Prelude to a prediction language

Before I explain the approach I'm developing of a "prediction language", there are four facets of predictions that lay the groundwork for my explanation.

In his book: On Intelligence, Jeff Hawkins reveals his extensive research into the neocortex. He's found that the brain cells are the same throughout the entire surface, even though regions appear to specialize in particular capabilities. Experiments have shown that portions ordinarily used for one function like vision, can be used for another like hearing without complications. This uniform sheet of cells is comprised of several layers which organize processing into levels. This neural structure dismissed understanding regions of the brain as dedicated processors hard wired to particular inputs. Our intelligence appears to use the same processing pattern for every kind of input. Jeff Hawkins has concluded that pattern makes predictions, checks for accuracy and revises those predictions as required. The Wikipedia article on his Memory Prediction Framework goes into great detail about the functioning of our neocortex regions.

In their book Made To Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, Chip Heath and Dan Heath suggest making things memorable for people by "breaking their guessing machine". Relying on the research of Robert Cialdini, they suggest that it really gets our attention when the thing we were expecting to be said or shown to us does not happen. The Polynesian winters are usually fragrant with blossoms. We instantly wonder "where did that come from?" and "what will happen next?". The fact that we are constantly making predictions and expecting what's familiar, continuous and coherent creates opportunities for getting others' attention. We can either defy those expectations, lure people into making false predictions or give them a tease of what's essential to make an accurate prediction. This is the art of creating hooks, captivation and suspense in storytelling.

In his book: How We Decide, Jonah Lehrer shares lots of research findings in a very readable prose style. Our continual use of predictions makes more sense in light of cognitive patterns like these five:

1. Our domamine neurons develop recognizable patterns which then trigger a "funny feeling" when something is off that we're not consciously aware of
2. We learn by getting familiar enough with something to form an expectation of how it works, (relates, makes sense, etc.) and then revise those expectations if they get proven wrong.
3. We can get a feeling faster than thinking about a situation in flux that accurately predicts how to respond (throw the pass to a receiver not yet in the clear, look for an engine fire, etc.)
4. The anterior cingulate cortex prevents erratic and ineffective behavior by detecting prediction errors and keeping these predictions up to date as things change
5. When we're faced with erratic returns (gambling, news watching, gaming, shopping, social networking, etc) that defy forming reliable predictions, we get thrilled by it, misjudge the evidence and likely get addicted to it.

In the book I reviewed earlier this week: Management Rewired - Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science, Charles Jacobs explores how we desperately cling to some of our predictions. When we're getting pressured or rewarded for changing our mind, we will likely balk at the opportunity if it generates cognitive dissonance. We predict that we will lose face, respect, confidence, justifications, or even deeply held beliefs -- if we go along with changing our mind. We will resort to subtle maneuvers to sidestep the confrontation by giving it lip service, sabotaging it later or lying about it. This dysfunctional drama gets played out in reaction to most conventional management methods that are designed to control, intimidate or manipulate employees. It won't stop until we respond to what others are perceiving, processing and insisting on with their predictions.

From all this reading in cognitive neuroscience I've done, I've come to the following conclusions:

• Just as our minds seem hard wired to comprehend stories, they also seem equally predisposed to get oriented by predictions.
• Since we're constantly making, verifying and updating predictions, a framework that supported making better predictions would be perceived as inherently useful and understandable.
• A framework for making quality predictions could keep us out of the trouble we get into when we cannot make reliable predictions on our own.
• Our brains already speak a language of predictions in the process of handling sensory input, recalling memories, making decisions and responding to situations.
• Speaking that language could quickly enhance decisions and responses that are essential to working more cooperatively and collaboratively in the next economy.

Adding process and pattern into the mix

Conventional pattern languages resolve the tensions between form and function in a particular context. The uses of a form gives rise to the design of a form which makes it easy and more likely to use the form. Patterns get applied to locating entrances, parking lots and walkways on a building site with limited space. Patterns improve GUI's (graphical user interfaces) by considering how users function when faced with too many pull down menus, buttons, pop-up windows and scroll bars to orient themselves among. Patterns also simplify the design of modularized software programs by incorporating best practices into the structure and coding when the complexity of the software exceeds anyone's ability to comprehend. In each of these applications, form and function combine into a closed cycle.

On the surface there appears to be nothing wrong with form and function serving each other. It creates lots of useful forms, functional structures and effective designs. Yet patterns for resolving tensions between form, function and context are like an automobile with no transmission and with no place to go that's better than where it's at. The auto fits into the garage with room to open the doors, starts easily, idles smoothly and seats the passengers comfortably. The auto has a form that is functioning superbly in the context of a garage with limited space. That's good enough for things like buildings, tools, appliances, user interfaces and every kind of infrastructure. It's not good enough for people who are relating to colleagues, learning new skills, changing their minds, collaborating with others, providing leadership, generating content or anything else that's distinctly human. Those situations call for adding process and pattern into the mix. An example makes this point better than an explanation.

A college student has an answer to the question: "What's the use of going to college?". That student is using college to get a diploma and an entrance ticket into the world of bigger paychecks, less unemployment and increased access to credit. The form of the college experience functions as a support system for getting a diploma. The system routinely produces the result and proves its functional fit with the student's use of it. Both the college and the student congratulate themselves on "mission accomplished". No questions asked. No alternatives considered. Never mind that the student failed to get an education, destroyed any future love of learning, and developed a chronic dependency on authority figures for instructions, deadlines and evaluations.

By adding process and pattern into the mix, all this changes. A distinct pattern get recognized among a wide variety of college students. It detects that some students only want a diploma while others want exceptional grades for scholarships, grad school or research positions. Some others want to learn how to think critically, explore new knowledge domains, formulate better questions and otherwise get a real education. A final cohort seeks added self-confidence through learning by teaching others, expressing themselves, and reflecting on what happens to them each day.

A process then gets added for migrating inside this pattern from one functionality to another. The college invites, orients, facilitates and encourages the change from or to getting diplomas, exceptional grades, a valuable education or a set-up for life long learning . If the system regressed to only supporting those seeking diplomas, red flags would go up. The loss of functionality would launch remedial action to restore the full pattern and process for moving between components of the pattern.

Whenever process and pattern get added into the mix, the outcomes are emergent from the complexity. Nobody is making users move between pattern components, but lots of movement occurs. The process for changing is not imposed on the users. The relative proportion of those in any one cohort depends on the combined effect of every relationship experienced by the users. The functionality is fallout from the synergy between the form of the system and the idiosyncratic uses made of it by its users. It's as if the car changes gears all the time and gets down the road to someplace better routinely.

Resolving disconnects between form and function

Form and function often get disconnected with the result of ineffective, useless or non-existent outcomes. We speak of the disconnect between form and function as:

• It was intended to solve a problem but it created a bigger one instead.
• It worked pretty well in a different situation, but not at all in this kind of a mess.
• It looked good on paper but it played out much differently than expected.
• It was a great sales pitch but nobody bought into it like they should have.
• It was the accurate thing to say, but it backfired when it came across as a putdown.
• It's only giving them what's required while depriving them of what they really want.
• It looks good on the surface, but it's loaded with costly consequences.

