Knowledge As Emerging Patterns Of Interaction
Normal 0 Knowledge as emerging patterns
of interaction
Knowledge as Emerging Patterns of Interaction
1 Introduction
This paper examines how knowledge can be seen as continuously emerging patterns of interactions between individuals. It particularly focuses the nature of human organisations and how that nature affects the learning in individuals and -as a consequence- the continuous emergence of organisational knowledge. In order to do this, we will first look at the nature of organisations. This by examining what we see is the most helpful way to characterise organisations, clearly offsetting organisations as âsystems’ versus âprocesses’. It will be clarified that knowledge may exist only in the interaction between people and can therefore not simply be reified as âtangible’, âtacit’ or âexplicit’. We propose it exists in context and only in context. Thus, we consider knowledge as intrinsically social. Also, we consider knowledge as something that emerges only âfrom within’. There are no outsiders. Someone with information that exists in total isolation without the possibility to act cannot generate knowledge. This makes knowledge inherently âlocal’. âGlobal knowledge’, as in âbest practices’ or âbusiness processes’ are an illusion if they do not resonate with the experience of people in local interactions. We will use recent insights from the complexity sciences to examine the interactions and hence the continuous emergence of knowledge. It will become clear that âknowledge’ and âorganising’ are âcomplicitly’ linked.
In the quote above from the âHitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy’, this is illustrated with the illustrated with an interesting philosophical undertone, despite its inherent humour. The supercomputer Deep Tought took seven and a half million years to some up with the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything as the world-famous â42′. In the next chapter from the book the immediate implication is that we then first (sic!) have to know the âUltimate Question’ (Adams, 1995: 128). It then is decided to build the Earth as the next generation supercomputer to find that Ultimate Question. Later in the book it becomes clear that the Ultimate Question is âsix by nine’ (Adams, 1995: 305). At least, in base thirteen. All is contextual, you see.
2 Are organisations systems or processes?
The complexity sciences have emerged mainly from the natural sciences like physics, chemistry and biology. It has shown tremendous power in helping these sciences forward and explaining complex phenomena that previously could not be described adequately. These were those situations where the sheer number of interactions between particles or smaller units (the âlocal’) led to unpredictable behaviour on a global level. The complexity sciences were able to convincingly explain why simple global patterns emerge out of complex local interactions. Because of these successes, and the many complex issues that human organisations, and particularly business organisations, face complexity theory has often been used successfully as a metaphor to help organisations forward (see for instance Zimmerman, Lindberg & Plsek, 1998: 4-18). Understandably. Human organisations consist of many âagents’ interacting and display very complex and unpredictable behaviour. So much is not disputed. In order to be able to describe many of the observed behaviour people resorted to complexity theory. In natural systems, a very useful idea has been the definition of these bounded systems as âcomplex adaptive systems’ or CAS. The theory being that because of the complex interactions the system is âcoupled’ to the external environment (perhaps via semi-permeable boundaries) so that they âadapt’ to it. Thus viewed, each system is ânested’ in a larger (âhigher’) system. Therefore it is a small step to then see human organisations as systems and consequently as complex adaptive systems, in parallel with the natural sciences. This view then logically leads to teams, departments, organisations, etc., being seen as ânested systems’ (Kelly & Allison, 1999: 12-13, 19). The next step is to realise that human organisations may not simply ‘adapt’ to the environment. Perhaps what they do is co-evolve in that environment. We may see them as Complex Evolving Systems, or CES. (See for instance Heylighen, 1997).
