EPILOGUE
CONTRIBUTORS: Geoff Elliott, Roger James, GK VanPatter
Welcome to the Epilogue of this epic 3 part series on this important topic!
Conversation Content Overview:
Part 3 is 23 pages, approx 5,367 words
Part 2 is 26 pages, approx 6,438 words.
Part 1 is 21 pages, approx 4,550 words.
[ You can download this conversation as a PDF below ]
NOTE TO READERS:
Respectively we acknowledge that Professor Brenda Zimmerman (referenced in Part 2) died in a tragic car accident in Toronto in December 2014, shortly after some of the videos viewable on Youtube were published. Without agreeing or disagreeing with her approach we can acknowledge, in the context of this conversation, that her simple overlay of Simple, Complicated, Complex, Anarchy which Zimmerman tabled in 1999 stuck. That overlay appears today in most redesigned versions of Stacey Matrix, many swapping out the term Anarchy for Chaos. As a basic structure Zimmerman’s 1999 high level overlay turned out to be more popular than the original 1996 version of Stacey Matrix. The combine being the Stacey/Zimmerman Matrix. Hundreds, probably thousands of different versions now exist.
Geoff Elliott:
My final epilogue observations/concerns about Stacey Matrix fall into 4 basic themes:
Superficial Use
Lack of Definitions
Lack of Scales
Lack of Guidance
To be fair to Stacey he did abandon his matrix shortly after he retired from academic life, as pointed out in Parts 1&2 of this series..
Superficial Use
My overriding observation/concern regarding Stacey Matrix, but not necessary of Stacey is that the matrix appears to be referenced and used superficially with many people not realising the matrix sits at the tip of an “iceberg” and a need for the context for decision-making to be made explicit. This has been largely lost as hundreds of variations of Stacey Matrix now exist. Many have little connection to his original intentions and many ignore making context explicit.
For example, contexts/situations or problems which involve multi-dimensional issues such as influence and power of stakeholders, different perspectives, cognitive limits and bias (Kahneman); bounded rationality (Simon H), the challenge of impartiality; the observer and the observed phenomena Mahoney 1988). Context might include situations when data or information may be incomplete, corrupted or lacks currency.
Seasoned practitioners are well aware of the existence of a multitude of decision-making (support), tools and techniques which could be used in conjunction with the Stacey matrix including the Zimmerman variation, however in most superficial applications of Stacey Matrix, seen in social media this level of understanding is simply absent.
2. Lack of Definitions
Both Stacey and Zimmerman used words and phrases such as: “complexity, complicated, simple, innovation; change, systemic, far from certainty and mental models,” without providing from their perspective a useful description and definition”. What do these words mean and how are they used in practice?
Innovation simply means doing something new or different but it is not an absolute term. What is new or different for one organisation can be “so what” or business as usual for another organisation.
Often the words and meaning of complex, simple, complicated are, from Systems Thinking perspective, dependent on an observer’s perspective and are often conflated with CAS (complex adaptive systems). These are two different things. Describing something as “complex” does not mean it is a “CAS”. Furthermore, ideas on CAS taken from physics/ chemistry seem to be liberally applied to organisations as purposeful human activity and social systems.
At present, in 2025, there is no singular and agreed definition of a CAS. At the same time CAS are defined as being “adaptable” yet in the same breath people are also talking about system change!
From a Systems Thinking perspective; Complexity is a “belief system” not a methodology. It is subjective and a description assigned by an observer. Complexity theory is how physics explains: Evolution, the science of open systems, the importance of variation and variety, a dynamic and locally-emerging theory of change. “Complexity” begins to throw light on the basic difference thought to exist between ‘science’ and ‘history’.
In the former, explanation was believed to be traceable to the working of eternal, natural laws, while the latter provided explanation on the basis of ‘events. In this perspective we see that both aspects are present and that such systems are not described adequately by either ‘laws’ (their internal dynamics) or events (fluctuations) but by their interplay.’ (Prof Peter Allen)
To quote Roger J. “Complexity lies on a spectrum of systems defined by our understanding of the situation;
Mechanical - a systems whose behaviour is obvious and generated from the properties of the physical parts
Boltzmann – a system whose behaviour is obvious and generated from the properties of the physical parts at different levels
Complex – a system whose behaviour is not- obvious and generated from structural relationships in the assembly which transcends the properties of the physical parts
Living – a system whose behaviour is not-obvious and derives from the history of the physical parts at different levels”.
Some of the literature around Stacey/Zimmerman Matrix has muddied these waters rather than provide clarity.
3. Lack of Scales
A significant shortcoming of the Stacey/Zimmerman matrixes are the scales or more precisely the lack of scales used to define the axis of the matrix. It is the scales which indicate when a phase transforms from one state to another, e.g. “simple to complex”. Without scales defined the Stacey/Zimmerman matrix is a rather vague guessing game without transitions or boundaries defined. Again, this leads to a huge volume of others filling in the blanks via often superficial social media.