We get into disconnecting function from its form in lots of different ways that we all have experience with:

• Making something out to be an ideal solution that polarizes the issue into extreme alternatives.
• Making added trouble for ourselves by inadvertently feeding the problem and fueling our opposition.
• Making ourselves right in ways that make others wronged by our self-righteousness
• Making unwanted conditions persist by resisting the lesson or shooting the messenger.
• Making a thing of something in isolation that is really an ongoing process for balancing several things in combination.
• Making it impossible for the natural order to emerge by imposing a contrived order in its place.
• Making the collaboration into a vicious cycle that drains the energy of everyone involved.

Connecting form and function occurs naturally when we open ourselves to innovating:

• Finding the middle ground between polarized extremes that emerges as the "best of both" or "two sides of the same coin".
• Starving the problem and our opposition's vengeance by going along with it, joining the flow in it or giving into what's it's becoming.
• Making others right in ways that make us seem wise, insightful and inclusive of many viewpoints.
• Turning the adversity into a lesson to be learned or coded message to get understood before proceeding any further.
• Making a thing of the process of growing things from seed, keeping things in balance or combining more things together.
• Discovering what it wants to be, what it becomes when it's free to explore itself and what its meant to contribute to the greater whole.
• Forming virtuous cycles where further collaboration feels energizing, inspiring, validating and nurturing.

With the two new frameworks I'm developing, I am resolving several complex disconnects between form and function:

1. I'm addressing the micro scale of societal evolution. This sets up changing one mind at a time by giving people the feeling of getting understood by a narrative of relational grammars; where the macro scale inadvertently gives people the feeling of getting misunderstood by the imposed narrative inherent in a societal evolution of forms.
2. I'm addressing quadri-functional relating between people. This invites fluidity between many practices, roles, contributions and interactions; where quadri-form societies can have the unintended effect of inviting personal role fixity, organizational rigidity and toxic stereotypes.
3. I'm addressing the combination of form & function with process and pattern in a given situation. This supports making better predictions about what will work and prove to be beneficial; where the combination of situated practices unintentionally plays into analysis paralysis, avoidance of chaos and failures to innovate.
4. I'm addressing the use of a prediction language. This sets up emergent outcomes from the inherent complexity in the situation and from the transformational potential at the level of adopted narratives; where the use of a pattern language burdens designers with taking heroic action to solve every apparent problem.

Two new frameworks

As I've worked with David Ronfeldt's TIMN framework for societal evolution, I've realized how well it fits macro scale patterns throughout history. His framework also captures lots of the features of a quadriform society that is currently emerging on our planet. As I've sought to apply this framework at the micro scale, where relational grammars make the most sense, I've gotten into problems with words, labeling, over-generalizations, and anthromorphizing inert structures. These problems have proven to create a perfect context for innovation. The new framework that has emerged explores micro scale patterns of evolution that appear to scale up and be "writ large" on the global stage. These patterns deal with the functions, value, effects and other differences made by ways of relating, rather than societal forms. This framework will be easily spoken of with verbs which escape the problematic nature of nouns.

As I played around with Dave Snowden's Cynefin framework for differentiating situated practices, I've realized how it can approach problems with better strategies. I've seen the parallels between best practices defined by this framework and pattern languages I first utilized as an undergraduate architecture major. As I've sought to apply this framework to micro scale evolution, I've run into another set of problems. This framework does not fit with all I've learned recently about cognitive neuroscience and emotional baggage. It does not answer the questions I have about inter-relating for resilience and sustainability. It falls short of addressing the two kinds of change and self-referential dynamics that can induce transformation. It does not incorporate processes like those in the title of this blog; growing, changing, learning, creating. It became clear to me this morning that pattern languages can be used to resolve the tensions between form, function and context. However, it takes what I'll call a "prediction language" to resolve those concerns along with processes, patterns and the ways our brains work.

Both of these new frameworks call for lots of exploration and explanation in the coming weeks. Stay Tuned!

Where to begin?

Brett Miller has been pondering the use of the Cynefin framework in approaches to deliberate practice. Where I have begun my charts with Chaotic situations and ended up in the Complex domain, he begins in Simple and ends up in Chaotic. I've included his chart here. In response to a comment I left on his blog, Brett said:

When I look at something like chess or t'ai chi, for instance, I have a systems engineering kind of approach looking back to the beginning of the game. By the time someone today starts playing, all of the rules are well known and straightforward, and this is where all beginners start out - simple. Through training, experience, and deliberate practice the player becomes better equipped to handle complicated, complex, and ultimately chaotic situations.

This got me thinking about these two different starting/ending quadrants, different meanings to the concept of "Novel Practice" in the Chaotic quadrant, and different contexts where the Cynefin framework might be applied. To end up at "Novel Practice" reminds me of the Zen concept of a "beginner's mind" that I characterized as "keeping the train of thought on the line of reasoning" in my post: Derailed by emotional baggage. Amidst turbulent unknowns, we are very vulnerable to being too smart for our own good, too captivated by our own thinking and too experienced to let go of our familiarity. We are better equipped to take whatever comes along when we are innocent, aware and receptive.

To end up in the Complex quadrant with "Emergent Practice" for me evokes Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's concept of the deeply satisfying "Flow State". Time stands still while a sense of what to do comes to mind. We remain sharp minded while no longer striving to make things happen. This correlates with the Zen concept of "wu wei" (non-doing or effortless action). Both end points are indications of mastery like the outcomes of 10,000 hours of practice that Malcolm Gladwell explored in Outliers - The Story of Success.

I also realized it may make a huge difference whether the process can get started right away. When we can jump right in, I see the pattern of beginning in Chaos and ending up in Complexity. When a lot of advance preparation gets involved to qualify for a first start, I see the opposite pattern of beginning in Simple and ending up in Chaos. Here's some examples of the two kinds of situations:

• When we're thinking of writing our first blog, the number of possible, enjoyable, and familiar topics to write about seems overwhelmingly Chaotic. There is no good or best way to choose the right topic to focus a blog on. It's better to simply begin, acting without a plan and see what direction evolves. When we're preparing to develop a new blogging platform to compete with Blogger, WordPress and the rest, we cannot jump right in. We have to start out on Simple programming tasks like exploring the use of particular library patterns for social networking software.
• When we're getting our first cell phone, most think there's no need to start out with an extra-simple phone. New consumer technologies offer an opportunity to dive right in and figure out the feature sets by experimentation. We can mess around to see what works without a plan, even though the number and complexity of the features can seem Chaotic. When we're getting our first suite of software products for making professional videos, interactive tutorials or print publications, it's imperative to start with simple tasks. The possibility of getting overwhelmed and defeated looms large.
• When we're learning in simulation, we can start out crashing airplanes or tampering with urban planning without hesitation. What it takes to keep the plane in flight or the city out of decay appears so Chaotic we can only take action and see what happens. That how immersive scenarios expect us to learn. When we're practicing the flight of real aircraft or urban planning for a real city, we've got to start with Simple tasks to stay out of serious trouble.

It then follows that the societal evolution in the TIMN model gets started without preparation. Tribes form without advance certification training. Institutional forms of governance start to oversee the tribes and provide some infrastructure without a prior history of starting governments. In those contexts, starting with the "Novel Practice" in the Chaotic quadrant fits.

