Polarization from categorisation
A critical dynamic of organization from a complex responsive process perspective is polarization. Stacey argues that the act of naming or categorizing an experience places it into one category rather than another. This identifies and accentuates the similarities that exist with other experiences placed in that same category and, at the same time, emphasizes the differences from experiences that are categorized differently. In this way, experience is polarized into similarity within categories and difference between them. As a result, the paradox of simultaneous similarity and difference within and between categories is lost sight of.
In much the same way, de Bono states that the mind has a marked tendency towards polarization. Even though the choice between two competing patterns may be very fine, he argues that one of them will be chosen and the other one completely ignored. Once such divisions are formed they become self-perpetuating and grow further apart. This results in a tendency to move to one extreme or the other, rather than maintaining a balance between them.
- Chris Rodgers
Related
“…allowed ontology (the nature of things) to determine epistemology (the way we know things)”
“The distinction between a sense-making framework (data precedes framework) and a categorisation model (framework precedes data)”
…without boundaries humans will not distinguish between different types of action and analysis. We are not good with gradients.
…allow the boundaries in the Cynefin framework to emerge from the data
Boundaries are necessary for human sense-making. If we gave people a spectrum from chaotic to stable then people would settle in the place of their most comfort.
If we create boundaries, then if we can create a first step which involves a choice as to which side of the boundary we are (backed up by narrative based definition which is amenable to coherence based evidence). With that done it is a lot easier to get people to accept that in a particular context they should do something they are otherwise uncomfortable with. By socially constructing the boundaries from an open space we enable people to see things in a novel and interesting way, something that imposing a two by two categorisation framework would never achieve.
Gradient models don’t create boundaries and humans need boundaries to think differently. With a gradient people settle where they feel comfortable
…a framework with boundaries allows people to see that they need to behave differently in different contexts.
The danger is the confusion of boxes with boundaries. Boundaries allow us to create differences as we transit or approach them, boxes on the other had are confining, static and limiting
I don’t like 2by2 matrices because they create a categorisation approach in which the model precedes the data so people make things fit. As you can see from the first link the framework emerges from the data so its better for sense-making and is more likely to recognise a changed or changing context.
Every system has a boundary. It may be porous, and indeed a complex system must have “ports” or “dendrites” to interact with the environment. Context is a function of boundaries. Personally I do not like gradients, because soon everything is relative (and nothing has position then) and when that happens anything goes and I do not get closer to solutions either. With ports and dendrites there is no crossing of boundaries, it is what helps the system interact and it can be truncated or extended or narrowed or widened in specific ways to allow for the process of experimentation, which is also core to sense-making.
The danger with boundaries is when people use them to exclude “the other”, to live within boundaries rather than to transcend them. The point of the Cynefin model is to allow people to live on both sides of the boundaries and to behave appropriately depending on context
(Source: informalcoalitions.typepad.com)