There is no indication in the matrix when a boundary from one state to state to another is crossed at a point in time. This issue is further exacerbated when it is noted that in systems thinking systems practice boundaries are recognised as being fluid and change over time.
Getting rid of much of the content inside the original Stacey Matrix a “lets just make stuff up” orientation seems to dominate the popular use of the much simpler Zimmerman overlay.
4. Lack of Guidance.
No doubt generating a high degree of frustration for many, the apparent lack of advice/guidance on how to use/implement Stacey Matrix in practice leaves open wide reinterpretation by many. There is noticeable tendency for people on social media to present the matrix as a template to be completed without a need to understand the words which populated the matrix actually mean or it is assumed they know the meaning based on popular social media culture.
Having said that, I am certain Stacey would have been more than familiar with the decision making models, tools and techniques already operational when he tabled his matrix so it is a mystery why there is so few pointers on how various models by others can be used in practice when moving from one phase (state) to another.
Stacey proposed the matrix to help with this art by identifying management decisions on two dimensions: 1. the degree of certainty and 2. the level of agreement. From a systems thinking perspective, issues or decisions are close to certainty when cause and effect linkages can be determined, diagram below. Given that multiple perspectives always exist, close to certainty, far from certainty, far from agreement, close to agreement will mean different things to different people.
The version of Stacey Matrix shown below was drawn at one point in time from the perspective of one observer, i.e. the constructor of the diagram. If the diagram was replotted by a different observer it would likely look different and different again if drawn at different points in time with different phase state boundaries. Such understanding rarely appears in Stacey Matrix related social media posts. With detailed guidance absent, Stacey Matrix floats in a sea of superficial interpretations.
Image Credit: Stacey Matrix, Source Internet 2024.
To honour Brenda Zimmerman's contributions to understanding complexity and social innovation Bob Williams wrote in Gedenkschri, [Memorial] 2014:
“The confusion, between simple/complicated/complex categorisations of an ontological ‘system’ and the simple/complicated/complex categorisations of an epistemological ‘system’ is rife in the evaluation field. It is at the core of the contingency argument, described next in this memorial volume. I often see Brenda’s framework used as descriptions of systems categories, not as ways of framing problems".
This is true, however, from a systems thinking practice perspective lack of transformation over time (phase state change) can be an indication of an underlying problem. There can be a link between phase states (categories) and the boundaries of an underlying problem, i.e. framing a problem.
There is also a question about organisations being capable of doing something new or different re the use of different decision-making models, tools and techniques in different contexts and at different points in time depending on the maturity and culture of organisation.
This is further confused when it is realised that people in organisations will always take a very specific world view (Ref: Mitroff and Lindstone). None of that is spelled out in operating instructions for the Stacy/Zimmerman Matrix.
Diverse Viewing/Decision-Making Option Examples 1959-1998
A personal – in my opinion .............
A technical view – the solution is this technology
An organisation’s view – the party line is.............
Ethical decision making.
The rational model (Simon 1979).
The model of bounded rationality (Simon 1979).
The incrementalist view (Lindblom 1959).
The organisational procedure’s view (March 1988).
The political view.
The garbage can model (Cohen, March and Olsen 1972).
The individual differences perspective (Keen and Scott Morton, 1978).
Naturalistic decision-making (Klein 1998)
The multiple perspectives approach (Mitroff and Linstone,1993)
Roger James:
It is hard to provide a better critique than that offered by Bob Williams in the Gedenkschrift to Brenda Zimmerman (1):
"A ‘problem’ is a social construction – observed inter-relationships influenced by particular perspectives and specific (often unstated) boundaries - a step along the way of an epistemological journey that hopefully will resolve or at least address this problem. Whatever the messy complex ‘reality’, we can describe that reality as if it were simple, complicated or complex.
This confusion, between simple/complicated/complex categorisations of an ontological ‘system’ and the simple/complicated/complex categorisations of an epistemological ‘system’ is rife in the evaluation field. It is at the core of the contingency argument.
I often see Brenda’s framework used as descriptions of systems categories not as ways of framing problems. That mistake is also made with other systems models, including the Cynefin framework (described earlier), although less frequently because of its construction and common description as both an ontological description of ‘reality’ and an epistemological tool to understand how to manage complex realities.
It creates considerable confusion with those developing and interpreting systems dynamics and causal loop diagrams.
It is my belief that we, the evaluation field, will never benefit from the power of ‘systems thinking’ until we understand the role of both the ontological and epistemological aspects of the systems endeavour. It’s the difference between what Derek Cabrera termed ‘thinking about systems’ and ‘systems thinking’ – a theme emphasised in my acceptance speech for the AEA’s Lazarsfeld Award." (Bob Williams)
[ (1) Critique of Contingency Frameworks. In, Gedenkschrift to Honour Brenda Zimmerman. Michael Quinn Paton (Editor).