Exploring ubiquitous complexity

I spent part of yesterday online learning how the Cynefin model has been talked about and utilized since the Cynefin Centre separated from IBM in July 2004. It's been widely used to analyze and categorize situations, as if the Cynefin model is a "good practice" that applies in complicated situations. In simple situations where consultants have formulated some proprietary "best practice" model of their own, the Cynefin framework gets a bad rap for imposes unnecessary complications, impossible requirements or excessive analysis. The Cynefin model has also been used as a map to keep track of potential movements from one quadrant to another, resolving conflicts between positional stances, and for experimenting with different practices that attempt to resolve a situation. These approaches set up an "emergent practice" in response to complex situations.

I reflected further on David Ronfeldt's use of the Cynefin framework to see Tribes as relatively simple, Institutions as complicated, Markets as Complex and Networks as chaotic. I realized that the inner workings of a tribe are complex. The inter-relationships between tribes are complex. The context which supports the tribes continuing without disbanding or dying off is also complex. The only dimensions that are simple about tribes are the form they take and the challenges they face. Tribes within nations do not have airport runways to keep open, filters to change in water treatment plants, or public services to fund with tax collections. Tribes in the form of college fraternities simply share none of the complicated concerns of the administration, legislature or accreditation boards. The complexities about tribes are subtle, intangible and easily ignored by studying the objective evidence of tribal forms and challenges.

The predominance of complexity is also true for the internal workings, inter-relationships and contexts of Institutions, Markets and Networks. This suggests that every practice characterized by the Cynefin model is an emergent practice. Best practices emerge from the complexity when some simple parameters feature prominently. Good practices emerge from the complexity when there are conceptual frameworks that apply. Novel practices emerge from the complexity when the complexity appears chaotic and defiant of orderly dynamics.

This "complexity based" outlook on the Cynefin model suggested a change in the four quadrants. If every quadrant yields an emergent practice from ubiquitous complexity, it's redundant to have a quadrant for "complexity" and "emergent practices". I've pondered the possibility of moving disorder from the no-man's land between the quadrants to the fourth quadrant. As you can see, I'm conceiving of a quadrant labeled "disorder" with "no conceivable orderly practice". This breach of Cynefin doctrine is itself a case of my "disorderly conduct" :-)

Emergent forms of TIMN

The natural world is a living system where every part is highly interdependent with others. What comes about is emergent from the complexity. No one life form is making it happen all by itself. With an understanding of this complexity in principle, we can wonder about questions like:

• How did that expanse of wildflowers manage to flourish on this barren rock outcropping?
• Where did that meadow come from next to so much marsh land?
• How did that hardwood forest appear when there is not another tree anywhere near here?

To answer questions like these, we have to take our attention off the thing in question and study the interrelationships. When we've got a sense of the underlying interdependencies, we can realize how the thing in question emerged from the ambient complexity. The thing came about from many contributing factors that combined into an opportune situation, ripe condition or fertile breeding ground.

I've been pondering very similar questions about the conditions defined by the Cynefin model (chaotic, simple, complicated, complex). I've been wondering:

• How each condition shows up in the first place?
• What previous dynamics (practices, interaction patterns, infrastructures, etc.) contribute to each condition's emergence?
• What contributes to the ripeness or fitness of the emergent condition for the related societal form to take hold (tribal, institutional, market, network)?

In a recent comment on Michel Bauwen's summation of my exploration to date, David Ronfeldt introduced some very useful thoughts about the relationships between the tribal, institutional, market and network societal forms:

To the extent that the TIMN and Cynefin frameworks can be given a mash-up — and it’s an interesting, even fun idea — perhaps it would work better if the associations were rotated. Show that Tribes associate not with “chaotic” but with “simple” approaches to problem-solving — as indeed they really do in comparison to the other forms. Then, Institutions go with “complicated,” and Markets with “complex.” That fits with historical and current realities.

Where I've been saying tribal forms respond TO chaotic conditions, David is saying the tribal responses ARE simple compared to institutional form and responses. Likewise, I'm seeing institutional forms respond TO simple conditions while David sees institutional forms ARE complicated compared to simple tribal forms This suggests to me that institutional forms are highly dependent on the simple forms and novel practices of tribes. The tribal responses increase the simplicity, stability, knowability of situations that allow institutions and their best practices to emerge.

We can imagine that it takes a critical mass of tribes to generate enough situational simplicity for institutions to not fall prey to lingering chaos, instability, disruption and unpredictability. Without a critical mass of simplicity, the societal scale institutions would disintegrate as failed states, fallen dictators, or constant civil wars. The market scale institutions would go out of business, get bought out by a bigger rival or liquidate some of their holdings to sustain a faltering core operation. Tribal responses successfully put the chaotic situations into remission. Local scale institutions would cut back on police protection, social services, educational offerings, road repairs and other affordances.

It then follows that when tribes are entangled in their dark side (-T), they merely contribute to their chaotic situations. When they realize their bright side (+T), they generate simple solutions, practices, rituals and relationships. Those successes set the stage for subsequent institutional forms. The simplicity that tribes can provide to overall situations gets realized as a spill over effect of their being successful, cohesive, productive and energizing.

A similar argument can be made for institutional forms providing critical mass of the prerequisite complications for complex market forms to emerge. Likewise, market forms introduce the needed complexity that enables the emergence of chaotic networking forms and responses. It then may come back around full circle, where networks provide the ripe chaotic conditions for simple tribes to reemerge -- perhaps as hyper-localized nodes in a resilient, sustainable network.

Speaking of frameworks

I'm currently exploring how to relate the use of pattern languages to this evolving combination of Cynefin & TIMN frameworks. While most writing about pattern languages dwells on a catalog of patterns, I'm equally concerned with the use of a language for speaking with and of patterns. It makes a big difference to the people and situations to change how we speak of and with patterns. Different wording changes how we will selectively perceive, think about and respond to varied situations. We can even get a sense of this from the differences between a "pattern language", a "patterning language" and "using a patterning language". These are the differences between using nouns, adjectives and verbs.

These differences also relate to the four sets of practices and situations in the Cynefin framework. When we speak of any framework cell with nouns (i.e. "Tribe" of TIMN, "Chaos" or "Novel practice" of Cynefin), we have simplified the situation. We have organized some chaos and brought unknowns into the realm of knowns. We know what it is and get to the right about it. While limiting ourselves to using nouns, we create the illusion there could be a best practice to apply repeatedly in these situations. We wonder if we have enough organization, reliability, and consistency which are the familiar challenges of an institutional response. We conform to a pattern defined by the use of nouns.

This pattern has a pronounced effect on those described by this use of nouns. They feel wrongly labeled, subjected to misunderstanding, and possibly put down by power trippers being exclusively right. They even notice that the language has switched from "us/our/we" to "them/their/they" like I've done in this paragraph. The use of nouns creates upper and lower classes of insiders. This feeds the chaos on the outside which in turn creates a self-serving need for more ordering, organizing and use of nouns. Those under the thumb of this noun usage try to make nothing of it and keep it from becoming a thing. They wonder if they bring enough experimentation, novel practice and craziness to their chaotic situation which fit a pattern of tribal responses.

