of complexity.)
To confuse matters further, a distinction must be made between what could be labelled "objective complexity" -- the "embedded" properties of a physical phenomenon and "subjective complexity" -- its "meaning" to a human observer. As Timothy Perper has observed (on-line communication), the equation w = f(z) is structurally simple, but it might have a universe of meaning depending upon how its terms are defined. Indeed, information theory is notorious for its reliance on quantitative, statistical measures and its blindness to meaning -- where much can be made of very few words. The telephone directory for a large metropolitan area contains many more words than a Shakespeare play, but is it more complex? Furthermore, as Elisabet Sahtouris has pointed out (on-line communication), the degree of complexity that we might impute to a phenomenon can depend upon our frame of reference for viewing it. If we adopt a broad, "ecological" perspective we will see many more factors, and relationships, at work than if we adopta "physiological" perspective. When Howard Bloom (on-line communication) quotes the line "To see the World in a Grain of Sand..." from William Blake's famous poem, "Auguries of Innocence", it reminds us that even a simple object can denote a vast pattern of relationships, if we choose to see it that way. Accordingly, subjective complexity is a highly variable property of the phenomenal world.
Perhaps we need to go back to the semantic drawing-board. Complexity is, after all, a word -- a verbal construct, a mental image. Like the words "electron" or "snow" or "blue" or "tree", complexity is a shorthand tool for thinking and communicating about various aspects of the phenomenal world. Some words may be very narrow in scope. (Presumably all electrons are alike in their basic properties, although their behavior can vary greatly.) However, many other words may hold a potful of meaning. We often use the word "snow" in conversation without taking the trouble to differentiate among the many different kinds of snow, as serious skiers (and Inuit eskimos) routinely do. Similarly, the English word "blue" refers to a broad band of hues in the color spectrum, and we must drape the word with various qualifiers, from navy blue to royal blue to robin's egg blue (and many more), to denote the subtle differences among them. So it is also, I believe, with the word "complexity"; it is used in many different ways and encompasses a great variety of phenomena. (Indeed, it seems that many theorists, to suit their own purposes, prefer not to define complexity too precisely.)
The "utility" of any word, whether broad or narrow in scope, is always a function of how much information it imparts to the user(s). Take the word "tree", for example. It tells you about certain fundamental properties that all trees have in common. But it does not tell you whether or not a given tree is deciduous, whether it is tall or short, or even whether it is living or dead. The same shortcoming applies also to the concept of "complexity". Although there may be some commonalities between a complex personality, a complex wine, a complex piece of music and a complex machine, the similarities are not obvious. Each is complex in a different way, and their complexities cannot be reduced to an all-purpose algorithm. Moreover, the differences among them are at least as important as any common properties.
What in fact does the word "complexity" connote. One of the leaders in the complexity field, Seth Lloyd of MIT, took the trouble to compile a list of some three dozen different ways in which the term is used in scientific discourse. However, this exercise produced no blinding insight. When asked to define complexity, Lloyd told Johnson: "I can't define it for you, but I know it when I see it."
Rather than trying to define what complexity is, perhaps it would be more useful to identify the properties that are commonly associated with the term. I would suggest that complexity often (not always) implies the following attributes: (1) a complex phenomenon consists of many parts (or items, or units, or individuals); (2) there are many relationships/interactions among the parts; and (3) the parts produce combined effects (synergies) that are not easily predicted and may often be novel, unexpected, even surprising.
At the risk of inviting the wrath of the researchers in this field, I would argue that complexity per se is one of the less interesting properties of complex phenomena. The differences, and the unique combined properties (synergies) that arise in each case, are vastly more important than the commonalities. If someone does develop a grand, unifying definition-description of complexity, I predict that it will add very little to the tree of knowledge (pardon the pun). But that shouldn't deter us from trying; the very effort to do so will surely enrich our understanding."

