[Music] okay I think we're looking good um so I will begin so thank you everybody for coming um this should prove to be a very interesting expense expense uh experience uh Mike Jackson uh Styles himself as a system Sinker uh whilst Jee Bolton in Embraces complexity uh both have written very recent but very very different books um I'm sure um they will be recommending everybody to get a copy of both after this so you could compare and contrast uh on the surface it they both seem to inhabit different worlds but the question is do they really and how do those differing views complement each other are there any incompatibilities or is it more a question of what you are trying to do um they give you a background on both of our speakers uh Professor Michael Jackson is an emir professor at the University of pole and managing director of systems research limited he is well known for his contribution of critical systems thinking which suggests diversity can be a strength rather a weakness by revealing how different systems methodologies address various aspects of complexity and how they can be used in combination to resolve the messiest of wicked problems his latest book critical systems thinking a practitioner's guide was published by Wy in 2024 uh Dr Jean Bolton is a fellow of The Institute of physics and a visiting academic with the Department of Social and policy Sciences of B and with Cranfield School of Management she's a consultant writer researcher and lecturer about the science complexity and its implications for strategy change and Leadership the latest book The de I always get that wrong of complexity T Deo Jean is that right you can tell I'm from Liverpool the Dow of complexity making sense and making ways intervalent times published by DEA in 2024 introduces process complexity reflects on its resonance with ideas from many other fields of knowledges from Neuroscience to politics to quantum gravity and has how we can make waves in the world of increasingly fragile increasing fragility polarization and alienation both speakers have extensive experience in the field of system sing in complexity and they will bring their unique perspectives to the events uh so I would first like to ask Jean if she could tell us what the book is about yes well well um good afternoon good evening everybody it's very very nice to be here and um lots of names and faces I recognize so um so I'm very appreciative of being invited to um to take part in this uh discussion um I've thought a lot about um about uh I've read Mike's book and um I've read mine you'll be pleased to know and um thought thought a lot about what what is it I've been trying to do what is the book about is is a really good question um and I think what what it has occurred to me in terms of approaching books and and people doing things like me is to kind of ask us ask myself what is it what is what's the ground on which I stand what's my kind of um uh belief system my frame reference my starting point um that's driving this book and then the the associated question is what is it what's the driving question that drives me in my life you know what is it that I carry with me that I'm trying to answer in writing a book like this and I I think my answer to my own question is that the the real foundational question for me um is is to do with with almost a metaphysical question about you know what is the nature of things maybe this kind from being being a physicist um and from some of the the kind of quests that I had even as a teenager but this this like what is the world really like what how does change really happen how does reality show up is there a reality is is a sort of question that that's um that's been there for me for for a long time and um I I guess I'm asking in this book what is the complex world world really like and in the way that that my mom would have heard the word complexity and would have kind of imagined it meant well everything's complex so what do you do you can't know anything you better get get on with it um what this book is trying to do is to is to really try and and unpick the nature of the complex world and um what what I um what entranced me in in in thinking about this book over several years was when I looked at at books on the brain or when I looked at um various political writers who are really embedded who who were who were kind of um writing from an experiential point of view about the nature of change and the nature of things I found very very much very similarities between um these different context there was a sort of resonance something I've called ontological resonance between these different fields and and I'm not saying to you they they're the same or you know you have to believe me I'm saying isn't it interesting go and look for yourself there's something there may be something kind of innately interesting about the the nature of the complex world and I describe in the book I my starting kind of image I guess is is to do with situations being open to their wider environment nothing new there something something Mike would talk about about too but situations that are open to their wider environment but I'm thinking about things that where there are diverse things where things is is can meal all sorts of things interacting reflexively so there's something about diversity reflexive interacting and that when you have those kind of conditions be they in an ecology um a Galaxy a brain um a family a society you tend to find that things um emerge and stabilize as patterns of behavior as patterns of relationships so this idea of patterning which is a softer word than than systems but is not a long way away it's it has a more diff Fus sense of of boundaries is something that I'm writing about centrally so that the central ideas about process complexity that I'm describing is is is about um uh the the way patterns are held together there's something about the interweaving um is what holds those systemic patterns in in place and we don't have to look at separate kind of distinctions between the fact that sometimes those patterns become more chaotic sometimes they become very locked in sometimes um they become very organic and and relatively stable and and and adaptive but but the idea of the the kind of the complexity of patterning is is an underpinning idea and and I guess the the the other um couple of ideas that I would add to that is is this idea of things are always becoming and the Paradox of the idea of things always becoming is it's the very same mechanism that holds things in place that that creates kind of cultural norms or Norms of ways of working in organizations that that it's the same process that actually um allows things to unravel and and change so there's something about always becoming and Prine um talked his one of his first books was called from being to becoming and I think that's a sort of central idea so so that's the kind of what the book's about um the beginning of the book and um I make a a big um exploration of the idea of of intrinsic indeterminism so this isn't saying that the complex world is too complicated to know or too messy to know it's saying that there's there's there's an essential indeterminism um about things it doesn't mean we know nothing but there are limits to what we can know not because it's difficult but because there isn't anything to know there's something that that's critically subjective um that's that can't be pinned down because it's can't be pinned down so that's um that's a something I explore in the book and I I try and show I did eventually put these bits in the appendix um not to frighten the horses but um I'm talking about how how the physicist doesn't really think that the world is is determined either when you add all the bits of physics together um and apply them to a messy open system then there's something um that's that's that has a limit to um determinism final point point is that what am I trying to do in the book well partly I'm I'm trying to shine this lens of of my complexity ontology at what does it mean