Once you strip away the academic jargon - ontological or epistemological - the central point of "descriptions of systems categories not as ways of framing problems" is to distinguish between the systems categories as a phenomena in the world (material, concrete, real) or the way of framing as a phenomenon in the mind (imagined, abstract). The concrete perspective is descriptive of the past and the imagined abstract perspective is prescriptive for the future. Whilst the distinction may seem an indulgence in the diversions of Philosophy it has very real implications in the ultimate goal of introducing informed change.
There are 2 worst case pathologies at play: for the systems categories retrospective view we constrain our imagination to the current physical possibilities and for the prospective way of framing we can conceive of splendid nonsense (2) unrealisable in practice.
Our interest here is not to favour any one perspective over the other but to work with the interplay between different perspectives and appreciate the different aspects revealed. It operates as a productive contrast which we exploit to illuminate our creativity. (The field of creative problem solving contains many examples of such contrasts - convergent/divergent, the ambidextrous organisation etc.).
What do you do when you do what you do? (3)
To diagnose where and how and why the Matrix can be valuable we should start by thinking about the above question ..
[ (2) On the perils of taking abstraction too far ... “Computers’ use of symbols, like the use of symbols in language and mathematics, is sufficiently disconnected from the real world to enable them to create splendid nonsense. Although the hardware of the computer is subject to natural laws (electrons can move through the circuits only in certain physically defined ways), the range of simulations the computer can perform is bounded only by the limits of human imagination. In a computer, spacecraft can be made to travel faster than the speed of light, time to travel in reverse.” (Alan Kay)
[ (3) The connection between sensemaking and action taking is embedded in the mechanism of how we think. A rather crude TL;DR summary of the work of Humberto Maturana.
.. in language
We employ language to navigate between the world of the concrete to the abstract by assertions such as 'what if .. is like..' and we employ 'how can we?' to move from the abstract to concrete. Science as the champion of Observation uses Mechanism as the currency of ideation and corresponds to the material, Art as the champion of Relationships uses Metaphor as currency and lives in the abstract. In situations when we talk about Complex are we discussing the 'here and now' of the material system or the 'there and then' of an abstract interpretation? We use a single language but must be vigilant about which, of the multiple perspectives, informs our understanding.
.. in process
So many methods for dealing with Complexity describe the specifics of a process that takes us from the concrete observable of 'facts' through an abstraction process in order to develop constructs of what we need compared to what we have (the misfit) before identifying some changes that we can apply to the concrete situation. A representative illustration of this process comes from the Triz methodology (4):
[ (4) G. Cascini TRIZ-based Anticipatory Design of Future Products and Processes DOI 10.3233/jid-2012-0005
Our process of 'what to do' is a migration from the concrete (which Nelson describes as the Ultimate Particular (5)) of the situation to an abstraction to clarify the contradictions, or misfits, followed by a managed translation of the abstract solutions to the real situation. It is this last 'landing' step, of the abstract to the concrete, that is the most difficult and least discussed stage in the process - applying the instruments for a typical problem onto a NOT typical problem.
.. in decision making
This same cognitive process, navigating between the real and the abstract, is at work when we make choices. To decide is to follow the advice of Cybernetician Ross Ashby (6):
"The fundamental principle of decision on a finite quantity of information may be expressed thus: Use all that you know to shrink the range of possibilities to their minimum; after that, do as you please." (Ashby)
The systems categories help to assemble the evidence of what you know about the concrete facts of the situation to shrink the range of possibilities and the framing presents the different abstract perspectives which suggest the likely outcomes from the guess (do as you please)
.. with the Stacey Matrix
Advocates for the use of the Stacey Matrix would point to the success in clarifying a problematic situation and identifying a course of action. It may be that the framework is an aid to climb 'Mount Abstraction' but the important point is whether the matrix helps identify or validate the final re-entry step of abstract to concrete - specifically to answer what to do? The typical advice from the Matrix, such as probe-sense-respond or political solutions, is a weak and generic prescription far away from the decisive recommendations yielded by other sensemaking approaches.
This is the trap of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness often stated as “Do not mistake the map for the territory”. Moving between points on a map is easy, moving between places in reality can be difficult, even impossible.
We cannot think without abstraction. All the more important, therefore, to be aware of the limits of our abstractions. The power of abstract thought comes at a cost. The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness is to forget that cost.
[ (5) Harold G Nelson in The Design Way, figure 1.2, p31 is a handy illustration of the concrete <> abstract transformation embedded at the heart of design thinking. ISBN-10. 0877783055
[ (6) Ashby 'Chance favors the mind prepared', in Mechanisms of intelligence - W. Ross Ashby's Writings on Cybernetics ISBN-10 0914105043
.. on the Stacey Matrix
To return to the commentary on the Stacey Matrix the challenge is not specifically in the use of the Matrix, or its derivatives, but in its use in only one way under one perspective. It is to fail to recognise that the productive use of the Complexity Matrix requires the self-awareness of the dual perspectives of the concrete and the abstract. It is ironic that Ralph Stacey recognised the issue (7) with the dual perspectives of situations in his own criticisms of Systems Thinking.