These metaphors are powerful ways to look at human organisations. The principles of self-organisations, emergence, âedge of chaos’, etc., from the complexity sciences can provide interesting new insights in issues that organisations face. Given the constant struggle in business organisations to find ways to âcope’ with the inherent uncertainty they face, these relatively new theories help to make sense. But, as with all metaphors, there is a risk that we take them too far. People started to have conversations on whether or not organisations are a CAS or CES. Then, by inference, we start to say that organisations therefore must comply with this and that observation for a CAS. An interesting example, for instance, is the debate between organizational professionals whether or not âtherefore’ (sic!) âhuman systems’ emerge from âsimple rules’. This, in turn, is inferred from simple computer based systems in which âboids’, having been programmed with three âsimple rules’ start displaying behaviour that has been characterised as âflocking’, very much like a 2D projection of flocks of birds. But please note that in reality, these boids are just computer blips on a screen. The âsimple rules’ can adequately describe the behaviour of those âblips’ on the screen. But that is all they can do! They cannot describe any real life flocking behaviour at all. Let alone describe how birds reproduce or multiply. Hardly a rich description of something as complex as a
living creature. But, since the observed âflocks’ were so convincing, it has been assumed most complex systems are somehow emerging from simple rules. Since a CAS can emerge from simple rules, so must human organisations, so people claim. That is why some people with some (but no more) notion of complexity theory state that what we have to do is âjust find the simple rules’. These often are typified as âvalues’. Stating the simple rules than becomes âdefining the values’ of the organisation. This is reverse logic. An Organisation is not a CAS. It may be modelled as a CAS, and as a metaphor that can give really powerful insights. But what are organisations, really? It may be helpful to start by what we know âfor sure’ about human organisations. They consist of people interacting in their daily (working) practices. Therefore for the purpose of this paper we will start with that: the interaction between people in organisation that we will call âthe social’. My claim in this paper is that a metaphor different from a âsystem’ may be more helpful to describe (the evolution of) organisational knowledge. The recent thinking from Ralph Stacey on complex responsive processes sees organisations not as systems, but rather chooses to pay attention to the interaction between people (Stacey, 2000). This view emphasises that organisations are not systems as such but looks as them as processes of people interacting. For the purpose of this paper I see this as a very helpful approach. These processes consist of âthe narrative-like sequences of gesture and response between human bodies’ (Stacey, 2000: 146-148). In these interactions people continuously reinterpret their own experiences (âpast’) in order to act (âgesture’) to achieve some future expected state. This expectation, in turn, feeds back on the interpretation of the past experiences. Each gesture triggers a similar process in other people who then ârespond’ with a new gesture. With many interactions this is a highly complex process (hence the term âcomplex responsive processes of relating’).
With continued interaction, as is happening in organisations some âthemes’ will
emerge. These themes emerge because of some common intention of the
future, real and existing differences in experience and intentions and real and
existing issues that exist in order to achieve this desired future. This
emergence is self-organising in nature. This is where insights from complexity
theory are very helpful indeed.
For the purpose of this paper I will call this process of emerging themes
âpatterning’ of the interaction between people.
There are a few implications that are paramount in this process.
For one, we need to realise that not all participants of this process are equally
âautonomous’. Crucial, as pointed out also by Stacey c.s. (Stacey, 2000: 213-4),
are the power relations that exist in all interactions. âSome people are more
autonomous than others’.
Secondly, all action is action that is interpreted by each individual differently.
There is no âknowable truth’ other than what resonates with each individual’s
past experiences (sic!) and their individual intentions (sic!). Since all individual
past experiences as well as their individual intentions are different, so is each
individual’s âtruth’.
Also, importantly, there is no guarantee that people will speak âthe truth’. All
people will âgesture’ as to achieve their own desired future. In many
organisations not open and honestly sharing information is the norm rather
than the exception. Often, this is due to expected repercussions if the truth be
spoken. This means that conversations, as we can observe in all organisations,
are in fact the continuous negotiation of each person’s âintention’ and
âexpectations’. Thus, other people’s intentions become âenabling constraints’
(Stacey, 2000: 151-3) for these negotiations.
Richard Knowles (2002) has developed structured ways to examine the
processes of interaction and the emergent patterns. The combination of
Stacey’s complex responsive processes theory with Knowles’ self-organising
leadership theories could form a sound basis for studying knowledge
processes.
3 What is knowledge?
This is a paper about knowledge processes in organisations. We looked at
organisations as processes above.
I would like to use a definition from Dee Hock (1999), emeritus-CEO of VISA for
âknowledge’ and the hierarchy he puts in it.
Noise
Data
Information
Knowledge
Understanding
Wisdom
Noise is the undifferentiated stuff happening all around us;
Data is the first level of organisation of the noise. It can be discerned and
differentiated by the human mind
Information is the next level of organisation of the data. Patterns and
relationships are starting to add meaning (Bateson’s âdifference that
makes a difference’)
Knowledge is the organisation of the information in a way that in the
right context it becomes useful to act, decide or create new knowledge.
Understanding is organisation of knowledge by individuals in a manner
useful for conceiving, anticipating, evaluating and judging. This is a
unique, personal experience.
Wisdom is achieved when the understanding is informed by intention,
ethics, principle, memory of the past and projection into the future.
Science, including organisational science, has traditionally focused on data,
information and knowledge and has largely ignored Understanding and
Wisdom. In the context of this paper I would like to maintain that Knowledge
without Understanding is not useful for the sustainability of organisations. In
the context of complex responsive processes a deep understanding, as wisdom
in the above definitions, is paramount.
For long term survival and health of organisations knowledge processes should
recognise the need for understanding and wisdom.