for an individual how do I change who am I what does it mean um to to to change to engage um I'm also asking the question of around strategy and change what does it mean for organizations and my consultancy work and I think this is kind of important as as well has has tended to be around strategy and change I I was the practice director of of of the strategy and change practice um for one of the big consultancies for for a while and that that really that has driven the kind of sort of questions I ask and then the final thing is to do with um with global issues and I think what drives me um is is that this stuff matters I think we we might come back to that I do want to play my part in making the world a better place so I'm not I'm I have a kind of ethical underpinning to this and I think that that you have to read my book in in terms of me putting myself in the book and and allowing you to see that this stuff this stuff is important to me um what the book isn't is is a book about methods um it's not that I don't think methods are important but I'm more interested in this book in talking about how do we conceive of the world what do we believe about things which allows us in the way that that I think Mike describes to then um pick your methods depending on the situation so I've probably um that's probably enough from me probably too much so Mike what's your book about okay here here it is critical systems thinking a a practitioner's guide and I'm grateful like Jean to be able to join this debate because I've learned a lot from Jean's book uh and also in thinking about relationship between system thinking and and complex the the book's my attempt um a different sort of pemis to genes really it's my attempt to put together what I think is most valuable in the system thinking tradition what I've learned about system thinking and practice over the last 40 years uh and to do so in a digestible and useful way uh maybe slightly more digestible than the 700 page tone which preceded it so to put together what I know about systems thinking in a in a digestible and useful way it's got three parts to it uh the first part talks about the the rise of critical systems thinking that that starts with why systems thinking at all and and there are reasons for that one the failure of the scientific traditional scientific method to deal with complexity uh the fact that traditional science leaves out a lot of what uh what leads to complexity particularly the subjective side um the fact that science itself has adopted has rejected now the old reductionist and mechanistic Paradigm um and the impact of of purely following a scientific method in terms of pollution all the rest of problems that might stem stem from that and then go on to discuss uh systems thinking as a complimentary approach that potentially can deal with complexity organized complexity in a better way um two two sort of strands of systems thinking the system science strand attempt to find general laws of systems of all types uh I think it's a dead end um I'm much more interested in the other form of systems thinking which has produced uh a variety of systems methodologies linked to particular World Views um which I think are a powerful lever to enable people to improve things um but because there are a variety of systems approaches the the plces have been fragmented and needed bring it back together again uh and that's what critical systems thinking uh seeks to do to bring it back together again through adopting a philosophy of pragmatism which I explain critique so we know what the different approaches are good at and what they're not so good at pluralism arguing that you need multiple worldviews and multiple methods uh and to use them in combination if uh if necessary uh and seeking to bring about multifaceted Improvement uh not just to efficiency but to resilience to human purpose to society and organizations uh generally the second part of the book uh outlines uh the way of making use of this lot of systems ideas what the systems Traditions come up with uh and I outline a a multimethodology which tongue and cheek I call Epic uh because it's an ideal type of if you were able to take advantage of everything the system thinking tradition was able to offer you and to put it to use this is how you would use it uh and of course in any one any particular situation resource constraints or other constraints uh will prevent you from doing this and you'll have to work your way around it work your way through it adjusting as necessary so epic consists of uh four stages is a major part of the book um exploring the problem situation through a variety of different systemic perspectives uh and they come from uh World hypotheses and social theories which have proven useful to the human species over time so they're not just picked out of the air uh in a pragmatic sense they proven useful to human beings in terms of navigating the world um and it's helpful to look at the world through those different systemic perspectives the second element is Buu there happens to be five types of systems methodology or approach uh each corresponding to one of the um systemic perspectives that I that I mentioned those are incidentally the mechanical inter relationships organismic purposeful uh and societal environmental there are systemic uh methodologies which you address uh are able to respond to issues that you might pick out using the different systemic perspectives so for example if looking at looking at an organization through the organismic perspective you discovered it wasn't didn't look particularly resilient you'd be able to find a systems methodology which enabled you to correct that issue seek to correct that issue make it more resilient um the third element is intervening flexibly because of this fact that you can't use all the approaches and methodologies at once you have to find your way through it things are constantly changing so you need to uh operate flexibly uh and finally checking um on whatever improvements you've made in a multifaceted way so you're checking on whether you've improved efficiency resilience uh purpose in terms of stakeholders you may the the system respond to to its Community to The Wider world and it's not damaging the environment and it's not through its inter relationships having unintended consequences uh so that's the sort of basic way of trying to put all those ideas of systems thinking and practicing together the third element says is called um towards a system thinking world uh and there I talk about the huge demand that is for system thinking and practice out there in the world uh is exhibited by loads of organizations calling for it uh but the barriers also talk about the barriers in the way of implementing systems thinking uh and there are a lot that are preventing it realizing its potential uh and and finally I I I talk about how you might be able to overcome those barriers through systemic leadership which I regard as um have having the leadership team having certain attributes uh being able to view the world through different perspectives Different World Views the systemic five systemic perspectives and having an awareness uh of the various systems methodologies that can help you to do things uh if you find problems or issues through observing the world through the five systemic perspectives my summary excellent very nicely timed as well I was just thinking or do I need to interject so thank you both of you very much for introducing your books and giving us a really good flavor for what they're about um what I would ask you to do is now debate between yourselves almost how do you see the similarities and differences between your books do you want to go first G let's should we do similarities yes or or yes let me yeah let me talk a bit around it so what what I what I like about it as well and and is it's very readable um I've I've enjoyed it I can't say I've read every single word but it it I've I've enjoyed it and I like the fact you're in it and that it's your journey there's there's