When we speak of any framework cell with adjectives (i.e. Tribal Response of TIMN, Chaotic situations of Cynefin), we have complicated what we're speaking about. We have differentiated between varied situations, perceived contexts and constituents. We switch from labeling to making a lens with our understanding. We realize how it's an unfolding process, evolving sequence or changing dynamic. We perceive what is happening in relation, in combination, or in keeping balanced -- beyond what it simply is. We've set ourselves up to wonder if we are being responsive, varied, diverse enough for the complicated situation handled by market responses. We conform to a pattern defined by the use of adjectives.

When we speak of any framework cell with verbs or adverbs (i.e. Responding tribally of TIMN or Practicing emergently of Cynefin), we have grasped the complexity of the living system. We relate to all the inter-relatedness that includes our ways of seeing and using language. We switch from using a lens with our understanding to representing our understanding, walking our talk or acting accordingly. Our conduct gives the same impression to others as our explanations. We are being what we say we are and congruently doing what the situation calls for us to practice. We immersed in wondering if we are sufficiently paradoxical, self referential and changing to sidestep the effects of nouns and adjectives. We demonstrate a pattern defined by our use of verbs and adverbs.

Complex adaptive or living systems are always using patterning languages. When we can catch ourselves falling for the trap of using nouns and adjectives, we open up ourselves to join into any living systems in our vicinity and through our connections. We realize the synergies from combining the TIMN and Cynefin frameworks.

Changing the minds of others

You may have run into a situation this week where some people did not change their minds in spite of what you said and did. You may have given them all the information they might need to see things differently. You may have appealed to their emotions as well as their ability to reason. You may have gotten upset and tried to force them to change. You may have even gotten desperate and resorted to begging, bribing or cajoling them. Whatever you tried, it didn't work like you expected.

At this point, it's easy to conclude that the others are either stubborn, closed minded, creatures of habit or prisoners of their comfort zones. Cognitive neuroscience offers many better explanations for why we don't change our minds when others expect us to and do what they can to get it to happen. The new book by Charles Jacobs , Management Rewired - Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science -- gives us lots of scientific insights into minds that don't change. Here's my way of describing four of them for you to consider.

• We get hold of some big ideas that everything else we think has to agree with in principle. When someone gives us an idea that contradicts one little thing we think, it upsets our entire system of ideas from the big idea on down.
• Before we have a thought come to mind about some new input, our mind goes through a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" to select one thought among a bunch of different possibilities we could think. When someone tells us what to think to get us to change our minds, that idea gets thrown in with all the others competing to win out and be the thought we think. It's chances are as slim as the many other lesser thoughts we've already got that do not show up as thinkable thoughts.
• Before we receive anything from others, we've formulated realistic expectations based on our past experiences. If we get less or worse than we were expecting, we're uncontrollably upset in spite of how reasonable the thing we got might have been. If we get more or different than what we expected, we're thrilled for the moment. It doesn't depend on what we get nearly as much as what we're expecting to get.
• Some of what we get from people mess with who we think we are, what reputation we're maintaining, and what's consistent with our past conduct. Our minds go onto autopilot to get rid of that awful feeling we get even if it takes lying, kidding ourselves or going along with something we disagree with entirely. We're usually content to simply discredit, blame or vilify those people who messed with our minds.
  

Using patterns of cognitive dynamics like these, it's possible to see that it's as upsetting for the person trying to change someone's mind as the person who's mind is not changing. Both are getting what they were thinking contradicted that then upsets everything from their big idea on down Both may be having familiar thoughts come to mind rather than any new idea thrown into the competition with a bunch of other possibilities. Both are failing to get their expectations met. Both are taking a hit to their pride, reputation and consistency.

Charles Jacobs has worked as a management consultant for many years. Management Rewired is filled with many episodes where managers resorted to desperate tactics when they failed to get others' minds to change. They dealt with people as if applying pressure, putting them down, intimidating them or withholding trust would get them to change their minds. Of course it backfires, but that outcome does not get managers to become more strategic, effective, empathetic or insightful. A desirable upgrade like those would involve a change of their own minds. Instead they continue to strut like alpha male gorillas, trap others in a classic "Prisoner's dilemma" or treat others like billiard balls to poke at and knock around.

The book offers lots of approaches that work with the facts that people have minds of their own, see things their own ways and respond according to what's going on inside them at the moment. The book is written to help managers and leaders become more effective. It obviously applies to mentors, coaches, counselors, teachers, trainers, writers and other professionals.

As Jacob's considered how conventional management methods yield unintended consequences due to the ways our brains function, he sees the wisdom in those breakthrough management methods of the 80's and 90's (self directed teams, empowerment, personal coaching, open book management, quality circles, communities of practice, etc.) His familiarity with the two kinds of change has convinced him of the power of storytelling to change people's minds. He explores how to come up with the right kind of dissonance that disturbs people's familiar story and gets them to take the leap into a breakthrough outlook. He contrasts transactional and transformational leadership conduct. He considers how to get enough sense of what others are thinking to formulate a counter intuitive move to defy others' expectations for more of the same old treatment, balancing acts or struggles.

I share the author's conviction that the world will be a better place once we see each other as dealing with internally active minds. Management Rewired can help you get the picture of what going on in others' heads that deserves our respect and consideration. The way we treat others and get them to change their minds shows vast room for improvement.


Related posts:
Switching brain strategies
Framing our constituencies
Empowering conversations
Revising unstoried possibilities
Fallout from a system
Questioning the feasibility of change
Using feedback to change identities
Third and fourth order change
Revising underlying structure
Winning without a battle

TIMN practices

The Cynefin model brought wonderful complications to the ideal notion that "seeking best practices is always best". Dave Snowden and his team revealed how every situation is not the same and how there are different practices to choose from depending on the situation. This curtailed the relentless pursuit of best practices and allowed for elaborate analyses only when situations were neither simple, chaotic or complex. This also set up the emergence of effective practices from informal gatherings, spontaneous conversations and communities of tacit knowledge.

By combining the Cynefin and TIMN models together, I'm exploring a different set of questions about practice. I've been wondering about the following four questions:

1. What tribal practice(s) handle unknowable, chaotic situations better than institutional, market or network practices could?
2. What institutional practice(s) handle known, simple situations better than tribal, market or network practices could?
3. What market practice(s) handle knowable, complicated situations better than tribal, institutional or network practices could?
4. What network practice(s) handle unknown, complex situations better than tribal, institutional or market practices could?