" ... the idea of 'system' is an abstraction which we reify and anthropomorphize, forgetting that it is simply a conceptual device to think about what we are producing 'as if' it were a system." (Ralph Stacey).
The irony is that the same comment applies to his 'Complexity Matrix' and that using it as if it were concrete but knowing that it is abstract is the key to productive use. (A fuller description of the interplay between the concrete and the abstract is developed by Rosen (8))
So what to do?
To close I would return to read beyond the first line of George Box's dictum "Remember that all models are wrong" to the second line ... "the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful".
The error in application comes not from using either model (categories or framing, science or art) but using them when they are wrong. The essential skill is to recognising the presence of the errors, not the choice between models.
.. Similar To ≠ Same As?
The essence of Rosen's Natural Law is that we use material metaphors to explain abstract phenomena. The challenge here is when you are describing abstract features the use of any classification becomes 'leaky' (it is based around 'Similar To' rather than 'Same As'). The prohibitions that you adopt from the classifications which apply to a concrete 'Same As' designation do not apply to an abstract 'Similar To' - for example you could equally employ 'simple' recommendations to a 'complex' system and vice versa. The supposed benefits of the classification and the distinctions it offers to shrink the range of possibilities soon dissolves into the meaningless of specific exceptions.
[ (7) R Stacey in Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management: Meeting the Challenge of Complexity ISBN-10 0415531179
[ (8) A good place to start is on his description of Natural Laws discussed in Natural Law, the modeling relation, and two roots of perspectivism by Weckström but be aware as the title demonstrates it is full of jargon. DOI 10.1007/s11229-023-04092-8
[ (9) G Box in Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces ISBN-10 0471810339
.. and so?
"The origin of how I was brought up to say ‘look, if you think you are trying to understand something make very sure that you ask yourself questions about what you mean by understanding it; do you know the limitations of what it is you are on about"? (Reg Revans)
All too often the reassuring performance of the consultant locating your problematic situation within the Stacey Matrix is like any magic trick. It is impressive to watch, it can fool the audience entirely but what is delivered is at best limited and at worst a hoax.
Better to ask yourself: What do you understand about Complexity? To ask what mechanisms contribute to the features we recognise as complex and how can these be moderated? Better to ask where are the boundaries of different behaviours, not the boundaries between Complex and Simple.
GK VanPatter:
It feels good to round the corner on this one. It has taken some reflection to arrive at where I am on this Stacey/Zimmerman material. Happy to share what I learned from this conversation experiment. Aspects of what surfaced surprised me and other parts not so much.
Taking a relook at Stacey Matrix and its surrounding/interlocking philosophies has helped put numerous previously fuzzy consulting arena issues into more robust perspective. Particularly relevant to our NextD Journal readers, it is clear that some of Stacey/Zimmerman views cascade forward into today. To say this another way; Some of the consulting arena messes of today are clearly visible in the Stacey/Zimmerman materials.
Some good news is that from a 2025 perspective, the hiccups in that material, once recognized, represent significant rethinking opportunities for readers today with the hopeful goal of creating a better, more inclusive world at a time of great uncertainty. The tricky part is that some of this involves taking advantage of awareness that often stated intentions and the prescribed mental gymnastics are simply not aligned. Not always an easy thing to do.
I never met Professor Stacey or Zimmerman but did take the time to take a fresh look not only at the matrices but some of their print materials as well as numerous posted videos of their talks. From that I got a better sense of where the Stacey Matrix came from and how their approach to complexity and organizational changemaking had similarities and differences.
This conversation was a little travel back in time to the “knowledge management, knowledge creation" era, 1994-2012. It was an important era that we operated in ourselves as Humantific. For numerous reasons, neither Stacey or Zimmerman were major players on our radar screens at that time. How we operated then and now is quite different from what Stacey or Zimmerman had in mind.
Here are 8 hopefully useful observations, accompanied by 8 opportunities:
SHADOW LUGGAGE
ACCESSABILITY
ARGUMENTS AGAINST WHAT/WHO?
DEPICTION OF NEW
LADDERS & MATRICES
PROBLEMS OR SYSTEMS?
MATRIX MANIA / OVER-EMPHASIS
CLOSING / REFUTURING ENERGIES
1. SHADOW LUGGAGE
At the top of my short list of issues seen in Part 1 & Part 2 impacting the practice arena today is a “stone-in-the-shoe” type issue, not in the matrix itself but in the underlying foundational orientations, which I refer to here in this series as Stacey’s Shadow Luggage.
Respectfully, Professor Stacey had a robust evolution trajectory in his professional career, which makes understanding his work rather complicated. To compress considerable complexity here; there seemed to be two central chapters of Stacey each different from the other.
The Stacey Matrix which appeared in his Chapter 1 (later abandoned) is not a great representation of what he had in mind in his later Chapter 2 work, aimed in the direction of creativity in organizations. The journey that Stacey was on, the transition he was engaged in from economics to traditional management paradigms to the enabling of organizational innovation was not without difficulties that are embedded and visible in the literature. Stacey would often refer to himself as moving from the orientation, rules, understanding and operational logics of one “Thought Collective” to another. That is a useful construct which we can make use of here.