something you know engaging about the fact you say at one point you know well I used to think that the world was was something that was kind of you know objectively real out there and all you had to do you know my words not yours was find it but now I know you kind of embrace that sort of General complexity perspective so I it it it has this humility that that around that idea of you learning and you engaging and you can see it's very well referenced you can see your you know you're engaging with people and responding to feedback so I I like that I think we have a a similarity um in terms of being interested in pragmatism there's no there's no wrong right there's no right answer There's No One Way um um and and I've I've been interested in in the pragmatism view of a naturalistic metaphysics so the fact that you get to know about things in an empirical way and uh rather than through a kind of theory lens so we we have that in in in common and I like I like the way you know it's it's um it's practical you know there's a sense in which you can say well you know here are some systems methodologies you know this is how you might use them um you know and there's a kind of explore plan do review sort of you know um your epic structure so I think I I can see as somebody coming into the field there's something practical to to use and and I think you know I think we're different in that that you you have and I think the systems thinking field and it's not just me saying this has a more epistemological feel it's it it's saying how do we know about what's there um and um I'm introducing almost the the idea that if people understood the the nature of the complex World some more they would pick and choose what they did in a different way they would ask different questions so would what there's a there's a different feel there perhaps between us the the other thing I feel um that that I would that I I would struggle or I would want to add to it is I think sometimes systems thinking pre preferences um what is so there there's a sense in which that there's something that says this is you know if we can really understand you know systemically and with its complexity what is then we'll know what to do or you know it will lead us in into action and and I think that that complexity thinkers or I I tend to have this dual kind of paradoxical question which is I'm interested in what is I do want to understand the patterns I do map things when I'm working with clients but I've always got this idea of where's it come from where's it going what are the signs of newness what about the future how embedded um from the past are some of the the patternings we see here so I think I think there's something that that it still feels a little bit that it's about these are methods to to to um to explore what is here as opposed to what is becoming or what is uh dissolving or what's qualitatively new so it has it it it feels slightly different about that and I'd also thought about um in terms of you talk about progress with your P there's also something perhaps that that you could add to that which is more about what's changing in The Wider world or you know are there signs of unint positively unintended consequences you know are there things that the project didn't intend but are actually really positive or is there something so different that's coming into the outside world so there's something more about about it's not just the progress of the thing you're doing but the the continually kind of reviewing which you do say I'm not I'm not um I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that but it's a slightly different um emphasis and and my my final um point I wanted to make was that with the different lenses it feels a little bit that you're saying choose the one that fits best um whereas another way of approaching it would be to say here here are a set of questions you know if I was working um which I do sometimes in you know help me improve my hospital then you know maybe what I'd be saying maybe your lenses would give me a set of questions so I might be saying in what ways is this too rigid in what ways do the mechanical um aspects of of of the of the situ of the the hospital work or I might be saying you know what what is going on in The Wider context of the hospital you know what relationships does it have with other hospitals and with public health or what are the determinants of Health in The Wider environment so I think I might use it more as a series of questions and then work with managers to say out of all that then what are the kind of core patterns where do or where are the intervention points or is this a fast changing situation or something that's got that's got very locked in so it's that there's slight differences and I don't know that I I think there's a difference in in mindset sometimes between people who are more drawn to what they call systems thinking or complexity thinking but certainly the methods I use you know I would use mapping I would work with a group of people to to start planning what they should do you know it's not it's not totally different it's it it sometimes gets gets played out as being more different than it is but there is maybe a difference of emphasis um so yeah how about you Mike well I disagree with a couple of those points but I I'll pick them up um as as we go along in terms of uh similarities and we both want to shift things from a from the mechanistic world view which is dominated because people have taken what they believe science was about and translated it to other domains where it's perhaps not um not particularly AP um so you say that yours is on ontologically driven you want you want to replace an old ontology of the world as a mechanistic thing to uh the more complex version that complexity Theory uh reveals um I think that's fine I mean that's what I that's what I what I would say as well um there's you say mindsets you know once you talked about ontology you start talk about mindsets in practitioner parament and you say that those are crucial because to determine what we do uh and I would agree with that so I'm I'm after changing mindset as well and I think that critical system thinking is actually always considered ontology if if I wanted to pick up that point and that it's always asked um what vision of the world is uh underneath underpinning this particular uh way of intervening so it does ask the the ontological question I think um we both operate within moren's Edgar moren's concept of generalized complexity as as you hinted at Gene um uh and that means something quite important that we both see models as still significant uh but mainly uh when restricted complexity was an appropriate approach uh and we would I think agree that models miss out a great deal um when um uh when you're when when you when a general complexity approach is is required because of well for one thing the subjectivity involved in uh in um in complexity which requires a generalized complexity approach there's pragmatism in common um therefore no universal truth uh multiple perspectives uh are important and translating that into methodologies and methods nobody can claim that I think we'd both agree that their own favored methodology or method was suitable in all circumstances it's contingent upon the circumstances which might been the best results uh for the human species in James terms what which approach will c will BR cash cach things in for the human species uh I particularly like the fact that we we both draw upon a whole variety of sources uh outside systems and complexity Theory um and I think this is important it want to accept there different ways of knowing uh not just the scientific method there a whole host of different ways of knowing so we reference a lot of the same people uh Miguel Christ um Fitzgerald um Gerta because of his subject he wanted a science which can incorporate subjectivity um we both draw upon non-western sources obviously you you on Daoism I talk about bit about Chinese philosophy but also indigenous thought