Yesterday, I took a brief afternoon nap with these questions on my mind. I woke up with a tidy set of answers to all these questions. Here's how these four questions tie together by making different distinctions:

• Tribal practice draws a line between "insiders vs. outsiders" of the tribe to stick to their own kind and stick together to achieve safety in numbers. Tribal practice copes with the anxiety production stirred up by the chronic chaos whenever they apply this distinction to a few of their insiders. Those insiders who get stigmatized as "outsiders on the inside" feel blamed for internal problems, demonized as evil, branded as traitors, outcast as saboteurs or misunderstood as selfish. This reinforces the cohesion, cooperation and conviction about being right among the untarnished insiders of the tribe.
• Institutional practice make a distinction between "upper vs. lower" employees in the hierarchy to maintain order, control, stability and power over others. Institutional practice copes with anxiety produced from the insubordination, disrespect, and disorder of the majority who are kept in their lower place by provoking their tribal practice of "insider vs. outsider" distinctions. The formation of tribal silos, turf battles, empire builders, rumor mills, backstabbing and other varieties of office politics creates "insider" experiences for the "low lifes" to feel better. Their tribal practice also reinforces the feelings of superiority, dominance, and entitlement among the upper echelons.
• Market practice set up a battle between "responsive vs. arrogant" players to better serve customers, seize opportunities for new business, and to create more valuable offerings than their rivals. Market practice copes with the anxiety produced from aggressive rivals in their market space by provoking those rivals to indulge in institutional practice. The resulting industry consolidation, household brand names, and businesses too big to fail helps those seen as unresponsive by their market feel better about themselves. This also reinforces the feeling of being more responsive, adept at changing with the times and poised to introduce disruptive innovations than those arrogant institutions blinded by their own success.
• Network practice recognizes a difference between "living vs. automated" systems to realize synergies among the diverse nodes, to allow for exponential expansion of connections and to entice staggering amounts of user contributions. Network practice copes with the anxiety produced from so much self organizing complexity by invoking those who are not sufficiently paradoxical, transparent, self referential and complex to indulge in market practice. The resulting competition for the most links, friends, visits, votes, or Google Juice helps those on autopilot feel better about themselves. This also reinforces the feeling of being more alive, spontaneous and fluid than those complicated the robots chasing after notoriety in the network.

In short: those that cannot hack it as insiders amidst tribal practice get left behind as outsiders. Those that cannot fit in as upper members of institutional practice get to practice as insiders of tribal practice. Those that cannot impress their market with exceptional responsiveness get to practice as upper members of institutional practice. Those that cannot engage their network as lively contributors get to automatically practice as responsive to market recognition.

Destructive impact of network entrants

When networks come on the scene of triform, complicated-market order situations I explored in my last post, creative destruction abounds. The new kid on the block does not get welcomed by the established tribal, institutional and market providers. Each suffers setbacks as network functionality takes effect. Here's how some of our recently developed digital networks have produced those destructive impacts.

TRIBAL PROVIDERS
Tribal providers are naturally too numerous and scattered for effective regulatory oversight, surveillance, inspections and testing. The ability of broadcast and print journalism to fund investigative reporters is declining. Likewise, the budgetary restrictions on enforcement capabilities curtails an adequate coverage of needed apprehension, prosecution and punishment. This has created a ripe opportunity for exploitative and deceitful practices throughout domestic and global economies. There have been many ways to go undetected, appear reliable, cover-up scams and mislead the public. In recent months we've learned of Ponzi schemes, neglected food inspections, corrupt uses of governmental offices, cancellations of financially responsible credit card or health insurance accounts, and exploitative subprime mortgages, financial derivatives, credit swaps and securitized debt instruments. Prior to networks, concerned citizens would have trouble getting heard or causing much of stir. They were left with options like becoming disinterested, cynical and frustrated.

All that has changed. Victim stories go viral faster than anything. Persecuted underdogs get an inordinate amount of attention via blogs, tweets, text messages and emails. The workforce of voluntary inspectors and investigative reporters has grown exponentially. The "too numerous and too scattered" nature of tribal providers is no problem for the countless, ubiquitous citizen watchdogs with easy access to exposure, and emergent constituencies which provoke the needed responses from the appropriate authorities.

INSTITUTIONAL PROVIDERS
Institutional providers are closed systems protected by law to maintain proprietary inventions, creations and advances. They expect their authority to be respected, their rights to be protected and their systems to remain closed. They are designed to deliver what they produce to passive consumers who fall for the providers propaganda about the same value everyone get from what is being sold. Institutional providers can extract economies of scale from consolidating their industry into a few giants that buy out or bleed out the little guys. Creative customers could dabble in pirate radio, home movies, underground presses, swap meets, and many other low key ways to refuse the standard issue from the institutional providers.

All that has changed. Advertising gets contradicted or confirmed by word of mouth buzz. Broadcast media gets challenged by, compared to and deprived of audience share that has migrated to "user content generation". Protected artistic content is getting remixed, extended in fan fiction and mash-upped in music videos. Sacrosanct authorities in software development, journalistic news coverage, encyclopedia authorship and many other "restricted to expert" endeavors are facing new competition from all breeds of hackers. The effect is undermining the business models, forcing many out of business and questioning the sustainability of institutional providers.

MARKET PROVIDERS
Market providers have bent over backwards to provide an expanded inventory of options, selections, and customizing alternatives. They have realized the market is very diverse and appreciative of responsiveness, service and freedom to mess around with what is being sold. The cost of accommodating these complications has been staggering. It's seemed necessary to open more locations, add help desks, improve customer service training, carry larger inventories and generate a new look often enough to always appear fresh. The investment has paid off for some providers who found their niche, developed loyal customers, and became a trusted source for a wide selection of options. For many, it's felt like a losing game where the customers win at the expense of the enterprise. The margins don't support to range of offerings, level of available service and the follow through after the purchase.

All that has changed. The growing volume of e-commerce occurs without retail outlets. Online connections between inventories and suppliers makes reordering automatic and reduces required inventory levels. Many customers are getting better help from experienced users who are accessible via discussion lists, their own blogs or contact links on fan web sites. The reasons to frequently revisit the provider online gets supplied by the visitors who tag, rank, vote, comment, make suggestions, and upload content themselves. The provider sites are becoming platforms for emergent social networks around using what the provider sells.

Thus the introduction of networks is proving to be a real game changer for tribal, institutional and market providers. There's no looking back now. Some will realize how the times are changing and others will take the brunt of the creative destruction brought on by the network entrants.

Triform market spaces

When markets come on the scene, tribal and institutional forms do not disappear. What David Ronfeldt calls a "Triform society" emerges from the combined presence of all three kinds of order. A SIMPLE situation where order could be maintained by stable institutions, now becomes a COMPLICATED situation. Institutions with monopoly control over their prices and quality now face rivals offering competing value propositions. Customers who previously accepted what was offered consistently now expect choices, better service, customized solutions and responsiveness to their particular contexts. Advertising that previously promoted brand names must now get in the customer's heads to appeal to their own diverse preferences, perceptions and memberships.

This analysis can obviously be applied to the global, domestic or regional economy. In later posts in this series, I'll apply it to particular markets and institutional contexts like secondary and university educational systems. This analysis follows on the prior two for Chaotic-Tribal order and Simple-Institutional order. There remains the fourth network order which provides an even more comprehensive context for these three orders I'm exploring today. (You can view a full size chart by right clicking on the one above to open it in a new tab)

Serving who?
The complications of a diverse bunch of customers is a welcome opportunity for any market order. It responds to the challenge to better serve a more varied demographic, segmentation and range of niches. Market order breaks out of the box of "take it when it's offered", "watch it when it's shown", "accept the same version as everyone else". Customers feel understood, supported in their own endeavors and well-served by the ways a market order responds to the complexity. This contrasts with institutional order which responds as if the customers are simply the same, wanting whatever preserves the self-serving institution's profitability, market share, brand name and product upgrades. This also differs dramatically from tribal responses to perceived chaos which do a potentially harmful dis-service to customers, depriving them of real value, useful experiences, enduring impacts and genuine satisfaction.

