The best way to understand Weick’s thinking about systems is to pay attention to his semiotic representations and linguistics. For example, in his first book The Social Psychology of Organising, he used over 60 graphics that speak to his thinking much more than his text. It is also important to look at his sources and who he studied.
For example:
- Glassman, R. B. 1973. Persistence and loose coupling in living systems.
- Miller, J. G. 1971. Living systems
This foundational work is the door of insight into how Weick thought of systems.
Weick certainly thought that systems were living, ecological, moving and adaptive things, that had a life of their own. Although he didn’t use the word, he inferred to systems archetypically and semiotically.
Weick also uses semiotic mapping to understand systems eg: (p.75)
It is through such semiotic mapping than one can see social relationships, a foundational interest to Weick.
Whilst many refer to Weick as a managerialist or organisational theorist, these are a sideline for his foundational thinking in Social Psychology. Indeed, this says much more about the reader (and their assumptions), reading into Weick and not actually reading Weick. If you want to understand Weick, the best lens to use is his lens, a Social Psychological lens.
I find it amusing in the risk and safety world where I read about something called a ‘socio-technical’ system (eg. Hollnagel) that has no social element in its thinking. Such language is common in safety and has no remote connection to the thinking of Weick.
If one understands the notion of Socialitie (see Meyer, Streeck and Jordan (eds.) (2017) Intercorporeality, Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford. London) as the foundation of living/being then, human organising is a social enactive/enactment. This is how Weick understood systems.
Socialitie is about ALL human social interactions that are:
- Intercorporeal
- Interaffected
- Intersocial
- Intersubjective
- Interconnected
- Moral
- Collectively Unconscious
- Metaphysical
- Ecological and,
- Phenomenal
If these are not foundational to your notion of personhood, then it’s not likely that you will understand Weick’s view on human living systems. If we put these characteristics at the foundation of human being, then what follows is Socialitie.
However, Socialitie by its very nature needs to be represented semiotically/relationally. If you can’t SEE the social-relational nature of these ten characteristics of human being, how can you perceive them at work with and in each other in Socialitie?
The following ‘map’ is an attempt to represent Socialitie.
This representation seeks to show a ‘living’ ecological system.
When anything is recognised as systemic (loose or tight) one knows that the movement of any part will affect all others. Weick states. (p.167):
Unless an evolving organization is a small part of the environment, its
actions will change the selection system implied by that environment. As an
organization increases in size it becomes its own selection system and quite
literally does impose the environment that imposes on it. It should be apparent
that distinction between organization and environment becomes hopelessly
obscured under these conditions.
One of the assumptions about tightly coupled systems is that the behaviour of the system is understood and manageable. Indeed, in a tightly-coupled system, the idea of tight control is admired and sought after. In risk and safety this is symbolised by the obsession with the language of ‘controls’ and ‘compliance’.
Weick however, knew that a trajectory of controls and compliance created greater fragility in the system (confirmed later by Taleb and Amalberti). This is because the removal of adaptability, bricolage, ambiguity, volatility, uncertainty and
equivocality, weakens systems.
The greatest enemy to an adaptable, evolving, versatile and flexible system is Zero.
The language of Zero in any system is the language of absolutes. Such language pushes the system to tighter and tighter controls, making the system less safe, less adaptable and less flexible. This energy to tighten systems is affected unconsciously by the semiotics and linguistics of zero discourse.
There is no greater threat in safety to an adaptable loosely-coupled system than the ideology of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/).
The same is facilitated by the idea of a Hierarchy of Controls. This semiotic in safety (yet another pyramid) also constrains the ability for loose -coupling. By making controls hierarchical the semiotic pushes the organisation to greater control and elimination of risk. This makes the safety management system less safe.
When one understands systems like Weick did as, ‘living’ and ecological, then none of this linear, hierarchical and rigid semiotics of safety make sense.
Yet, Safety loves its hierarchies, bow-ties, linear risk assessments (eg. fishbone, swiss-cheese) and rigid pyramids.
None of these models were ever taken up by Weick indeed, all his thinking about systems avoided any of such semiotics as dominoes etc. This is why the work of Heinrich is so dangerous. Heinrich’s pyramid is the enemy of any loosely-coupled system. The semiotics of all pyramids in safety seek to perpetuate rigidity rather than variation and bricolage.
Weick states (p.123):
Variations at the sociocultural level can occur between social groups, between members within a single group, or across the different occasions when a single group acts. In general, it is assumed that ‘the more numerous and the greater the heterogeneity of variations, the richer the opportunities for an advantageous innovation’
The goal in the work of Weick was not to eliminate variation, ambiguity or bricolage in systems.
In Weick’s understanding of systems, the goal was NOT to control the system but rather to learn how to work within it and be able to move within its mysterious movements.
Yet what do we see in the recent fixations on shifting blame from individuals to systems but the adoration of systems. Similarly, in Human Factors, where humans are made a ‘factor’ in a system. Again, the ideology of system worship is fostered by all of the recent S2, FRAM, RE, HOP trends.
The trap in these recent trends is the mistaken assumption that systems can be understood, knowable and controlled. Yet, the inherent property of any system is to move, adapt and evolve.
When thinking about systems, Weick was far more comfortable with a Transdisciplinary approach (eg. Eastern Mindfulness) than any single approach anchored to tightly-coupling systems.
Weick thought systems were more mysterious than known and that attaining wisdom to work within systems was the purpose of human organising.
Our workshops on Weick start tomorrow.
brhttps://safetyrisk.net/weicks-understanding-of-systems/
Prompt