uh and also um we both uh draw on Art and uh and poetry poetry and and music uh you cite um Leonard Cohen and Joanie Mitchell um Cat Stevens but you miss out uh of course the greatest Bob Dylan um who I do draw upon to some extent I think we're showing our age in this in this collection of from artists doesn't matter we've got to get it right and I also like the um the call to action um I don't think we have very dissimilar views on the state of the world uh and I agree as well with once you lack certainty then ethics becomes uh important as uh Bob Dylan said um once you live outside the law you have to be honest um you have to be ethical and and I like that and I can see how uncertainty takes you to that position and the fact that I uh in my book I talk about different ways of looking at the world and related ways of intervening in it that immediately draws to your attention the ethical choices uh ethical choices in involved I've got two points of um difference Jean I think I think the first one is inevitable that you come from a physical science background uh and I come more from a social Science Background uh and you say at one point one of the uh necess one of the reasons that complexity theory is important because it gains its Authority from Roots in science that's what you say you you so you're abandoning one version of the scientific method mechanistic one and you're taking on another one I am much less certain than you of the relevance of science to the social domain um I'm a person that believes in the real significance of uh emergence um two really um significant elements of emergence of course the emerence of life and emergence of of Consciousness and whatever conditions give rise to that this is a distinction you make I think the characteristics that come about because of emergence mean that you require a very different approach when it comes to the social domain than you is required in the in the scientific domain so it doesn't really matter to me if uh the whole of complexity science was found to be out of date just as the way that mechanistic thinking was found to be out of date uh and um I would still look at the social domain be concerned with that um so just one point let you come in the so I'm not sure to what extent you rely on science or to what extent you're saying well here's some useful metaphors which we can translate from science to the social domain uh but my own work has all always been in the social domain asking what worldviews what methodologies can bring Improvement in the social domain because they've been proven over time to be useful in that domain and that I think is a a genuine pragmatist uh element to my work uh what is it that enable us to do well as a human species these are five systemic perspectives happen to our five methodologies associated with them and they can generate improvements as they have done proven to do previously thanks Mike sorry I was I so I think you've misunderstood what I meant um when I said that that that this has some power because it it has its roots in science it just means that when um I talk to um to managers who think science think a mechanical worldview is being scientific I can go well actually there's another sort of science um the science of open systems which is also scientific but is much more um applicable to um to to the social world now what I'm not saying is therefore because I'm talking ontologically rather than epistemologically I'm not even really um talking about um I mean it's important what people so what I'm driving at um and and interested in is that there's an ontological similarity between um Prine looking looking at the the bellof sapinsky experiment and what people are talking about in brains and what people are talking about in society and I'm I'm not taking methods from science from physics I'm just saying isn't it interesting that there's a resonance between what's going on in physics and what's going on in in the physics of open systems but it's not a methodological it's not a metaphor it's saying I'm I'm finding something similar here because I'm digging all the time for this kind of it's not I'm not asking what's your ontology I'm asking what it's more of a metaphysical question which is is there something common about the nature of reality it's a bit like Whitehead talking about organisms being a kind of central feature I'm I'm trying to unpick what's Central to to things so so that I I don't want you to think that I'm kind of saying physics got it right therefore that's that that's what it is and I'm I'm probably um equally qualified in social sciences as well I've got a few degrees in that as well I'm I'm a bit of a degree collector so I've I've I've schmoozed between both Fields but I didn't mean what you think I meant I'm not I'm not trying to say physics has got it right so we'll apply it but I do think I am more grappling with the nature of reality um more than than than the kind of um the the how do you know about things so we are different in that way I think you maybe it picks up on another point of um difference that that you mentioned which was that um system thinking preferences um what is I'm not I'm not entirely sure that that's that's true in fact prob certain it's not true but um I'd say this that um a lot of systems thinkers from the beginning um if it I'm not saying that some system thinkers don't do exactly what you've described just as some complexity theories you won't might not necessarily agree with but if you look back at bogdanov or or Von B Lany who alongside piger jeene made famous notion of open systems in in his case concentrating in biology or even Vena there's this notion of of a process the world's in process they talked about it in terms of Second Law thermodynamics the gradual running down and they were interested in um how in Venus's case for example how machines an organisms and societies can maintain stability in a world which is processual and always changing so I don't think they' agree disagree with complexity theor in fact it's processual but they're interested in how you can maintain let's take organizations how you can maintain organizations uh as open systems in a world of considerable turbulent change doing things that the human species might want them to do benefiting employees customers all the so that it's not unreasonable um to concentrate if you like while accepting the world is processual it's not unreasonable to concentrate on those things which will enable patterns to be in your language patterns to be maintained when they are beneficial and useful to the human species in various ways yeah though to my own mind um that makes systems thinking potentially it's concerned more with the Here and Now not with grand rise and fall of galaxies that's unir perhaps but yes just just to go back on the open systems point I mean prine's Nobel Prize was for realizing that locally entropy goes you know the second law of th Dynamics goes in the wrong direction and Order emerges patterns emerge so that was you know that was the the the start of oh so so does B so does ber bery yes but you you were talking about about the second law of Thermodynamics but it's part of the understanding of of of paty based it in terms of living systems and I don't system I don't mind I can I can quote you the the biger genene 1947 yes not said that this is also the case in the physical side and and and ber lry was process driven it was all it's all about process complet completely what I was going to say I don't have to have a Prine B war is is that organizations you you know I think this that that you you described one of your key interests or the key interests of many systems people is here's here's an organization how do how do we make it resilient how do we maintain that kind of organic nature and what I'm also saying I ask question as well sometimes but I also might be saying how do how do how do I invade this was a great Peter alanw how how do I actually break some of the the rigidity of of this organization or I I might be interested