This is an important statement.
If we analyse it a few things jump out:
Information as such is not knowledge; just having information is not
enough. âJust a book’ is not enough. That is âjust’ information;
Knowledge is where pieces of information have been integrated;
knowledge, in that sense, has the potential to be novel. It also says that
more that one piece of information is required. This means at least a
form of diversity;
This combination has to happen in âthe right context’. So, without the
combination happening the real world (context) there is no knowledge
just pieces of information;
This knowledge must be applied. Crucial. If we cannot use the combined
pieces of information to act it is -by definition- useless;
This knowledge in itself can then act as a new piece of information to
create new knowledge. This is the ârecursiveness’ in this definition.
Understanding happens when individuals are able to project and apply
Seeing the importance of understanding, thus paying attention to
intention, ethics and principles, will lead to âorganisational wisdom’ that
is seated in the individuals!
Thus phrased, âknowledge’ is continuously emerging where the context
requires the combination of pieces of available information in order to âact’.
In this definition knowledge is not something tangible. It can not be codified or
taken away. Information can. We can store information in databases. Knowledge
has to be contextual. Since the context exists only where and when people
apply the knowledge it can not be codified.
So, books or papers or databases are ways of codifying information. By reading
we start âcontextualising’ this information in our heads. In this process we start
to create our own interpretation of this information. This interpretation is
dependent on our own personal past experiences and our own individual
expectations of the future. It either âresonates’ with our experience or it does
not. The information distilled from a book or paper or any other source will -by
default- always be different for the reader than from the writer. Meaning, thus,
is being created by the âresponder’ not by the âgesturer’.
Reading it a second time around will again give different interpretations and -
hence- different pieces of information. Even the writer will interpret his/her own
writings differently a next time round.
This has as an implication that each piece of information will, by default,
already have in it a level of diversity if more than one person at any one time is
interacting round this piece of information. Stacey (2000: 202-6) quite
convincingly points out that it is this very diversity that makes that ânovelty’ can
emerge out of the interactions. Without it, no novelty can occur. Put in a more
lyrical way, some one on his/her own in some remote and isolated desert can
acquire a massive amount of information (from books, etc.), without interaction
(diversity) true novelty will not occur.
If people interact they do that in a certain context. They will âbe’ at a certain
time and at a certain place. People’s individual experiences are continuously
being recreated in that context. This context is the perceived (!) issue around
which people may interact. Hence the pieces of information will continuously
change. Therefore, reflecting the ideas of complex responsive processes of
relating in organisations, their gestures and responses will continuously
change.
This is another way of saying that each action people make, decisions they take,
information they create will change in each different circumstance.
Knowledge emerges in the gesture/response process as a social act.
Since these gestures and responses are the complex result of the many
individual’s past experiences and future expectations, so will the knowledge be
emerging out of those past experiences and future expectations in the context
of the perceived issue at hand.
Referring to paragraph 2 above, with continued interaction the expectations
and experiences will start to display complex themes or âpatterns’.
Knowledge can thus be seen as a pattern that emerges out of these
interactions.
People’s actions are, in turn, governed by the emerging pattern thus closing the
loop. This loop helps us understand knowledge processes in organisations.
4 How organisations learn…
What we can learn from the paragraph 3 is that organisations don’t learn.
People as individuals learn.
Organisations are forums for people to interact. Organisations have been given
some form of intention by the people that work in/for them.
These people, though, are not isolated from the rest of their lives and context
outside of the organisation. If we mention a person’s individual past
experiences we mean all their individual experiences, in the business
organisation, at home, at their sports clubs, universities, on holiday, etc.
The processes of organising are these processes of interaction that we called
complex responsive processes of relating.
In the previous paragraph we described that âknowledge’ is one of the emerging
patterns in that process of organising.
But, at the same time, this patterning forms the process of interaction! Action
emerges out of the interactions whilst using the knowledge that emerges out of
that very action!
Cohen and Stewart (1997: 414-22) call such a relationship as here between
organising and knowledge a âcomplicit’ relationship.
Processes of organising Knowledge
ACTION EMERGES
Figure 3 – Action emerges, complicitly, out of organising and knowledge processes
Action emerges out of the coevolving relationship between knowledge and
organising. It is therefore inherently impossible to decouple knowledge from
the organising process. Since the entity of an organisation emerges out of this
complicit relationship, the complicit knowledge and organising processes are
âthe organisation’.
This has some major consequences for how we see organisational learning.
We can describe the learning in organisations as the continuous patterning that
is happening in the process of interactions.
Knowles (2002: 107-23) introduces the model of the Process EnneagramTM.