Characteristics of consumption
A market order explodes with a diversity of offerings that meet the needs of small niches, interest groups and specialized contexts. The customers are very selective, particular and informed. Consumer advocacy components have raised the bar on what customers expect, look for and reject as inadequate. Responsiveness to customers remains too varied to ever formulate best practices. The only possibility is good practices following considerable analysis of the complicated situations, options, rivals and customer segments. This contrasts with institutional responses that mass produce for mass consumption as if the buyers are passive consumers desperately filling their cupboards, attics, garages and storage lockers with excess stuff. The market response also differs from tribal response to an unwitting, captive market that can be exploited with exorbitant prices, shoddy quality, sporadic service and outright scams.

Premise for relating to customers
Market responses get the customer understood by listening, learning, exploring and discovering. The market order empathizes with what the customer is trying to accomplish with whatever they are buying. The context of the customer's use, their premises for perceiving value and the pitfalls they fall into when using what they bought -- all get revealed by relating sincerely and respectfully. This contrasts with institutions that get blinded by their success to think "we already know what we're doing" and "what the customers do with our products is none of our business". This also differs from tribal responses that perceive customers as "wanting something for nothing", "quick to change suppliers" and "too cheap to appreciate higher quality offerings".

Energizes its persistence with:
Market responses feed on the how customers respond to being cared for, served and understood. They respond in kind and make it easier for the provider to refine, diversify and follow through on what they offer. The spirit of cooperation permeates the interactions with customers who see the immediate benefits of playing along with the service provider. This contrasts with the competitive spirit of institutional rivals which seek larger market share to beat their rivals while acting on the conviction that they product is questionably superior. This also defies the conflicted spirit of tribal providers who get torn between acting greedy, wicked and deceitful and keeping up appearances of reliability, trustworthiness and integrity.

Cannot do better because the situation is:
Market order cannot do any better than it already does because their situation is so COMPLICATED. There are so many different customers seeking varied services, customized products and disaggregated delivery systems. This contrasts with institutions that get trapped by their success, structures, legacy practices, policies and tenured employees which makes "business as usual" so SIMPLE to maintain. This also differs from any tribal inability to improve when they're constantly set back by the lack of stability, safety, infrastructure, and competencies to handle the CHAOTIC situation.

Cooperating or collaborating?

In a comment yesterday, Stephen Downes, proposed that cooperation was better suited for complexity and collaboration fit better with complicated situations. Harold Jarche's initial concept drew from Shawn Callahan's post last December for Anecdote that used the Cynefin framework to differentiate between uses of coordination, cooperation and collaboration. My dictionary gives cooperation and collaboration two slightly different inflections to the idea of "working together", the exact title of Harold Jarche's post. The denotation is practically synonymous.

I mean two very different things by "cooperation" and "collaboration". These meanings make sense of cooperation fitting with market responses to complicated situations and collaboration arising in network responses to complex situations:

Cooperation connotes concessions of our own selfish aims while going along with another's agenda. We cooperate (or not) when someone else wants our agreement, permission, support or accommodation. Cooperation involves a reversal of our winning at their expense, taking advantage of their situation or parlaying their neediness in our favor. We switch to backing off, backing down, or giving in to their requests in order to cooperate with what others need or want from us. We are deploying a lose/win strategy in the chart of relational grammars.

Collaboration connotes the co-generation of new accomplishments, outputs and results. We collaborate (or not) when someone wants to pick our brain, get our input or come up with some ideas to help them. Collaboration involves a reversal of our merely cooperating, going along with their agenda or accommodating their needs. We switch to sharing responsibility for getting something done, solving a problem to our mutual satisfaction or making a difference we'll both benefit from. We are deploying a win/win strategy in the chart of relational grammars.

I also mean very different things by market and network responses as I detailed in yesterday's post: Reading situational responses. here's some further elaboration of the connection between networks and complexity that markets fall short of:

Markets structure mostly unilateral relationships between enterprises and their customers. The customers purchase and use what is sold to them. Networks structure bi-lateral relationships with their customers who contribute timely innovations, generate better buzz than any paid advertising, and expose flaws in service, product reliability or brand positioning. The customers make passionate use of the digitized, "free self-expression" context to collaborate with enterprises to make them more successful.

Markets keep rival enterprises disconnected to avoid appearances of collusion, price fixing, monopoly controls and other anti-trust violations. Rivals may concede to the advances made their competitors advertising, product upgrades and value proposition innovations. They do not help them achieve those aims. Networks connect rivals in order to share resources and mutually benefit from industry wide advancements. Rivals collaborate to adopt new technology, comply with new standards, cultivate new talent for the entire industry.

In another comment that followed up on Stephen's proposed change, Murl wrote the following:

I think it is the right way around because it does depend on a definition of collaboration. From my research I have noted the high degree of complexity of collaboration that operates in both the physical and virtual worlds as well as being very high risk driven towards an uncertain goal. That is, those who collaborate are highly vulnerable and exposed. On the other hand, participation in a cooperative venture is negotiated and agreed around a known goal. I would argue that collaboration is the highest order of working together and highly complex.

This adds two more dimensions to the distinction between cooperation and collaboration that help us sort out this issue. The situation is merely complicated when cooperating toward an established goal with little risk exposure/vulnerability. The situation becomes extremely complex when the goal is opened ended and the participants are vulnerable to those uncertainties amidst their collaboration.

All these considerations reinforce how Shawn and Harold applied the Cynefin framework to coordination, cooperation and collaboration modes of working together.

Reading situational responses

Living in a "Quadriform society" (T+I+M+N), we're constantly exposed to situational responses from tribal, institutional, market and network organizations. Chaotic, simple, complicated and complex situations are mixed up together. We're constantly wondering "where did that come from?". We're always trying to get a read on the responses we're seeing to the varied situations we're immersed in. Here's one way to sort out the responses that became clear to me by pondering the implications of Harold Jarche's added Group Work parameter to this evolving mash-up of the Cynefin and TIMN models.

1. Tribal responses are lacking in coordination, cooperation and collaboration. They act against other tribes and institutions. They effectively undermine their own market position as a valuable provider, trusted source and understanding relater to consumers seeking cooperation with what they need. Tribal responses isolate themselves from the inter-dependent networks in their midst as if the network is more of the same chaos keeping them under siege.
2. Institutional responses are lacking in cooperation and collaboration. They successfully coordinate their simple internal efforts with best practices while acting against outside interests. They discard their own failures onto their surroundings while making enemies of those seeking social justice, sustainable models, cleaner environments or other larger issues. They develop reputations for delivering reliable quality at what they have always done while proving to the market they cannot respond, adapt, evolve or learn from what's changing. Institutional responses firewall themselves off from the networks in their midst for security reasons involving continuing chaotic situations and others' tribal responses to the chaos.
3. Market responses are lacking in collaboration. They successfully cooperate and coordinate with diverse niches, interest groups, demographic segments and consumer advocacy groups. Market responses act against rival providers while striving to better serve those who've adopted their differentiated and isolated value proposition. They practice empathy to allow for the value they provide to be intrinsic, unique to each beneficiary and decided in the eyes of the beholder. They cooperate with the long tail of active consumers by democratizing what institutions have centralized, controlled, restricted access to and mass produced. They utilize networks in their midst to get some buzz, spread their word, and generate some demand for what they offer.
4. Network responses lack nothing. They collaborate with highly interdependent communities. They contribute to the common good altruistically, expecting nothing in return. The network returns the favor by extending the reach, enhancing the reputation and disseminating the value of each contribution. Network responses empower each participant to do their thing for the good of the whole and for their individual interests at the same time. They provide platforms for self expression that gives others the impression of understanding, respect, inclusion and permission to do the same. The usual problems that fallout from tribal, institutional and market responses vanish in the presence of network responses.