On FuturePositive News

posted by Martin Hall 10:59 PM

Tuesday, May 28, 2002 Copyright © 1993-2002 Dr. Martin L.W. Hall

Motivation Meter

I wonder if people would be interested in knowing what values there Blogs are driven by. I do a lot of work in analyzing documents to see what values and motivations exist. People are always amazed at how their values or those of their group are refelcted in their writing.

It would be interesting to see what the possibilities might be if we could automate that...I have some ideas...but I am interested to know if anyone sees any possibilities.

At some level, I guess I was thinking about an automated Imood, but focused towards values and motivation. I guess whether it is the group or the individual, I might say both. Getting personal information is often good feedback since we might like to know how we are coming across through our language -- if an analysis happened as we were posting blogs it could be like a personal 'meter'.

Most people's values are at least partially implicit (hidden). Unless we look hard at ourselves, we rarely really think about all things that motivate us. And moreover, it is usually not put in a context where people can easily compare.

I am probably about to go into more detail than most people care. But here goes:

Would it be good to know when your values might be shifting. Is this good information, I think so -- do you want others to know this, I am not sure!...but I do know there is a tendency for people to want to get a quick read on people they come into contact with to see if they are compatible or conguent. Doing this within a framework where it is easier to compare apples to apples I think is useful.

Now if a group (ecademy, for instance), knew the values that the group held as a whole, then the members can understand the values need to collaborate as a team while remaining diverse. Another applications might be looking at the text of two groups to see if they should merge, etc.

I have been developing ideas, and some technologies (very primitive at this point) for pulling the values of people from documents (text, etc.). Even in the primitive stage it is very illuminating.

The following is not meant as an advertisement (particularly since I am not longer employed by Values Technology (but have the rights to develop stuff based on it)) and Systems and Values is kind of my personal research site. But there are models for understanding values. There are a few models for understanding values, and one of the founders of VT (not me) came up with a framework that I have used

My research and work has used a model for understanding values that comes from looking at values as descriptors for human behavior. So, the idea goes, that you should be able to combine different values to describe any human behavior (assuming that humans have a finite number of behaviors). In this case, the framework has been developed to be valid in cross-cultural and multi-lingual environments which is why I thought it could be kind of neat in the ecademy environment.

There are essentially two ways to understand values, through observation of behavior and through language. Questionnaires are a kind of way of reflecting behavior and document (text) analysis is a way of looking at language.

In this kind of situation you would look for words, phrases, etc. that hold the same meaning as one of the values. A kind of running tally is created that gives you your values priorities. From this you can get a lot of information about a person or a group.

Anyway, these are just a few more thoughts...

posted by Martin Hall 12:44 PM

Friday, May 03, 2002 Copyright © 1993-2002 Dr. Martin L.W. Hall

Discerning Chaos in Organizations:

Understanding Chaos and Complexity in Organizations Using Human Values
Back to SVO Articles

Abstract:
This article looks at how human values and values measurement can be used in organizations to help make sense out of the complexity in the modern organization. Core issues include such elements as decision-making, organizational culture and the usefulness of effective values measurement techniques.

Links will be made between values and organizational structure and process. Discussion will be centered around how to specifically and practically use both individual and organizational values to transform organizations toward a more effective and efficient reality.

Chaos and Values in Organizations

The idea of chaos in organizations is nothing new. Many people have expressed the idea of describing human and organizational interaction as chaotic and complex [Goldstein, 1994; Goerner, 1994]. But a key feature to understanding this chaos and complexity is to see the patterns that emerge from these interactions. Humans tend to interact with each other through the choices and decisions that are made. If one can understand the pattern of decision making of the individuals and the organization, then the true goals of the organization can be made apparent. This is a very powerful concept for allowing organizations to understand themselves and become more effective. Values are the filter by which we make these decisions [Ellis and M.L.W. Hall, 1994]. Understanding values therefore is a key to unleashing the complexity and power of an organization.