As reflected in the Matrix, his early focus was on championing, prioritizing, supporting convergent thinking, depicted in management lingo as “decision-making”, “control” and reacting to “change situations” not making creative change.
Stacey / Chapter 1: “I am interested in decision-making and control. The appropriate forms of decision-making and control depend on the nature of the change situation.”
Stacey / Chapter 2: “Explaining and understanding organizations is derived from the science of complexity. It is an approach that stands in sharp contrast to the certainty and generality of the currently dominant received wisdom about managing and organizing”
Big change! The complexity, the wrinkle is that although Professor Stacey evolved his focus, he kept much of his Chapter 1 convergent luggage.
The mind bender is that in his Chapter 2, Stacey wrote about and cautioned against “shadow” in organizational cultural contexts, but he had a rather profound blind-spot.
“Individuals co-construct both their individual selves and the world of other selves, and they do so in interaction with each other.”
“A person's mental models consist of the regularities that person has perceived in the complex world she or he has to operate in, and these models form the basis of the behavioral rules for operating in that world.”
Both Stacey and Zimmerman depicted “shadow culture” as rumors whispered in the back channels of organizations ("shadow system") that undermined official objectives ("legitimate system") rather than recognizing the default, hidden in plain sight shadow power dynamics present in their own convergent luggage.
“The shadow rules constitute a repertoire of thoughts, perceptions, and behaviors that are potentially available to an organization but are not currently being utilized for its main purpose. Instead, the shadow system serves a myriad of other diverse purposes that are often quite difficult to understand. These purposes range from individual politicking to unofficial efforts to support or sabotage the legitimate system…The boundaries of the shadow system are fuzzy and normally do not coincide with the clear cut boundaries of the legitimate system.”
The hiccup is that although Stacey can be seen in his literature and videos advocating the discussion of “what is really going on” in organizations that is a logic missing from the shadow luggage aspect of his own work. Clearly the rules, expectations, values and mental constructs of the Stacey/Zimmerman base-camp, the "Thought Collective" of traditional management prevented them from doing so.
Although Stacey embraced a dual approach (today known as Ambidexterity) that he depicted as “ordinary” and “extraordinary” “management”, the mindbender is that he seemed to never make the connection to the contradictory convergent shadow dynamic that he carried without acknowledgement.
Counterproductive to the building of “extraordinary” where divergent thinking is key, that convergent luggage dynamic, would have far more impact in organizations, then and now than any inventive use of Stacey Matrix. Curtain lifted; It’s the decision-support luggage that’s the problem in the jump to enabling innovation. The privileging of that luggage does not transfer well from one “Thought Collective” to the other.
It’s a blindspot that cascades forward into the consulting arenas today, with several outspoken consultants engaged in the same transition from traditional management/decision support orientations to the selling of innovation enabling, quietly carrying the same unacknowledged luggage.
Since we know that the table-top power dynamic found in most organizations today evolves around positioning convergent thinking (decision-making) as the highest form of value it’s not surprising that those carrying that luggage today can be seen advocating against strategically organized cultural change or even discussion in that direction.
These are complex Level 10 issues that innovation leaders need to be conscious of now. Of course it does not really work when innovation leaders are playing at Level 2 if the internal politics around unacknowledged dynamics is at Level 10 in terms of its sophistication. Adding into that mix external consultants advocating imbalance as it suits their orientations and needs, is not particularly helpful.
Making that luggage and those dynamics visible can significantly shift the power imbalance. At the end of the day neither psychological safety or inclusive culture building can be reached via privledging convergent thinking.
From my perspective, the unacknowledged Stacey Shadow Luggage, overpowers every other aspect of his Chapter 2 work. It was, it is, a dynamic hidden in plain sight. Once seen, that shadow luggage cannot be unseen.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
Moving away from that luggage is a prohuman move, not an abstract or political exercise. It is essentially advocacy for voices of divergence being sidelined and not strategically well represented. The opportunity is to first understand what it means to cognitively leave half your team behind. That is not something that any of us would do consciously but something that often is occurring right in front of us in organizations.
With awareness on-board, the opportunity is to jettison the Stacey Shadow Luggage by moving away from the privileging of convergent thinking (decision-support) in order to tap into and make use of the full cognitive potential of your organization and teams. As a 2025 innovation leader your task now extends beyond championing convergent thinking.
2. ACCESSABILITY
Near the top of that useful to readers list would also be that it's important to note not only the sequencing of Stacey then Zimmerman but also the difference in approach, not just to the matrix but to language and communication generally, which impacts collaboration, cognitive load etc. Zimmerman was not only building on Stacey’s previous work, she was, to a significant degree, transporting it to the land of plain language.
With lots of talk in consulting arenas around “meeting people where they are” it is plain language that does that and not the often stilted, complexifying, archaic language found in more academically, theoretically centered material. In large measure, Zimmerman was meeting aspiring business leaders “where they are”, while Stacey was meeting fellow professors and PhD students “where they are”. Big difference, not only in terms of delivering on the promise of accessibility but also enabling the syncing with other tools and approaches, geared towards plain language.