in why does power constellate in the way that it does in in the global political economic world you know what what what What's led to that what do we do about it how do we how do we counter that so I I think I'm asking more questions but but if I were asking the question how do I retain um this organization shape then then mapping it and understanding some of the method you Ed I would go to you know I'd be there at your door knocking on your door I just think I'm asking wider questions perhaps I'm talking of questions Matt I have to have the chance okay sorry Mike sorry there there's a lot because it allows me to bring in my last point of of difference and you're going to have to give Gina respond to this as well um because I think you see when when you start talking about making ways in getting things done in the second part of the book you become far more systemic uh you start to leave complexity theory behind and become far more systemic so you become concerned with things like uh you say standards processes are essential and efficient essential sometimes we have to have them you talk about resilience you talk about engendering trust in bringing values together about uh opposing power um about finding a way between conflicting World Views all these things you start to talk about but these are the bread and butter of systems thinking so I could point you towards systems methodologies which will Ena would enable you to do something about all these things you you say and what I would argue Jean and come back at me equally strongly when I think about a manager using your stuff I think of them sitting in a room surrounded by uh maybe flip charts with all sorts of hints from complexity Theory and themes from complexity theory on it wondering which of these is relevant now to my particular circumstance and to me what systems thinking is able to do through its World Views the ontological understanding of different ways of understanding the at the world and its methodologies are provides much more structured ways of addressing the kinds of issues uh which uh which ENT entertain your you as as a complexity theorist yeah yes well um I don't know that that that either systems thinking or complexity thinking has has a monopoly on words like power I think there' be other people in this room you know that there sort of process sociologists and uh all sorts of people would have views on on some of those words so they're just words aren't they that resilience I I certainly think um complexi is about resilience I think there's a lot of overlap in in in terms of of of what we're trying to do um I think that um if I were working with a group of managers I probably wouldn't use the word complexity at all that would be a start um I would um and and have if I if I let's say I was working with with a group of managers to say how do we improve this Hospital I'd start by saying let's understand the wider context what do you know you know what how how has this Hospital got to where it is um what what what are its relationships with other hospitals what does it do with um about public health um is this is this a deprived area where a lot of the issues are about housing I'd be asking these bigger questions but I wouldn't use the word complexity I would just be asking sensible questions that were about that broader context and I'd be getting them to map it and and we would be having a conversation about what's key here you know other things that that are historically driven that have that have remained are there things that are starting to emerge that are new what does that mean about what we should do and then getting some ideas about that if we then came back to the organization I'd be saying is this organization fitting the nature of of of its purpose you know is is is the wider World um very fast changing or is it pretty stable what does that mean how adaptive are you do your structures get in the way of doing that or do they help so I'd be I'd be mapping that you would recognize I I I don't know that I necessarily call it a a this method or a that method but you would recognize those those methods so You' become more systemic well systemic is one of is one of the key words that you say you're W you say you're wary of the word system you use the word wary of the word system oh yes yes I don't like system you should you shouldn't be wary of it because one of the greatest conceptual tools we actually have for improving organizations and societies yes I love the word systemic I think the problem with system is it sounds like it's has a boundary it sounds like you choose what goes in it and it sounds more stable I don't think systems think some like uh i' go back to the point that some system thinkers might use it that way but I don't think that's the way it's used in my book it's used as a conceptual tool if you've got a mess which is a hospital you might use a a system systemic perspective conceptual tool to try and improve some aspect of it but I don't think you have to polarize I mean I this book isn't about my book is is I should wave my book at you should know my book is um is is is not about methods my book is about the way we conceive of I know I know different purposes yeah yeah but I don't think that that I think what I think the way I teach it is I would say systems thinkers you won't like this but but I'm going to say systems thinkers are very good at capturing now they are less focused on the historical contextual and emerging um qualities of it they don't do as much about that they don't they're not as comfortable with qualitative emergent with noticing as opposed to capturing I don't agree with that at all I mean I I I think L to take one example of chch's approach he's looking for what changes are feasible and desirable in a particular context having taken into account the history and the power relationships and the rest of it so I I leave it but I don't agree with that point no well that's okay right as as we we have got to that point and whilst I would like to explore why people talking about these subjects seem to obsess about the 1960s artists rather than more modern people that may have something to say equally and we have got a number of questions that are coming up in the chat uh and I'd like to bring them close to it um Mike and Jean's attention uh so the first one is from Andre which is one that he says it's for both of you which is why do you think there is so much resistance to the core ideas of General complexity in system sying especially on the part of managers and strategists and just to link that in um to another question that was asked uh by Charlotte which is how far does the categorization of this is a systems approach or this is a complexity approach actually matter one of you want to start uh well resistance I um I do try to deal with this in the last chapter of the book I I think system thinkers often don't do themselves a lot of justice and they get involved in a lot of uh academic debates and when they translate that into practical situations they're aren't going to get anywh go Beatles to annoy Matt go carrying pictures of chairman mauu you ain't going to make make it with any anybody anyhow but um you know you you have to as as Jean was said you you probably you need to introduce these ideas with without the uh the jargon without necessarily talking about complexity or about or about systems thinking but there are of course organizational barriers um the uh traditional hierarchies traditional silos uh in organizations which prevent you doing much there is the preponderance of the mechanical mechanistic worldview that both Gan and I are so opposed to so those are uh significant barriers whether it matters or not whether you say you're a system thinker or complexity thinker um if you if I was to be controversial I'd say it seems to matter more to complexity theories um there are the ones who are always claiming to have gone beyond not Gene so much but some claim to have gone beyond systems thinking some wouldn't even have the word