With these four ways to read the responses to any situation, it then become possible to define variations in situational literacy/illiteracy:

1. Tribal responses are completely illiterate. They cannot get a read on institutional, market or network responses. Everything appears chaotic, out of control and unmanageable. Everything calls for a tribal response. Every response is tribal regardless of how big, well funded, long established, connected or responsive.
2. Institutional responses can read tribal responses. They get the opportunity to impose control on out-of-control actions. They handle the constant danger of chaotic situations fueled by tribal responses. However, institutional responses cannot get a separate read on market and network responses. They equate markets with signs of tribal responses: being out of control, lacking coordination and violating their legally protected, proprietary interests. They view the network as equally tribal, aiming to put the institution out of business, undermining time-honored credibility, destroying their brands and disrupting their business models. They read a black and white subtext of insider/outsider, controlled/chaos, and with us/against us.
3. Market responses can read institutional and tribal responses. They read shades of gray, middle ground between polarized extremes and nuanced subtleties. Market responses sees leveraging an apparent shortcoming where institutions see a weakness to keep hidden. Market responses create opportunities proactively by getting a read on who and how institutions and market rivals fail to serve, solve problems and adapt to the changing times. They recognize how customers form tribes of common interest, expression and connections. They see how to become less controlling, more accommodating and increasingly open without going into a panic like institutional and tribal responses.
4. Network responses can get a read on all other responses. They read in living color. Network responses see how everything results from everything being connected. The network read of a situation is far more complex than we can put into sequences of words of spoken or written languages. Network responses take it all in. The read of the situation sounds like "Yes!"

Changing a light bulb

In searching for ways to convey an intuitive grasp of the four Cynefin/TIMN quadrants I've been exploring, I came up with these scenarios for "changing a light bulb"

In chaotic situations, tribal order cannot do what it takes to change light bulbs effectively. The electric power goes out sporadically. Most light bulbs burn for less than their rated hours due to adverse, unprotected conditions. The supply of replacement light bulbs is inadequate due to recent roof leaks and shelving collapses, as well as vandalism or theft by other tribes. The store shelves are often out of stock of bulbs due to problems with raw materials, manufacturing, warehousing or delivery of light bulbs. Some tribal members grip the bulbs too tightly and others too loosely when changing bulbs, which both result in excessive breakage of replacement bulbs.

In simple situations, institutional order replaces light bulbs as a matter of policy compliance. Job descriptions spell out who is responsible for changing light bulbs. Job training ensures that the procedure used complies with established best practices which prolong the life of each light bulb. Policies establish whether bulbs can be changed before they burn out when adjacent burned-out bulbs are getting replaced. The light bulbs are protected from damage in both their installed and storage locations. The manufacture, distribution, sale and procurement of light bulbs also proceed with without disruption due to similar policies, job descriptions and training. Electric power get delivered without interruption 99.94% of the time.

In complicated situations, market order supports a diversity of responses to burned out light bulbs. Some customers prefer to change bulbs themselves and inventory a supply of spares. Others change their own bulbs with no back up supply, and use a just-in-time approach to stocking replacement bulbs. This approach is supported by a reliable supply of bulbs on retailer shelves. Others hire free agents who provide a wide range of maintenance services which includes the changing light bulbs. The supply side offers a wide range of shapes, wattages, filaments and quality standards for shoppers to choose from. The competition between rival manufacturers, distributors and retailers results in a variety of value propositions including: you get what you pay for, you can save money on the purchase price but will change the bulbs more often and you can pay too much for the same quality as a generic bulb.

In complex situations, network order integrates the entire panorama of concerns. Power consumption gets reduced by less use of electric light, more energy-efficient bulbs and local wind/solar generation of power. The manufacture of light bulbs utilizes more recycled glass while cleaning up potential environmental hazards before they get discharged into the air, groundwater, soil or rivers. Purchases are made in bulk to reduce the amount of packaging material and the number of fuel-burning shopping trips.

As you consider these four scenarios, it's evident the differences between them are real. However, every situation is really as complex as the situation labeled "complex". The differences between the situations can be regarded as how much of that inherent complexity gets taken into consideration.

Combining relational grammars

I've been a big fan of relational grammars for the last two decades. I got started with Karpman's Drama Triangle years ago. Each of these grammars help me understand where others are coming from, how we differ and ways that changes might occur. As Sun Tzu advised us 3000 years ago in The Art of War, it's essential to "know ourselves and know our enemies" to not get blind sided by our own shortcomings, hubris or assumptions. Relational grammars help us accomplish that objective. We can see ourselves more clearly. We can get past those easy us/them labels of others and then apply more nuanced insights into our opponents.

Recently I've become aware of a relational grammar developed by Alan Page Fiske. Michel Bauwens has used this grammar to develop his P2P Manifesto. Others have drawn the parallels between that relational grammar and the TIMN framework of David Ronfeldt. As I've been synthesizing that TIMN model with Dave Snowden's Cynefin framework, the relational grammars I've been using came back to mind. Today I assembled the chart below which combines all these frameworks together. (right click on the chart to open a full size version in a new tab or window)

Here's one way to put this chart into words:

Tribes can bring order to chaotic situations by keeping everyone in line. Surpluses get distributed fairly and shortages evened out by the barter and gift economy dynamics. This means that no one is a winner and there's no way to win in ways that take advantages of others (lose/lose). Everyone is dependent on the tribe for safety, and thus co-dependent, endlessly needy for security, and essentially taking each other hostage to their lack of self reliance. Their tribal culture is powerless in a world of power trippers, colonizers, empire builders and systems of domination. They can migrate, evacuate, take flight and wander as nomads when threatened by land grabs, invasions or violence. Tribes are routinely persecuted in contexts with arrogant institutions, insensitive aristocracies, condescending monarchies or tyrannical dictators. Any member of the tribe who adds to internal instability, chaos or disorder gets ostracized. The fear of being left out from the safety of the herd keeps members from acting out their anti social urges. Being cast outside the tribe if like to deliver fatal consequences in the midst of overpowering and chaotic circumstances.

Institutions can bring order to seemingly simple situations by rule of law and formal social structures. Surpluses get hoarded for lean times and awarded unfairly to those on top of the hierarchy. The top dogs win at the expense of the underdogs. The institution get divided between first and second class citizens which unravels any depending on leadership. Counter-dependent urges get acted undetected by monitoring for deviance, sabotage or traitors. Passive aggressive defiance undermines teamwork, follow through and initiatives. Institutions wallow in stagnation, thwarted by their inability to innovate and change with the times.