It is not difficult to see that some present day consultants are building forward with plain language use while other consultants have gone backwards to reembrace complexifying language constructs.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
It makes little sense to be talking about sensemaking if your approach has fully embraced or even extended competitive complexifying language volleyball. Plain language enables smooth synchronization with other tools and methods including *Visual SenseMaking and *CPS. The Visual SenseMaking community has for many, many decades understood that meeting folks “where they are” is not just about words. That Visual SenseMaking approach is like Level 10 “meeting folks where they are” instead of Level 0 which tends to shift all the heavy-lift cognitive responsibility to the participants, as if in a competitive boys club. The choice is there to be made.
3. ARGUMENTS AGAINST WHAT/WHO?
Reading materials being positioned as thought leadership including Stacey Matrix can be confusing in terms of understanding who the various contrarian arguments are being built against. The question of “who is out of step, Who needs to change?” in the argument is often not made clear. Highly infused with the logic, skills, orientations and values of the Graduate Business Management School “Thought Collective” both Professor Stacey and Professor Zimmerman made valid observations regarding the need for changes to the logics and approaches being sold there in their own tribal settings. It was the traditional logic of those schools sold to several generations of organizational leaders that they were building arguments against. In particular both pointed out that the tradition of spending big blocks of time on detailed planning was obsolete in the context of complexity.
In his Chapter 1, Stacey was not quite there yet but by the time his Chapter 2 arrived he was fully in transition. Where were Stacey & Zimmerman in transition to, while making their arguments? As was pointed out above both were in transition from traditional business management orientations to the innovation enabling business. Two very different orientations. Essentially what Stacey & Zimmerman were doing was trying to use their invented interpretation of one “Thought Collective” to drive change in a “Thought Collective” they wished to transcend. Simply stated, that was their play.
In their literature they were/are NOT making arguments against the folks, tribes, disciplines, who already were operational in that changemaking arena. In fact there is very little in the Stacey/Zimmerman materials to suggest that either of them knew that much about who and what was already operational in that innovation-enabling, complex problem solving, changemaking arena.
If they did know it seems unlikely they would be arguing for the continuation of considering convergent thinking (evaluative thinking, judgment thinking, decision-making thinking) the highest form of value. That’s the championing that gives them away as it flies in the face of what was then and is now known about innovation enabling.
The Stacey/Zimmerman interpretation of what goes into, what was for them a new “Thought Collective” did not well reflect what was already known, in practice communities outside their own. Reading Stacey/Zimmerman material requires some time travel unknowing of what was/is already known, which in itself can be challenging. Convergent thinking, (evaluation thinking, decision-making thinking) was not then and is not today the king of the castle in the innovation/changemaking arena in which they were arriving.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
I wish this picture was simpler but alas it is not. It’s useful to be aware that today, what is a tad perplexing is that some eager consultants can be observed trying to redepict/extend the Stacey/Zimmerman arguments which were in large part against their own tribal traditional management practices as argument against all fellow practitioners of changemaking. Suffice it to say there is no shortage of giant egos in play around this subject. Big red flag to watch for is that this is often occurring while those super aggressive folks are themselves carrying the Stacey Shadow Luggage. The opportunity is to leave that bullshit behind.
4. DEPICTION OF NEW
With a sense of humor I would also include on the learnings short list a phenomenon that came into view in the Stacey/Zimmerman materials and that is the narrative around “new”.
A challenge for anyone trying to do sensemaking in this subject is that some consultants were then and are today busy describing complexity as a new frontier, a new territory but then (knowingly or unknowingly) they depict as the new complexity approach, orientations and activities already long in play elsewhere, in parallel communities of practice.
The best example that I took note of while reviewing Stacey literature and watching the Zimmerman videos was the multiple part suggestion that complexity requires intervening at the level of interactions and behaviors with a set of simple rules and that this is a new thing coming from “complexity science”…according to Zimmerman from “biology”.
Reading some of the hyperbolic perspectives being tabled under the banner of complexity and “new” there is often a sense of Huh? :-)
Ten Example Quotes from Zimmerman:
1. “When you are doing things that are simple and complicated you can plan and control but in the Zone of Complexity that does not work very well."
2. “Checklists are great for simple and complicated situations. Minimum specs and simple rules are for when you need adaptability...
3. “You are not setting up the recipe or the checklist, instead you are setting up a set of pre-conditions or boundary conditions within which you want people to behave, leaving lots of room for creativity and adaptability.”
4. "Complexity Science suggests that if we are going to have really impactful interventions we need to intervene at the level of interactions.”
5. “Can we intervene at the level of interactions and can we set the simple rules?”…"The idea of simple rules comes from biology”
6. "Ecological resilience is the ability to adapt and have deep change for creative destruction...to continually learn from surprises. This is what the complexity lens brings to our talk here….”
