Hi everyone,
I'd like to hear from each of you about where you are in your thinking about living systems (versus mechanistic systems) and adaptive leadership.
We had an amazing synthesis seminar last night (1/27/11). There were some wonderful connections made between and among our texts.
Now I'd like to have you think even more deeply about this concept of living systems and its relationship to Heifetz's concept of adaptive leadership.
What makes a living system different than a mechanistic one? When is it appropriate to use a mechanistic design in problem solving? What concepts or terms did you read about that fascinated you re living systems or helped you better understand mechanistic designs? How do these different concepts apply to adaptive leadership?
Lastly, I'd like you to explore the relevance of systems thinking in your own lives. Are any of you currently a part of an organization or group that views itself as a living system? If so, how are you organized? How is power shared, communication flow understood, problems addressed?
Let's talk! Let's listen!
Looking forward to your postings. Jane
A thought that I had concerning concept 4, Purposefulness in Context, in our Living Systems Vocab and Concepts sheet is intentionality, a word that was referred to. This concept stuck out to me as I feel it's relevant and needed to our current society. I believe living a life of purpose and passion is crucial. For instance, if communities were passionate about serving the homeless. When putting this passion into action, and being purposeful and intentional with those actions while keeping the big picture in view, lives could be changed.
ReplyDeleteI believe what makes a living system different than and mechanistic to me is.Mechanistic system feels there is no change. It's one way, one concept. Where as living systems, we grow and adapt to whats around us.It's always evolving.Living system breaks down the whole picture into other parts, dissecting that as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe it bests to use a mechanistic system when you need to get back on track, that could be when someone that assigns specific tasks to be accomplished. Uniformity in Colleges is another. I feel concept 5 self-adjustment is very important.For us to grow as a person, we have to have the ability to adapt. Our world around us is changing and we have to change with it.
I believe in my organisation that i work, we are a living system and mechanistic system. We grow as a company, we adapt to new technology and new ideas to healthcare.Mechanistic system plays a part of our organisation at work as well. Authority(bosses),patients come in and out the same way,who we will see and not see as a patient, We have one in power(CEO)or the board(Doctors)that makes the big decisions. We don't really have a say how the clinics are run(staff). I would like to see this change down the road, and give some power to the employee's.
I think that in today's world we need to adopt system's thinking. There are so many complex issues that call for a new way of thinking and adapting to those challenges. In systems thinking we not only look at our own issues but how those issues relate to the whole; we step out onto the balcony. However I think mechanistic thinking has a place in systems thinking because it is part of the nested system. It helps to take the outcomes from systems thinking and put a process in place to help get the actual work done. I think this it illustrated in the concept of Purposefulness in context. We need to continually look at the mechanistic systems that we've created to see if they are still relevant to the whole; how does what we are doing now affect the outcome. This is where adaptive leadership comes in to help shift the process if it is not working. I like the idea of intentionality in this concept. You have to know what your purpose is and be clear about it and realize the it is an on-going process. In order to keep moving forward you need to check and adjust.
ReplyDeleteThe company I work for is working toward a living systems approach. We used to be organized in silos where each business unit was like it's own little company. In the last five years we have centralized in the hopes of truly becoming a "global" company. Instead of making single separate decisions we have come to realize that we must collaborate with each other. The decision we make in one are will affect the whole company. It has become a more collaborative environment where, for the most part, every voice is heard and no idea is too small. Our CEO has called on everyone in the company to make a contribution to try to help move the business forward. I think it gives people a sense of community and pride to work in an environment like this. It is by no means perfect but I think the fact that the try to check and adjust as necessary means they are seeing the advantages. It's not always easy to get everyone on the same page but I think once people begin to see that it's for the greater good and can benefit them as well they will slowly change their thinking too.
I am fascinated with how organizations are structured to support purpose, creativity and productivity.
ReplyDeleteIf you too are interested, I suggest John Buck and Sharon Villine's book, We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy. The book explores the concept of sociocracy -- a way of designing circles within organizations that are empowered to lead, produce and assess as well as be connected to the larger circle (organization). Cool stuff!