system used in their seminars um I don't P I think we need to get over that and when we talk perhaps about the future of these ideas later on then um that'll be the time to say a little bit more about that yes so my my quick answer is thanks Andre for for that question um it it's to do with power I think I think that that in in the end people in organizations they they they're told you know people in organizations are constantly told how do you measure your success what's the evidence for that what is your plan you know it's they it it often feels that they would do do worse by saying well we don't really know we're going to try you know you you're not allowed to say that there's a there's such a there's such an issue around power and control um that's expected and and I think psychologically for some people it it's it's like they they want to feel in control and being told it's all very messy emerging doesn't doesn't um you know go down well so I think I think that there is a big resistance and and in some ways I think that's got worse you know if you look at the way you know particularly in some parts of the world you know particularly in the UK you know we if you take education we're we're about at the bottom of measures of of numeracy and literacy but our policy response is always to tighten up the machine or to measure more often or to to tell people exactly how to teach you know and and and write it down and then measure it and justify it you know rather than sit under a tree and talk about you know trees so I think I think there's there there's there's a resistance there's there's there's also I I think I think what I try to want to say to people is I sometimes feel with some systems people is they're still telling you you know trust me it's it's going to be all right we've got a method you know we can we can do it you know it might be complicated but it's doable and I think there's something psychologically that that that I would like to bring in which is how do we deal with ambiguity how do we deal with judgment how do we deal with with the kind of you know the emergence of things that we haven't even imagined so it it has I think for me the complexity message has a more granular feel it's more it's more about you don't know but but but you've got to be attuned to what is and notice change it it just has a different feel to it but I don't you know it's something we can go back to they're not totally different but they when I talk to systems people I kind of know they're a systems person and and when I talk to to a complexity person they see there's more of a resonance in in a kind of more a softer more more holistic more relational more inative approach so not all of them okay that's quite interesting and just bringing in some question the question from there is there is the this other aspect is to answer that excellent question is is that there has been traditionally divisions among systems people which doesn't help anybody when you have Waring factions and I have to say there are divisions in complexity Theory as well if not Waring factions there are certainly differences different different interpretations of system of complexity complexity and that that doesn't help the cause of either okay so the next question which comes from Sharon is um how does your perspective deal with uncertainty and with changing um should I go first since um this notion that systems is perhaps less less attuned to that um well I I think it's all based upon the notion of uncertainty um it's based upon generalized complexity upon terms so I mean I almost totally accept Jean's view of the of processed comp complexity as a as a as a reasonable description a description of attempt to understand the kind volatile World in which we uh in in which we we live but we we we have we have found uh ways of engaging with that World um not by mirroring it finding accurate pictures of it um but by attuning ourselves to it to the sense that we're able to act productively in it and Achieve certain things uh and the mechanical systems thing that's important Gene accepts process that's an important way of doing and there other important ways of engaging with that uncertainty but there's no one way so within systems thinking nowadays I think there's a con there's a full acceptance of of of of uncertainty uh change um comes from the um to some extent from the the ethical stance that you you want to try and make the world a better a better place I think actually it's two of most managers we can talk about the hierarch a lot of managers are in tune with it with it as well it's not right of we need to form coalitions which can react against all the way things are going in certain in certain directions uh and so yeah yeah I I think both are both books concern themselves with un certainty and change yes I think I think the way that that I talk um one of the pieces I write is called Simplicity on the other side of complexity and there is a sense in which if if you if you draw if you allow the whole Rich picture CH sorry I'm using the systems word Mike but um you know um if if you look at that whole whole um that was supposed to be a joke it was supposed to yeah that went well okay thank you thank you Martin um if you draw the whole Rich picture sometimes what to do becomes clearer there's there's a sort of Simplicity about well this is a good starting point here's a good place to to start this this is really important so I think there is something um that that that that can be done about that but I think we've also got you know I think uncertainty is great you know it is it is like there's a psychological predisposition you know who wants certainty you know uncertainty it's it's a Dost view you know that that the whole richness of of of novelty and variety is is is how things emerge and it's how we adapt it it it's how things become resilience so it's actually there's a psychological Attunement to to get people to be more comfortable with not knowing using judgment you know using intuition you know not not just reverting to what are the what are the mechanistic ways you know what are the what are the kind of I don't can't think of a better word at the moment but you know there are ways of of reducing you know some of of of of what you think you don't know but there's also something about embracing that that uncertainty as as as something that's that's generative and and and um and real and equally with change you know there is a predisposition some people like things to to be certain you know or or To Be steady but but sometimes you know change is is very positive you know we could we could yeah so I think there's a psychological element to it as well as a kind of um trying to reduce it um which I'm sure you know might you'd agree as well yeah yeah yeah no it's much better that we we've got Free Will and we can change and we can get things done using systems approaches so got question for Lou from Louie to what extent does pragmatism invite axiological blindness Does anything go as long as it works what are the underlying values and interestingly enough is What's Love Got to Do With It although I'm not sure if that's a reference to Tina Turner and Prim move the whole music thing forward and but that's that's a question from Lou for you well I I'll I'll have a go at that one first that's so a very simple question Louie um not um the the I don't so I think there's two aspects to pragmatism one one of them is there's no there's no um there's no one way to skin a cat sorry that's a horrible phrase it's the one that comes to mind it's a there's no one way to do things but there are wrong ways to do things there there it it it's not it's not an it's it's not a relativistic relativist position it is it is um you know that's the first thing to say and the second thing to say and it's something you know that Paul CER I was think of in particular making this point is is you know all of these methods in in a sense if you want to use it are value free you know they tell you how how power constellates