7. “In complexity the unit of analysis switches from the parts of a system to the rules of relationships or interactions between them.”
8. “In complex systems what we are trying to figure out is what are the explicit or implicit rules of relationships that are going on and can we intervene there because even a small change there might change everything. That is the power and optimism we take from a complexity perspective.”
9. "Complexity can be an unbelievable opportunity for innovation. For novel recombination of elements…It's also an unbelievable opportunity for adaptability."
10. "If we can change the rules of interaction maybe the parts themselves become less significant….Emergent outcomes are shaped by “min specs.”
The notion of “checklists” as the norm at that time must have presumably been referring to their traditional management “Thought Collective”. It was not applicable to any community already involved in complex problem solving, organizational transformation, innovation enabling or strategic design. If presumed so that would have been a total misreading.
In terms of "new", orientation towards interactions, behaviors and simple rules as well as making no assumptions around challenge framing existed in other communities of practice, in particular, within the behaviors-oriented *CPS community for many decades before Stacey and Zimmerman arrived.
In his 1996 book, Complexity and Creativity in Organizations Stacey referred to "providing space for novelty" as part of "an entirely new perspective on what it means for organizations to learn" but perhaps unbeknownst to the traditional graduate business school management "Thought Collective" it has been known in the *CPS community since the 1950s that such space making is not accomplished by privileging convergent thinking.
One might ponder: What does it mean when some academic leaders, some consultants depict these basics as new frontier dynamics springing from complexity science? Who is the intended audience for such narratives? The desire to differentiate in academia and in practice often seems to override common sense, a recipe which can create muddy waters.
Of course, like the notion of “best practices”, the notion of “new” is a relative term. New to the graduate business school curriculums, faculties and audiences with such backgrounds might not be new in the context of enabling innovation practice at that time and now.
5. LADDERS & MATRICES
For our model creating readers let’s acknowledge that ladders and matrices are two different things. The Stacey Matrix is not really a “matrix” but rather a complexity ladder turned sideways at 45 degrees. Stacey populated his angled ladder with content related to decision support, an interest and orientation seen in his early work, as pointed out earlier.
As mentioned in Part 2 of this conversation, many complexity scales and ladders can be found in history dating back to Aristotle’s Ladder of Being created in 300 BC, with hundreds, probably thousands, of variations cascading forward across centuries, under various names including; Ladder of Abstraction, Ladder of Inference, Ladder of Complexity, Model of Hierarchical Complexity, Complexity Scales and Complexity Matrixes.
Acknowledging that the complexity scale/ladder/matrix idea is not new, clearly it is what goes inside, whether that makes any sense or not, that matters. Today some frameworks reflect the logic that complexity is relative to each viewer while others veer into being prescriptive which tends to reflect the presumptions of the framework creator, rather than each viewer’s input.
Zimmerman and many others arriving later seemed to strip much of the decision related content out of Stacy Matrix/Ladder and adapt the content for use with other units of consideration (not just decisions) as was pointed out in Part 2.
Zimmerman later introduced several additional models, including a simplified 45 degree angled ladder abscent the term Chaos.
Image Credit: The Zimmerman Framework for Defining Complexity, from Getting to Maybe, Westley, Zimmerman, Patton, 2007
Long story short: It is not found in the Stacey/Zimmerman materials but today we know that the ladder logic of moving upwards towards more complexity can be connected to how Open Systemic Challenge Framing (not found in systems thinking or design thinking) is constructed while the 2x2 matrix and various grid logics seem to be one-offs not interconnected to other tools.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
Since no one person or firm owns the terrain of matrix/ladder making, there is nothing stopping ongoing widespread R&D, rethinking and experimentation in that direction. Many different Matrix versions already exist, some adding to clarity and some to confusion.
With the holes in the present approach understood, there is plenty of opportunity to move matrix/ladder making reinvention forward into a new generation not tied to the shadow luggage, complexifying language, presumptive "best practice" or unenlightened process scripting.
Zimmerman was building on and rethinking previous work and so can you. The R&D cycle continues.
6. PROBLEMS OR SYSTEMS?
As was artfully pointed out in the Zimmerman Memorial there continues to be some confusion in the systems thinking community regarding what the Stacey/Zimmerman Matrix was intended for. While Stacey was narrowly focused on decision support when he created his matrix, Zimmerman was most often referring to problem categorization, not systems. Of course decisions, problems and systems are three very different things.
Image Credit: Dimensions Defined, The Zimmerman Framework for Defining Complexity, from Getting to Maybe, Westley, Zimmerman, Patton, 2007
Switching from consideration of decisions to the consideration of problems Zimmerman kept the Stacey Matrix dimensions of "Certainty" and "Agreement" adding "Predictability" somewhat oddly regarding "how to solve a problem".
It would be fair to say that was not, is not the central focus or concern in the *CPS "Thought Collective" especially in complex organizational settings where often what the problems actually are is fuzzy and unknown at the outset. *CPS has other "fish to fry" other than debating problem "Certainty", "Agreement" and "Predictability".