We'll talk about it later in the quarter, but check it out if you're interested in reading about this kind of living system structure for organizations. Jane
I believe that organizations are living systems. Mechanistic systems can be universal. Mechanical organizations are “muscle-bound.” (Dr. Charles Alban) Using a mechanistic system when residing over an issue becomes necessary when you have an enclosed system, technical and social problems. Emergence is one living system I have only recently started to try and incorporate more into my life, personally and professionally. I think that living system number 3 is a home run for me. I center myself around the idea that I am not the only one that thinks or feels a certain way. I like to build connections where I can depend on others. Having a “network” to build up on is essential for sustaining MYSELF! I usually need to be able to bounce ideas or problems off of the ones closest to me. I need that support otherwise I often feel at a disadvantage. The only group or organization I am a part of is my family. We need each other and work off of each other. To be an adaptive leader you need to be able to adapt, rise to the occasion or take a back seat if needed. You become what the WHOLE needs of you.
ReplyDeleteA mechanistic system in problem solving almost seems necessary to come to one conclusion. A living systems approach to problem solving might take longer to come to a conclusion due to several different view points that need to be considered. I found the mechanistic approach of force-driven and top-down versus the living systems approach of imagination, aspiration, experimentation from all levels within the organization to be the most interesting concept. I wonder if there is a way to combine the two approaches so that you can still have productivity without losing creativity? Connecting this to myself, I used to work for an organization that structured itself to look like a living system but functioned closer to a mechanistic system. You were allowed to have your own ideas and use them although your ideas were all judged by people thinking about productivity.
ReplyDeleteOf all the concepts related to living systems I found that "purposefulness in context" was the most interesting one. Most of us live our lives the way we choose and rarely think of how it is going to affect others. Sad but true.
ReplyDeleteI find "keeping the end in view while at the same time recognizing that there is no end” very hard to do and I cant remember the last time I put that concept in mind before actually doing something.
If I do put this into practice, how do I know that others are as well?
I guess the whole point of it is that it doesn’t matter what other people do as long as we make sure that we’ve got ourselves in check.
I mean, somebody has got to step up at some point.
And hopefully, eventually others will follow.
Purposefulness in context
ReplyDeleteIn The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey refers to habit number two as “Begin with the End in Mind.” Purposefulness in context is similar. A leader must recognize and be able to define the outcome they are working to achieve. This is a concept I have found useful in almost everything I do. It ties into goal setting. It is hard to accomplish something if you do not know what it is you are trying to accomplish. It would be similar to taking a trip with no destination in mind. Having a purpose or goal programs the mind to see things, to be aware of solutions we would likely miss if we did not have a purpose or a goal defined. I believe to be successful in sports, business, school or almost anything in life, a person or organization needs a well defined goal or outcome in mind. How else will you know if you have achieved a satisfactory outcome? This may be one of the most important ideas for success. Know what you are trying to accomplish. Know your outcome.
In an organization or team activity it is also imperative that each member know the goal or desired outcome. It is also critical that each member knows their role in accomplishing that goal or outcome. This also requires strong leadership, not just authority.
In my current job I focus on goals and outcomes. I have a very clear picture of what I am working to accomplish for my clients and for myself. I have daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and a five year plan that I monitor regularly. I feel if I do not know what I am trying to accomplish I will have no chance of succeeding. Defined goals or purpose helps keep me focused on performing the correct tasks to accomplish the desired outcome.
The main differences I noticed between mechanistic and living system is that mechanistic systems are very stringent and have no room for variance. I liked the analogy of an assembly line. Same process over and over. Living systems thinks more about the relationship between things and how they work together.
ReplyDeleteI do believe there are a time and a place for both. For example, mechanic systems are great for creating a uniform product, such as a car. I would not want to purchase a car that may or may not work etc. There is a limit to this type of system however. If we think in mechanic terms only we risk losing creativity, diversity and the ability to adapt.
