This is the third in a series of posts that seeks to draw parallels between Edward de Bono’s work on the mechanism of mind and Ralph Stacey’s complex responsive process view of organizational dynamics. Both of these strands of thinking are reflected in the informal coalitions view of organizations as dynamic networks of self-organizing conversations.
This third post looks at language, conversation and pattern breaking.
Language and conversation
Stacey’s view of organizations as complex responsive processes of relating stresses the important role that language plays in the overall process. He places particular emphasis on the self-organizing, patterning process that characterizes organizational conversations and interactions. This patterning takes place between people, during their (external) conversations, and simultaneously within people during their thinking (or internal, silent conversations).
The emerging patterns are shaped by – and themselves shape – the ongoing, self-organizing conversations that comprise everyday organizational behaviour. As the patterns and content of the conversations change so does the organization. However, conversations can become stuck in repetitive patterns. So the challenge for a leader is to try, as an active and involved participant, to stimulate more fluid, spontaneous conversations. These open up the possibility, but not the guarantee, that more useful and creative outcomes will emerge.
De Bono expresses a similar interest in the patterning effects of language. As he points out, language only works because it provides symbols (words, intonation etc) and accompanying feelings that trigger the patterning process and tend to channel it in particular directions (based on the immediate context, what has gone before and activity in the moment).
This tendency for the emerging patterns to follow established pathways led him to develop the concept of lateral thinking, as a way of trying to ‘cut across’ these and stimulate new responses. De Bono also invented a new word, po, to counter what he saw as the rigidities and polarization of the yes/no exchanges of conventional conversations. This provides one way of escaping from what he originally called the "concept prisons" and "cliché units" (i.e. stuck patterns), that inevitably result from the patterning nature of the brain.
Random stimulation and pattern breaking
De Bono emphasizes the importance of random stimulation as a means of breaking out of established ways of thinking. I see this as analogous to the importance that Stacey places in deviance and eccentricity as sources of creative emergence in organizations. It also challenges many of the ‘common sense’ theories of organizational management, which see "strong" (aligned) cultures, rational analysis, clarity and conformity as the touchstones of organizational excellence. De Bono’s notion of random stimulation makes use of any input whatsoever - no matter how unrelated it appears to be. The more diverse and seemingly unrelated the better. No input is rejected as useless since, from this perspective, the more irrelevant it appears the more useful it might turn out to be.
One of the main ‘tools’ of lateral thinking is provocation, in which established patterns of thinking and the assumptions that underlie them are intentionally challenged in one way or another. The aim is to stimulate change in the patterning process. The ‘confusion’ and ‘misunderstanding’ that arises from this intervention creates the circumstances in which pattern switching becomes more likely. Interestingly, one of Stacey’s colleagues, José Fonseca, also sees confusion, misunderstanding and diversity as important ingredients in the search for innovation from a complex responsive processes perspective.
__________
Comments