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
Be clear what your team is looking at. While systems tend to be visible, fuzzy problematic situations are often not at the outset. It is true that inside organizations not one type of challenge, but many types, simple, complicated, complex typically coexist. Lets be clear that matrix guessing gaming including the Zimmerman Framework for Defining Complexity is not systemic challenge framing.
7. MATRIX MANIA / OVER-EMPHASIS
With roots in Stacey Matrix, the matrix mania that now exists seems to be a testament to wide-spread interest in, some might say addiction to, soundbite-Instagram,- X, - TikTok-like logic, over-simplifying complex fuzzy issues, and gaining a rapid, low investment feel-good sense of mastery.
With the help of technology are our collective attention spans shrinking while the challenges facing us grow more complex? In sensemaking and changemaking practice it is certainly something that we think about.
It might be useful to readers to point out that matrix mania has gotten to the point where the simple use of a matrix framework is being sold as equivalent to actual intervention skills. Whether it makes any sense or not, today it’s an easy sell to convince folks that matrix guessing games are as significant as the skills needed to actually undertake changemaking interventions. Lets not miss the irony of the matrix mania over-simplification occurring in the age of complexity. Always good to have a sense of humor in this business..:-)
Often seen inherent in the matrix guessing games is the proverbial "matrix hat-trick", the giant feel good presumption that the skill sets needed are somehow already present, just sitting there, fully fleshed out in the organization and ready to be pulled from a hat, instead of expressing more realistically skill abscence. Of course the acknowledgment of skill absence tends to put the team and the organization on a different time line.
The punch line in the real world is that many organizations struggle to master, and scale, one hopefully adaptive changemaking skill set. The notion that multiple skill sets synced to the scale and complexity of challenges being faced are already on board and geared for activation is part of the rather over-simplified, feel-good, matrix guessing game fantasy vibe.
The up-front application of matrix guessing games seems to be roughly equivalent to a pre-consult where participants make some guesses, often without adequate information, that feeds into further investigation. Other than deciphering the language code of the various matrixes, matrix guessing is not a particularly heavy lift. Enlightened readers get to decide how much time you want your organization to spend there.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
Some good news might be that heavy use of matrix guessing game frameworks tends to eventually generate awareness among leaders responsible for changemaking that something more robust is going to be required to undertake actual interventions.
Matrix mania does tend to exist in a parallel universe to the R&D of actual intervention methods, tools and approaches. In itself, matrix mania does not represent the focus or the current state of the sensemaking and or changemaking communities.
CLOSING / REFUTURING ENERGIES
As practioners for 2+ decades, we are well aware that taking on the role of speaking up for the whole instead of silently supporting comfortable, not inclusive current state imbalance is not for the faint-of-heart. Critism of cognitive imbalance is fighting the good fight if it is one that you believe in.
It is true that in some contexts that advocacy can be perceived as rocking the boat, speaking inconvenient truth to power, etc. In the midst of such undertakings it's useful to keep in mind that although imbalance, convergence in particular, is deeply rooted in the old paradym, that is really not the direction collective "we" are heading in....:-) One quite straightforward aspect of the complexities facing collective us is that we are going to need all brains on deck to get out of the giant world mess we are collectively presently in. Championing convergent thinking is not going to get that job done. Now the job of leadership is bigger.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
In the face of high conflict politics and or strategic uncertainty around culture building get some help...:-) Happy to share: Building Strategic Psychological Safety below.
Hope this is helpful readers and good luck to all.
End.
Appendix A
“ZIMMERMANS NINE PRINCIPLES OF WORKING WITH COMPLEXITY:
View your system through the lens of complexity in addition to the metaphor of a machine or a military organization.
Build a good-enough vision. Provide minimum specifications, rather than trying to plan every little detail.
When life is far from certain, lead with clockware and swarmware in tandem. Balance data and intuition, planning and acting, safety and risk, giving due honour to each.
Tune your place to the edge. Foster the “right” degree of information flow, diversity and difference, connections inside and outside the organization, power differential and anxiety, instead of controlling information, forcing agreement, dealing separately with contentious groups, working systematically down all the layers of the hierarchy in sequence and seeking comfort.
Uncover and work with paradox and tension. Do not shy away from them as if they were unnatural.
Go for multiple actions at the fringes, let direction arise. You don’t have to be “sure” before you proceed with anything.
Listen to the shadow system. That is, realize that informal relationships, gossip, rumor and hallway conversations contribute significantly to agents’ mental models and subsequent actions.
Grow complex systems by chunking. Allow complex systems to emerge out of the links among simple systems that work well and are capable of operating independently.
Mix cooperation with competition. It’s not one or the other.”
*Visual SenseMaking, CPS (Creative Problem Solving), Ambidexiterity, Organizational Transformation, Innovation Capacity Building and Psychological Safety are six of the numerous communities of practice that Humantific participants in and contributes to.
Related Materials:
Complexity and Management, Stacey, GRiffin, Shaw, 2000
Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations, Ralph Stacey 2001
Download this conversation as a PDF:
Comments