Concept 4 “Purposefulness in context” hit home the most with me. I think it’s important to be “aware of the near and far effect of our efforts.” An example would be a corporation that creates pollution in our environment. In their terms, they may feel that they are saving money and increasing the price of their stock, without realizing the effect their actions have on the whole. This all applies to adaptive leadership because we have reached the point where mechanic systems have reached its limit and we now need adapt our strategies in a changing environment.
At work I believe we use a mechanic system because we work in an assembly line type of process (on computers). I do think that my new boss does try to introduce living systems into our process. She commonly encourages us to give input on how to make things work better and be creative. She also talks a lot about how our process affects the larger part of the company.
I also took a great deal of interest in the idea of purposefulness and intentionality, but there was something under interdependence that caught my eye. The line reads:
ReplyDelete"This means to understand one thing completely we have to understand all things completely - making it impossible to understand anything completely."
This idea strikes me as very sad in a way, yet it also makes a lot of sense. You may think you understand one thing completely, but until you delve into each piece that makes the one thing whole, followed by each piece that makes those pieces whole, you really can't. It's like a tree with branches that go on infinitely. Each piece relies on the one that comes before it to promote the one that comes after it.
I also liked thinking about 2)Interdependence "This means to understand one thing completely we have to understand all things comlpletely-making it imposible to understand anything comlpletely" In Living systems things are always changing and adapting making it impossible to know things "completely"In this system you have to loosen the grip on certainty for positive growth. This idea is very different from Mechansitic systems that "values certaintly and predictability".
ReplyDeletethis is a continuation of my last post
ReplyDeleteIn regards to interdependence it is appropriate to use a mechanistic design in problem solving when there is a time constraint. For example when the problem to solve is getting a building built in time you have to be able to predict how many workers you will need and when you will need them. I view my immediate family, that consists of me,my husband, my 4year old and 1 year old, as a living system that works better when we are more accepting of change. We all share power of some sort including my one year old.
I think the main difference between a mechanistic system and a living system is the approach taken to problem solving. It can be appropriate to have a mechanistic approach regarding issues that are not up for discussion or change. I’m really intrigued by the concept of interconnectedness, and keep coming back to the physics parts of Isaac’s Dialogue when he talks about the invisible particles and how they are all linked. I think it’s vital to remember that connection when you are communicating. The organization where I work is a good example of the need for both types of leadership models. I run a preschool, so part of the day I work in an office, which is very mechanistic. Dealing with policies from the state and from my bosses is how I experience the mechanical side of things, but for the other part of the day I work in a class room, which is more of a living systems approach. The balance between the two works really well for me, but I definitely prefer working in the classroom, and adapting my teaching style to the needs of the children in my class. We have a really strong family based community, and that is where I see the importance of interconnectedness, because I always have to take into account how a situation or problem will affect not just me, but my staff, families, and students.
ReplyDeletei believe that Mechanistic system is something related to a rule. for exmaple a rule will never change once its made. similarily, i think that mechanistic system is something that will never change.on the other hand, however adaptive leadership is something that can be learned from others that are already leadership. For instance, adaptive leadership can gained through exprience looking at what others are doing and what kind of techinique that they are using.looking at mechanic system versus adaptive system on my own persepctive, i belive that we use both on our daily basis. For instance, i came from different country but after three years i have been adapted to the American system. ALso at the same time, the mechanic system apply to daily life in the way that following the one way rule and one concept. Lastly, since i never thought of a leadership before, it is giving me more chance of getting to the know the system and apply it later in my life.
