Information and inslulated systems

I'm reading The Unshackled Organization, by Jeff Goldstein, a 1994 book on how to apply the science of self organizing systems and non-linearity found in nature, to organizations and groups. It has the inviting subtitle: Facing the Challenge of Unpredictability Through Spontaneous Reorganization.

So far, what I get of it, he argues that contrary to popular opinion, groups and organizations want to change, or it's in their nature to change. It's part of their "non-linearity". Goldstein claims: "What is radically new about the self-organization perspective is that a work group or organization as a natural system will spontaneously know how to reorganize in the face of a challenge, if the obstacles hindering its capacity to self-organize are removed." 

On of the things that keeps the group in "equilibrium", standing still, is "the refusal to admit new information into the system". The group, whether an organisation, company or a smaller unit like a family, is insulated from receiving new information, therefore whatever happens will be interpreted according to the old ways of thinking, what Goldstein calls "self fulfilling prophesies". 

We must not think by this he means that the group lives on a deserted island cut off from everything, he means that information and "data" are different things. Data is fact and figures, "I am tired", without relationship to the other members of the group. Information would be "I am tired because my boss sent me to do this job". Goldstein defines it like this: "Information...refers to the knowledge that is available to a system of its own functioning, of the arrangements of it's parts, where each element is and what is doing". It's basically the members being able to reflect upon themselves and how they are working, as a group.

Standing still systems tend to diminish or defend themselves from this kind of information, the reflective kind. But in order to see change we need to let new information in, understanding about the group in the context of it's environment. This triggers the self reorganization, that would be a major point in the book.

Enough of the book. What triggered me with this passage was the experience of it, how groups, families and churches can't get out of their self-image and develop, they're stuck with the same problem definitions almost forever. They're closed as a system, and other people, a members or outsiders, that offer a different view, are excluded or censored in different ways. The reflection: "Isn't this a little weird" is of course very threatening for a leader that is just trying to deal with a situation.  This seems to be especially difficult in a culture like the Latin American cultures which are very hierarchical, free flow of reflections are really very rare. So far.

A positive example of this principle was a project that my convention, Interact, did together wit the Paraguayan convention we're working with. It was funded by the Swedish government (!) (My tax money at work) and was aimed at organizational development. It resulted in a lot of paper and goals and so forth, but it seems to me that what really made a difference afterwards was that the process gave the organization tools and time to self-reflect, to let new information into the system. And this the results of that are still emerging.

What to learn? 

• Always welcome other peoples reflections, even if they seem weird or from the "wrong" people", sift later
• If you lead a group, allow time and help them to reflect about how they work as a group and how they relate to their environment.
• Information, in this sense, will release change by itself.