Markets can bring order to complicated situations by responding to changing customers, rivals, technologies and resources. Making the sacrifice to invest in long term potentials sets up the next generation winning products, teams and investors to prosper. Power struggles ensue between rival enterprises and opposing camps within an enterprise favoring different innovation strategies. Viable markets foster independence from any monopoly control of prices or brand dominance by introducing diverse services, added value, enhancements and package deals. Customers get rescued from the institutional mass producer that fails to customize, segment and otherwise complicate their market of actual niches, special interests, and cultural diversity.

Networks can bring order to complex situations by providing platforms for the vast interdependencies, connectivity and emergent phenomena to express itself. Networks create opportunities for everyone to win and benefit from others' succeeding. Everyone can have the effect of empowering others by encouraging their contributions, appreciating their sharing, and maintaining the commons. The collective abundance of creativity has the potential to redeem chronically problematic interactions by offering alternative diagnoses, frameworks and stories.

Cynefin practices applied to TIMN

Dave Snowden's Cynefin model was developed for enhancing knowledge management practices. It has since found more widespread applications referenced in the Wikipedia page for Cynefin. Here's how I'm seeing those four quadrants apply to the TIMN framework.

CHAOTIC situations breed a TRIBAL order where NOVEL practices handle the challenges. In chaotic situations, all bets are off about "best practices". Any correspondence courses on tribal leadership, administration and decision making would find no buyers. The situations are too extreme, unstable and unpredictable for knowledge to become routine, verified or documented. Chaotic situations call for continual exploration, experimentation and variation. Action comes first to get a better sense of the situation which suggests how to respond (Act -Sense - Respond). What worked before may not work again or maintain any hypothesized causal relationships. Policy manuals would become obsolete before the ink dried on the pages. Job Descriptions would be inadequate and misleading. Tribal forms of oral culture and storytelling handle the challenges far better than the other forms.

SIMPLE situations breed an INSTITUTIONAL order where BEST practices handle the challenges. In simple situations, the stability, continuity and longevity enable best practices to get established. Institutional documentation remains valid, useful and practical for years. The variations in the world can be handled with cookie cutter, rubber stamp and carbon copy solutions. Institutional functionaries need only know how to execute the plan that's guaranteed to work, not troubleshoot, second guess or critique the plan. All that's required is to sense which situation this is, categorize it accurately and respond with a best practice (Sense - Categorize - Respond). Institutional order handles these challenges the best.

COMPLICATED situations breed a MARKET order where GOOD practices handle the challenges. Rival firms position themselves with varied product/service mixes. Customers are constantly changing their needs, desires, preferences and perceptions. Technology, regulatory legislation and media coverage alters the commercial landscape. The complications defy categorization or the application of best practices. A big investment needs to be made in analyzing what is sensed about this panorama of complications prior to responding with good practices (Sense - Analyze - Respond). Market dynamics handle these challenges the best.

COMPLEX situations breed a NETWORK order where EMERGENT practices handle the challenges. Feedback loops, vicious & virtuous cycles, self-referential messages, layered problems, and self-organizing dynamics all defeat the deliberate formulation of practices. Too many facets have taken on a life of their own with highly interdependent, evolving dimensions. It's better to let effective practices arise from immersion in the complexity. Probing the immediate situation without prior conditioning, preconceptions or assumptions will yield a clear sense of how to respond in the moment (Probe - Sense - Respond). Network dynamics handle these challenges the best.

Having said all this, yet another use of the Cynefin framework applies to these four kinds of situations and what order they breed. Taken as a whole, the combination of the four alternatives will be complex in itself when sensing any situation that could be any combination of the four. The order that handles the options well will emerge, rather than become formulaic or analytical.

Points of differentiation

As I'm applying David Snowden's Cynefin framework to explore David Ronfeldt's TIMN framework, I inevitably twist both authors' original meanings. Here are some of the ways I've taken liberties with the TIMN framework:

Historical progression or simultaneous options?
Ronfeldt's inspiration for his TIMN model appears to the historical progression from "uncivilized" hunter gatherers to post-industrial cyber-citizens. Thus his definitions for the four categories relates effectively to how each form first emerged over time. He also explores how prior forms linger as societies evolve. My focus is on what he calls our contemporary quadriform society which incorporates all four forms (T+I+M+N). I'm exploring how each subsequent form incorporates it's prior form to co-exist with it. Thus my definitions will not provide mutually exclusive categories. This also makes me more likely to see a progression of good coming from a bad episode, rather than a regression from bad to worse tribal chaos. When all four forms are co-existent, the potential to innovate is more likely than whenever it requires a historical progression which must outgrow an incumbent order.

Leaderless or tribal leader of the pack?
In his seminal paper, Ronfeldt equates tribal forms with leaderless communities:

In keeping with the primacy of kinship and the codes of conduct that stem from it, the classic tribe is egalitarian—its members share communally. It is segmentary—every part looks like every other part, and there is little or no specialization. And it is “acephalous” or headless—classic tribes do not have strong, central chiefs. (The “chiefdom” is a transitional phase between tribes and early states.) (page 10)

I include chiefs, tribal elders, and leaders of the pack in my definition of tribes. Even animals and swarming insects exhibit power differentials among members. When I apply an psycho-developmental lens, I perceive tribes as operating in "weak ego states" that lack self control and depend obsessively on authoritarian rule. Tribal members resemble children who need parental figures or domesticated livestock that need a shepherd. Thus, in my view, tribal leaders are not an "early state" of an institutional form, they are an inherent feature of tribal order amidst chaos.

It follows that I perceive differences between tribal and institutional leaders. Within an institutional context, the same difference is evident between the formal and informal leaders. The formal leaders receive gratuitous respect for making official pronouncements and for being in positions of power over others. Informal leaders earn the respect of the their followers from the way they personally perceive situations, respond to challenges, relate to other viewpoints and make difficult decisions. Formal leaders are inherently insecure in their titular positions and surround themselves with people who both tell them what they want to hear and shoot messengers who discredit their blind spots. Informal leaders are inherently confident in their roles and attract informants who share conflicting viewpoints and disrupt their cherished assumptions to get a better read on unfolding situations. Formal leaders get promoted by decision makers in positions of authority. Informal leaders emerge from conversations, meetings and rumor mills in the back channels of an institution. Thus tribal leaders closely resemble any informal leaders within institutional contexts.

Marketing preceding or following institutional forms?
In his most recent valuable blog post, David Ronfeldt relates his TIMN model to several others which lack his tribal component. Several of those models reversed the order, as if markets precede institutions in evolution, complexity or societal development. They seemingly assume markets are SIMPLE mechanisms that merely find optimum prices and more efficient interactions between supply and demand. Institutions are then COMPLICATED structures that make more elaborate plans, pursue more diverse goals and serve more differentiated constituencies. This is the view of markets held by free market economists who have sought to de-regulate financial institutions, investors and speculators while vehemently opposing any bill of rights for holders of mortgages, credit cards or other consumer debt.

I regard this view of markets as SIMPLE and congruent with the outlook of SIMPLE-INSTITUTIONAL insiders. This over-simplified view makes markets seem manageable, easy to manipulate, ideal for maximizing profits and supportive of expanding institutions. It fits the self-serving premises of institutions. Thus it's a characterization of institutions which precede markets, not a characterization of markets. I agree with the "I before M" in Ronfeldt's framework. I'll explore my view of COMPLICATED MARKET order in a forthcoming post.