ReplyDeleteI believe that because the world is a living system it is essential that the human race adopt systems thinking. As mentioned in class lecture, many of the global issues that the human race now faces as a whole are adaptive issues which cannot be solved solely with technical solutions derived from mechanistic ways of thinking. One concept in particular strikes me as an imperative way of thinking, especially for leaders, that is concept #4 purposefulness in context. The handout reads, "It means being aware of the near and far effect of our efforts, and the uniqueness of the contribution we make". I think we should expect leaders to be basing their every move on how the future will be affected. This is especially obvious when talking about environmental issues. On that same topic it is also important for the individual to consider how their actions affect the future of our environment. All too often we get distracted by our daily lives and we sometimes are convinced that our actions are not impacting the world around us. I feel that something that seems small to many such as, recycling your Starbucks cup should be recognized as a responsibility that we must adapt to having. Every time we enjoy a cup of coffee on the go it should be automatic to recycle the cup. The thought about how it will affect the future should be something that is deeply held in our minds eye. If you think of one cup as not such a big deal, then just for a second challenge yourself to use systems thinking and just imagine the result if everyone thought “it’s just one cup” and threw it in the garbage. What would the landfills look like? And what small steps can you take upon yourself to change that image? In the grand scheme of things we are minuscule and giant all at once.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the key difference in a living system versus a mechanistic one is the sustainability that the living system is based on. In a mechanistic system there are orders, rules, etc. that are created to make a rigid system that does not allow for any change. Any stress to a particular part of the system and it could jeopardize the continuance of that system. Living systems offer several layers of self-adjustment, give/take, etc. that allow for gliches and problems to be solved.
ReplyDeleteIt is appropriate to use mechanistic design in problem solving when a solution to a problem is needed regardless of the consequences that may happen due to the lack of planning or judgement.
The concept of nature and its cycles offer some valuable lessons in why living systems will always suceed over mechanistic systems. Discussions and groups using a living system approach is much more likely to explore the different depths of their problems and properly access them. Sadly outside of class, there are relatively low use of living systems in the context of human to human relationships. My employer is about as mechanistic as it gets and in my opinion it probably costs them millions of dollars every year.
I find self-adjustment to be the most important characteristic of a living system, one that allows for evolution and perpetuation of life in changing circumstances over billions of years. However, there is a disconnect between our conscious, which is often set within a rigid inadaptable framework, and our biological adaptive ability. There is certain utility for our conscious to have stable points of reference, as it helps us preserve our memory and identity. However, in the fast changing world of today a qualitatively different degree of flexibility is required for our minds to keep pace. Given that we have a high level of biological ability to adapt, it us probable that we would somehow cope with the changes. Nevertheless, the goal is not just adapting to the changes, it is also preserving our identity while doing so. Unlike in the living systems paradigm, we care whether or not we get turned into a different mental species. Thus, we have a cognitive task set for us to invent new ways of thinking and communication that would be both up to the challenges of the rapidly changing world and also would preserve our basic sense of self.
ReplyDeleteI believe the key differences between mechanistic and living system is that mechanistic systems is that one is seems to be very narrow-minded where as the other is open to change and perspective. Mechanistic systems appear to be rigid systems that don’t allow almost no room for change or ingenuity but I feel like it is the approach that is needed when things need to get done quickly and without much care for efficiency. A robot is what comes to mind when I think of mechanistic systems, it gets the job done the ways it’s programmed to, and no changes are made unless it’s reprogrammed. Living systems on the other hand offers plenty areas where input and change can be applied however all the input may be a problem when one is trying to reach a certain goal or solution within a very short time period. A human being is what comes to mind when I think of living systems (when comparing to the analogy if the robot), although we may do a certain task robotically every time, we can stop and make changes if its needed or offers betters results whether we notice it or an outside source reveals it. As a ‘living systems’ the human thinks more about the relationship between what is being done, its result and how they work together. I believe it bests to use a mechanistic system when you need to get certain problems solved done to certain specifications within a very specific time period, because it doesn’t leave you with much time to apply and put into action as well as complete it in a living systems fashion. I think concept 5 self-adjustment resonated with me the most because of my experience as an international student. When I moved to Seattle 2 years ago I took a very mechanistic approach I wasn’t responsive to my enrironment however that’s changed quickly when I applied the concept of structural coupling. Once I realized my initial approach wasn’t benefiting me I made the necessary changes so I could thrive out here, and that process is still in progressing today.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that living systems are in constant flux, requiring constant change. Almost like looking at a living organism that is constantly changing. While mechanistic systems, like a machine, changes very little. An adaptive leader must carefully use both of these I feel. Although I find adaptive leadership itself is very hard concept to understand. It appears to me that an adaptive leader may merely be a person who can sustain a dialogue amongst a group.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand mechanistic is an approach that forces one to give a solution to a problem. This way overlooks the consequences and ignores potential problems. The metro bus system in seattle, I feel, is a very good representation of a mechanistic system.