In the way in which people look for patterns in chaotic situations to help understand them, values measurement helps people understand the dynamics of organizational behavior by identifying patterns of value-based decision making. Historically, the difficulty in introducing the human relations dimension is that there have been as many approaches to human relations as there are understandings of the human being [Jackson, 1991]. This made human relations measurement difficult. If one does not have a consistent method for understanding behavior it can make the human relations aspect of organizational interventions a guessing game. This ambiguity has fueled organizational consulting for many years. But what is more important is that it has people viewing organizational behavior as mysterious. This point of view has created a desire to "control" the organization rather than "harness" the power of it.

Chaos and complexity theory is about recognizing patterns in the seemingly unexplainable [Gleick, 1987], and using these patterns to gain greater understanding. Values measurement is about understanding and recognizing patterns of human and organizational behavior. In other words, values (and values measurement) can help one to understand some of the seemingly chaotic behavior that goes on in organizations.

A proposition of this paper is that a "new unified science of values" be introduced. This will provide a consistent and measurable way of dealing with the human relations component of an organization [B. Hall, 1993]. B. Hall and Tonna propose a theory whereby all human values are selected from a universal set of 125. This theory is based on over 25 years of human and organizational research into why people make the judgments or decisions they do. If one uses a definitive set of values, dealing with the human relations aspect of organizations can become easier by allowing certain elements to be viewed in a scientific, logical manner. This allows the organizational behavior patterns to be much more obvious. This unified method for understanding values when used with other organizational methodologies creates a holistic approach to solving problems that might not always be self evident.

Decision making is based on a combination of scientific (or otherwise "factual") data and values [Robertshaw, Mecca and Rerick, 1978]. Factual data are the core elements needed to make the decision. Values can be looked as a filter by which we make decisions (or judgments) based on the factual data. The study of values are also cross disciplinary, and similar to the study of systems science, pulling resources from many disciplines [Rokeach, 1979]. This perspective is necessary to identify the values patterns that would not otherwise be apparent in an organization.

Values measurement is a key to understanding how values are understood within an organizational context. It allows one to see how the pockets of decision making in an organization can be congruent as well as diverse. And how different parts of the organization can have different values to another part but overall the decision-making can be congruent. And when the decision making is not congruent a values clarification process can be very helpful. Core values are the center to understanding these patterns of congruent and non-congruent decision making.

Taming the chaos and understanding the complexity of the organization is what this is all about. Identifying organizational values can lead to understanding the issues that most critically face the organization.

Organizational management techniques when used in conjunction with values measurement can help focus the organization and more importantly "tame" or "harness" the power of the organization. One cannot easily control this power or sanitize the uniqueness. But it does give one insight and also suggests how one might focus resources and energy.

Values measurement of both the individual and the organization, allows for views of the organization to be made from different perspectives. Looking at organizational values on a human (individual) scale allows one to see patterns emerge depending on position of the observer. For example, the values can be looked at in terms of developmental, cyclical and dialectical orientations. These are simply different perspectives or levels of resolution for looking at organizational behavior. What once seemed eminently chaotic may actually have a sense of elegance and order.

Human beings when studied closely (by some) can seem to be some type of irrational decision-making machine. If not irrational, at least very complex. When you put a group of these people together it would seem that they would be unable to make coherent group decisions, let alone get decisions made inside large organizations. Yet people can and do make good and coherent decisions daily.

In fact, people often look at this (group decision making capacity) as a powerful intangible element of organizations. This intangible gets various names: corporate culture, soul of the organization, core values, etc. And it is considered a very strong element within these organizations. People (consultants) make their careers trying to divine this information for client organizations. Many people feel that if they can get a hold of this intangible that they can understand how their organization is going to act. But often times it is very difficult to get this information accurately and reliably.

This "intangible" piece is the human relational element or organizational values. All too often, organizational interventions or organizational consultants employ methods that have little or no focus on the values operating in organizations. It is this lack of understanding of the human relations context that makes organizations appear inherently complex. (Conversely, those that have come at it purely from the human relations perspective have not had the organizational or "big picture" view.) It is basically a psychological view versus a socio-organizational point of view. Most people view through the lens of one or the other, they need to look through both lenses to get the whole picture.