how how um you know how bad occurs you know it's it's it's um the the axiological you know um choice is is one that we make with within both of these kind of approaches you know what what are we trying to do is it is it a value to to the Future and to society and and I think you know that's that's um certainly written in in my book and I think in in Mike's too is that I don't want to do anything that doesn't make the world a better place I do want to challenge things I do want to to be in it but that it's not in a sense intrinsic it's something um I mean Paul CIA has made the point that in in a world that that's not entirely knowable every choice is an ethical Choice you're choosing what to pay attention to you're choosing where you're going you know what your intentions are so it is it is there and Love's got a lot to do with it because I think there is something about you know that I've that I suppose I've was attracted to dosm about which I haven't really um spoken about much here which is the path is made through walking so we collectively co-create the future so you know dealing with people compassionately you know wanting a better future is how you how we co-create the future and if we do the opposite or if we think the The end justifies the means then what what in what's introduced into the system um is is a is is that it is it is what you do that enters into the system not not um not necessarily what you thought the end point might be you know if you lie the LIE enters the system you might lie for good reasons but it's the lie that enters the system equally how we treat each other you can't you can't talk about power sharing um and treat people badly you know it is it is you have to kind of you have to hold these ideas in and and demonstrate them in the way or try to demonstrate them in the way that you are in the world so um Love's got a lot to do with it I think yeah I agree agree with all those points the um as a convert to pragmatism I'm it really liberated my my thinking in a in a lot of ways once you give up the notion that you can mirror the world get a spectator view of the world a God's eye view of the world um then you are in danger of moving towards a relativistic position pragmatism saves you because it doesn't deny the existence of a world but it says that it says we can't Know It uh but we can engage with it and and see what works to the benefit of generally speaking the human species and of course it's not what Works immediately it's what works in the long term I mean William James and mdan off as a pragmatist system thinker had to deal with this criticism are you talking about just what works and of course said no no no we're talking about an assessment over time of whether this brings benefits and as Jean says it it liberates you because uh you can create the world if you're a pragmatist of course you may come up against some realities which prevent you from doing that uh doing exactly what you want but you have a lot of space particularly in the social domain for creating co-creating the world for inventing Concepts that will take you in a better Direction uh than those which exist at the moment which is exactly Jean's argument s of the concepts of the mechanistic that which have dominated our thinking in mechanistic terms if we start introducing concepts of complexity Theory and I would say system thinking and that liberates our capacity to make the world the better place yes I think I think just to just to add a bit of of that I I I don't think we can just you know what what I mean when I say we co-create the world is is you know so do all the so do all the other guys you know we we you know something that I I write about in in the book is you know we have to challenge early because um you know when people in power start to um regard the whole world as as um as a kind of Monopoly board of real estate uh it it can get very difficult to counter you know it's some it's something that the political writers have written about a lot about how how do we engage early how do we engage how do we think about the what we're doing so you know sadly you know when you look at on this big stage it it we all have agency um sometimes that agency can can feel quite small but we do have to show up with that um and um you know who said um you know e evil is when good people do nothing you know there there is that aspect of it but you know it is co-creating the future means we're we're in it but must have been leard Cohen was it I don't think it was leard Cohen some some important philosopher whose name somebody will know but I can't remember okay so good but as Jee has brought up the future and I'm I'm aware of the time I would like to ask you both with Mike to go first if that's okay um the field of systems and complexity what are the future what is the future for them both um okay well as I started off by saying um the the demand for pers system thinking is huge as the the World Health Organization United Nations UNICEF the system thinking interest group in the Civil Serv service now is over a thousand people uh but the supply of um train systems thinkers is is poor some of the established systems groupings for example the open University and and center of system studies that Hull are under threat the system thinking apprenticeship is under threat and when when you get uh huge demand and weak Supply then the Gap is often filled by charlatans who who who claim to be doing system thinking um but really don't know much about the history of it or the way that it works and reinvent the wheel at the very best so I would you know put in a plea um I think I think we need to somehow do something about the supply side and I think gen talked as well to me about um the same thing being the case paradoxically in the in in the in the complexity community that that the the forces the educational she talks nicely in the book about the Finn education system where um people go out and do practical projects interdisciplinary projects uh there's nothing like that in much in UK Universities at the moment so I'd like to see a big shift there to um enhance systems thinking and complexity Theory let me start my second point with a quotation from kler which I Ed in my book the most striking indication of the pathology of our species is the contrast between the unique technological achievements and its equally unique incompetence in the conduct of its social affairs now if you think that our um a currently a great technological achievement is AI to take an example I really am scared about how that's going to impact our capacity to conduct our social Affairs whether for good or for bad and the same with other contempor technological achievements and I seriously believe that system thinking and complexity Theory can help with that side of the equation that kler says is hugely neglected so we're good at technology but we're no good at organizing our social Affairs and I really do think that systems thinking complexity Theory can help to do that and at the same time making the most of the technological developments finally I think that um system thinking I hope it's become clear that although there are slight differences of emphasis I think personally think systems thinking complexity can work together to do what I've just said needs doing uh to create a more balanced World in which there is an acceptance of the importance of mechanical systems approach to get structures and processes and efficiency right but also enables you to look at the world through alternative lenses uh uh in Jean's case the complexity lens in my case uh breaking that down perhaps the organismic relation into relationships purposeful and societal emancipatory lens uh a more balanced world if we can broaden our Horizons uh and view the world and seek to act in the world according to those alternative ways of perceiving things and doing things okay um I I I think I still feel um the focus in systems thinking is is about doing things in a new way and and I think what I'm saying is we have to think