Lving systems are multilayered, and capable of change. Using discussions and dialogues to really get at real problems.
It seems as though with a Living System everything is constantly changing and adjusting whereas with a Mechanistic System everything seems to be locked in stone, no changes can occur unless you pull out a sledge hammer.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I’ve worked in both a Living System style of environment and also Mechanistic. As I reflect I realized that I really enjoyed working in the atmosphere that was more like a Living System. For example if one person was over worked or had too much on their plate, someone would come in with open arms to help assist in any way possible, to take strain off the first person. I certainly find myself missing the Living System style of work place.
I currently work for an organization that definitely is Mechanistic, there is no change, everything is constantly the same with very strict rules and procedures. Although, I don’t believe the industry I currently work would be able to function as a Living System. There are too many regulations that must followed precisely. The regulations are mean to keep everything exactly the same so that nothing falls between the cracks.
Personally in my career and life I think I prefer concept 5, self-adjusting! I find myself constantly adapting to whatever situation I may be in. Evolving and learning as I go, but learning to jump the hurdles that are thrown my way. I feel this is probably the most prevalent concept in my life at this point.
A major difference I see between Mechanistic and Living Systems is that Mechanistic Systems reject adaptation, whereas in Living Systems it is a necessity. The mechanistic design is surely useful in performing tasks with the goal of achieving consistency in the result, though systemically, I can't think of a Mechanistic System that is not tied to a larger part of itself that would benefit from the change-friendly philosophy of Living Systems thinking at some time.
ReplyDeleteFor example, mathematics is an area in which mechanistic designs are used to find a solution, though a living design can be very useful in teaching the subject of math to a variety of learners depending on their learning style and purposes. An adaptable living system in teaching reaches people on a larger scale than a stubborn mechanistic one.
A living system I can relate to is the labor support of a woman during childbirth. Together, the mother, her care provider(s, and her partner and/or support people work with the unpredictable phenomenon of labor, which requires major flexibility on everyone's part. Communication between all parties in the system is key in protecting the birth memories of the mother, and everyone must be in tune with her nonverbal cues. As progress occurs or stalls, adjustments for comfort and continuity are required.
It nice to finally have words to describe what I have seen in my work place and life. The morality of a mechanistic system is very symptomatic. You can feel that around you, but not always know why its happening or how to explain it. This is very helpful in diagnosing attitudes and swamp issues. Also, that the opposite is a living system and how we are engaged in this system and growing. So key to getting the best out of people. The adaptive leadership would then be the source of keeping the living system growing and providing the framework in which people could flourish.
ReplyDeleteThis might be alittle late but oh well, I would still like to give my opinion on this matter... if people dun mind. I believe we need to have an understand of how important both of these systems are in our world. Despite the mechanistic system being called an "old" and "obsolete" system in which are using now, it still plays an important role in our lives, particularly in our social systems. From our history, we can learn about all the good and all the bad things that the mechanistic system had done. With that knowledge we can combine what is good about the mechanistic system with this new way of thinking that we are learning and cast out the things we see as useless. That way, we can have the best of both worlds and with these combine ideas can create a new system that has the strength of the mechanistic way of thinking but also the flexibility of this new quantum way of thinking. This belief in combining and casting anyway things that are useless is attributed to the philosophy of Jeet Kune Do. This form of philosophy mirrors what we are learning in class and I recommend taking a look at it if anyone has time. Looks can be deceiving at first but deep down, it is all related to what we are learning.
ReplyDelete~ Steven W.