Part of this is because organizational values are non-linearly dynamic (there is not a A causes B dynamic). But it has been generally thought that values are not something that could be easily or properly utilized in an organization. More important, however, there has been no way to measure or compare accurately this values information. But if one introduces values measurement techniques such as suggested above then this issue can be addressed.

Chaos is basically the study of non-linear dynamics. To some people it may appear that individuals make irrational decisions when in fact they make decisions that use a different set of values. Why would this matter? Values are core to human decision making. A conflict in values orientation is going to make other decisions not seem logical. A common refrain that seems to bear this out is, "We always make decisions that way, this way makes no sense." Differing values orientations create this conflict. Keeping the values orientation congruent is key. Congruent values orientation make the organization more effective and efficient because it is not fighting the conflict of decisions based on differing values orientations. Consequently, values are the key to understanding how an organization makes decisions and moreover how they maintain effectiveness.

People like to make decisions with others that are congruent to their way of thinking. This natural tendency towards congruent thinking and decision making is a form of self organization. In an organization, the complexity of how individuals make decisions is distilled down because people will tend to focus on decisions that are closer to or congruent with others in the organization. Core values develop and patterns of decision making become apparent. Values, specifically organizational values, are emergent properties that appear in and allow the organization to organize around certain issues or ideas. This focus is what many people would term, "core values".

Organizational values are the patterns that emerge by measuring the values of the individuals in the organization. Determining core values is not a black or white proposition. The core values simply identifies a tendency towards a type of group decision making behavior. It has at its core: desired cultural behavior, consequences, communications, processes, norms and goals.

The values interaction in organizations is non-linear in that it does not provide the "answers" for what the organization will do, but allows a predictive power to be enabled to see how organizations tend to react given their organizational values orientation (or core values).

The patterns from chaos theory that values measurement allows us to take a peak at, only scratches the surface. In a sense, it only allows us to know, as Sally Goerner suggests, the "spirit" of the organization [Goerner, 1994]. Matching the values with goals and objectives goals and objectives makes for very powerful, effective and efficient organizations.

A unique element of organizational values seems to be the way in which it lives in individuals in the organization (values of the organization are contained within individuals). The organization can spontaneously reorganize while maintaining a piece of the values orientation. The organization always manages to maintain its identity. Again, it is this is this idea of maintaining the spirit or soul of the organization.

Chaos theory and values measurement can work together with organizational management techniques to act as an analytical tool for organizational development. As these techniques develop, I think that we will find that we will be able to harness the power of organizations. Maintaining their efficiency and effectiveness without removing any of the characteristics that make the organization unique.

This paper is part of on-going research in the area of systems and values in organizations.


M.C. Jackson, 1991, Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences, London: Plenum Press. B.P. Hall, 1993, Values Power. Santa Cruz: Values Technology. J. E. Robertshaw, S.J. Mecca and M.N. Rerick, 1978, Problem Solving: A Systems Approach. New York: Petrocelli Books. M. Rokeach, 1979, Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal, Free Press: New York. C.W. Graves, April 1974, "Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap", The Futurist, 8. R. Keith Ellis and Martin L.W. Hall, 1994, SYSTEMS & VALUES: AN APPROACH FOR PRACTICAL ORGANIZATIONAL INTERVENTION, ISSS 1994 Conference Paper, Asilomar, CA. Sally J. Goerner, 1994, Chaos and the Evolving Ecological Universe, Gordon and Breach: USA. Jeffrey Goldstein, 1994, The Unshackled Organization: Facing the Challenge of Unpredictability Through Spontaneous Reorganization, Productivity Press: Portland, OR. James Gleick, 1987, Chaos: Making a New Science, Penguin Books: New York.

posted by Martin Hall 9:58 AM