differently I'm challenging thinking like what is the world really like and and and I think that's really um that constant challenge you know it sometimes feels in a kind of mechanical world viw that people would rather um stick to the rules than than do something useful and it's more than methods it's it's more a view um about trying things out about about allowing for judgment about you know supporting people who who um go further than they need to I the a story comes to mind about my um which I probably shouldn't tell because it'll take too long about my mom in a hospital when she was um near the end of her life and uh she moved hospitals and there wasn't a bed ready for her and when I arrived on the train um my very um my very strong minded mother was was having hysterics and she'd been left in a room for hours and when I went and um and approached people um they said you know I said why haven't you taken her to the toilet you know why haven't she has anything to eat and they answered all the questions who well she hasn't been admitted there was no process because she hadn't been admitted and um by the time I'd gone ballistic um she somehow or other magically got admitted in about three seconds and then these things happened and I I felt that they'd rather stick to the rules than actually deal with the re reality of the situation so I think this I'm using that as an example of we have to get people to think differently and and sometimes it's going back to ways that people thought in a more pragmatic way like the Finnish education system I'm sure my education system was more like that than it's become in this kind of Contin um becoming more mechanical so I think I think that's I think we've got to find ways and and we have slightly different ways of getting this conversation about how do you recognize something systemic emergent contextual integrative in the world and and see that as as more normal and I think that's difficult because it it doesn't fit with everybody's psychology it's a big it's a big jump for people so that's one point I wanted to make the the other point I wanted to make is I think there's there's a real um there's something really to address as a community about how how do we deal with with different views and sometimes um I think two things I'm really opposed to um to the kind of dialogue where somebody completely rubbishes somebody's work or tells them they're wrong you know there are posts on LinkedIn sometimes where somebody there was one that I didn't catch early enough to intervene where somebody new to the field had been kind of exploring it and somebody came in and said well that's wrong and this this poor woman apologized you know for having having kind of you know got it wrong we've we've got to engender a community where people can learn there's a there's there's you know we've got to dialogue we've got to help people understand the differences you know like like Mike and I are trying to do you know if we can understand our own differences we can help other people to to navigate when they when they would say oh you know Jean's ideas here are really good you know but for this I'm going to go to Mike's ideas you know that that that's um that's important to have dialogue and to have a kind of it's It's not that we all have to agree but we have to we have to disagree in a respectful and and specific and and critical using the word some one another word we both use Mike I've forgot to mention is critical criticality is important I'm also concerned um in the way these this these fields are are moving on is that but I think it's really important to go to people for for information who reference uh work who who have um who've dialogued who've really thought hard about this and show their workings and and I feel worried when people post things that that seem to have no references they sometimes don't even have a name and they purport to have to have to ex Express an idea um these are very complex ideas you know an idea like emergence is is very difficult I've I've I've slaved away at that thinking about what I think that means and how how I express it so we need to develop a field where we we are um where we communicate and dialogue in in a in in a way that generates um learning and and um and understanding but we also have to um to really be wary of of of people who don't who seem to work entirely on their own who don't seem to reference you know who who are very dogmatic um and um and who you know who are not who are not contextualizing their their work um there's a lot of a lot of the work on complexity doesn't get anywhere near LinkedIn either I've I've been kind of a bit surprised by that there's there's a lot more going on um than than you know I've talked to some of the people I know they don't they don't really go near that that kind of thing so if you want to learn about these fields you know it is important to you know to do your homework and and to look at who's writing um and and that sort of thing so so it's important you know this is important I completely agree with with Mike whatever labels you put on this this is really important work for the future we've got to counter this this this on the one hand resort to the mechanical in organizations which seems to be constantly about you know trying to you know tie everything down meanwhile in in The Wider global economy we anything goes you know so we have we have a kind of less a fair you know we can do anything there are no rules going on out there coupled with this kind of m micromanagement going on in organizations and I think we have something to offer that field but but dialogue well but but beware of I I you know those people who are writing in this field you know do say who you are you know do reference things don't don't assert things um it's just you know without contextualizing where you're coming from I think that was what I wanted to say okay I'm very aware of the time Mike would you like to just give a final comment before we wrap it up no I had to be be with with Gan on that I think we have explored explored the ideas uh well well in this in this debate um great respect for for Jean's book I'm not I'm not going to repeat some of the arguments well I think system thinking can do well I think I'd rather leave it to you to Matt to come up with a quote from Taylor swi or one of your modern people who's got something you think got something to say oh I've been put on the spot there um Taylor no that's my daughter you would need to ask my daughter about Taylor Swift I'm afraid um I um am tempted to mention the PES mode here uh who claimed that everything counts in large amounts um and that could be seen to be appropriate or not as the case may be um I have been asked to remind people this was a joint event from the center system studies in Hull and the O Society uh so thank you very much to everybody for coming but very importantly can I thank Gan and for Mike for giving up their time and their knowledge uh whilst I know they're here to promote their books I've having spoken to them in preparation for the event they're more passionate about to sharing what they've got to share than the book sales um and if the audience would like to be aware of future sessions or to contribute in future you can contact either myself or JMA Smith uh who is the secretary for the O system sying Sig um we're available through many things and many formats uh and I would recommend that we've also got the Euro 25 conference in leads from June 22nd to 25th uh which we've managed to get a as Jean probably will frown at this stage a system syncing uh stream added this year which is really important thing that we're very proud of achieving so please consider putting abstracts in even if they're about complexity and coming to leads because it'll be a great event H but once again thank you to everybody for coming tonight uh hopefully I'll see you at future events and please have a great night thank you thanks very brilliant thank you everyone and for me yes thanks for having us [Music]