This model is a way to show the perspectives of the interactions as process
patterns. It does that via multiple (nine, âennea’ (?????) is ânine’ in Greek)
unique perspectives.
In the interactions, people go through all perspectives all at the same time. This
is not a linear process at all. All nine elements are connected, but some
connections between elements will be stronger than others. That depends on
which people are interacting where and at what time. Thus, these patterns
reflect the collective histories of the interacting people, often organisations.
By paying attention to those connections we can see the patterns emerge.
People in organisations are thus given an insight in those patterns that they can
then internalise and use as pieces of information for their gestures and
responses.
Time
Patterns as shown in
Process Enneagram ©
People interacting via
continuous gesturing
and responding
Emergence
Figure 4 – Making emerging patterns visible
They will only âinternalise’ those patterns if they see that these patterns
sufficiently resonate with their individual experience and intention. In other
words, the issue at hand (context) must be compelling enough for individuals
to want to engage in this way. Thus the interaction becomes the continuous
negotiation of what is and what is not compelling for individuals.
It is a very important leadership skill to be able to act (gesture) in ways that will
help people see the importance of the emerging theme. If the gesture is
compelling, people will respond to it in ways coherent with the leader’s
intention. The mentioned power relations may distort this view, because people
may act not because the issue is compelling, but because the potential
consequence of not acting the way a leader wants is compelling enough.
It is obvious that thus people do not internalise the emerging âknowledge’
pattern as part of their experience, but rather the âfear’ for repercussions. This
in turn becomes part of the organising pattern and hence organisational
âaction’!
It seems to me that this has significant implications for âorganisational
learning’.
By internalising these emerging patterns as part of the interacting processes
this internalisation itself will become part of the patterns thus potentially
transforming the identity and intention of the interacting individuals.
Their individual transformation means they will act differently to the contextual
issues than they would have otherwise. Over time, we suggest that the
individual and collective identity and intention will converge since more and
more of the patterns will be internalised in each individual. They will never be
the same because each individual will still have an individual past experience
and future intention.
If the pattern that people make part of their individual identity and intention is
around the issue at hand than the action that people will take is important for
the organisation. People will have learned coherent action that will be âhelpful’.
Applied to the issue this is knowledge creation in the definition above. Thus the
process of learning is the process of evolving new patterns.
If, on the other hand, people internalise the âfear’ pattern, than the individual
learning will be entirely different. There will be very little connection between
the issue and people’s actions and -hence- the knowledge pattern. Very little
has been learned. Evolution is not linked to real life issues, but rather to people
avoiding other people’s actions (the boss’s actions!). Our experience shows
clearly that this happens in organisations.
We already established that the process of organising and knowledge creating
are complicitly linked.
From the reasoning above we can see that organisational learning as emerging
patterns of knowledge happens when people chose to interact around issues
that are important to them as individuals. The process of organising, including
the importance of power relations, can help or work against this process.
Leaders, therefore, have the choice how to âgesture’ in organisations realising
that their gestures may carry more âweight’ than that of others.
Without leaders seeing the importance of truly involving their people by
appreciating that their gestures somehow will have to resonate with people’s
authentic experience, very little knowledge creation will happen.
We have to think about how certain âbest practices’, defined as actions that
elsewhere have led to perceived positive (business) results, may or may not
resonate with people’s experience in the organisation where we work.
Actions, emerging from local interactions, are by definition local. âBest
Practices’ are therefore global patterns from specific local interactions. There is
little reason to see that they therefore will -automatically- resonate with other
people interacting locally.
In the words from above, practices need to evolve as patterns in organisations.
In the evolution metaphor, one can also not simply âplant’ a new species
somewhere and expect it to flourish.
Evolution of knowledge happens complicitly with the evolution of the
organising patterns. That is a major insight that surely must have major
implication on how organisations treat âmanaging knowledge’ and looking at
âknowledge processes’.
5 A Story: âSphinx’
We will now look at an example from all this in action. The particular story I will
use is about a business change management company I used to work for. Let’s
call the company Sphinx for the purpose of this paper. It is not the real name.
Knowledge as emerging patterns of interaction.doc © 2003, Symphoenix Ltd Page 12 of 15
Founders
âLeadership team’
Sectors
Services
Knowledge Groups
Back-Office
Others
Figure 5 – Sphinx’s emergent structure (2000)
Sphinx has always been an organisation that relied on people organising
themselves in helping its clients through complex change programmes. In order
to do this, the creation of novel and creative ways to help the clients is of
paramount importance. It is clear that the success of Sphinx’s business is firmly
based on knowledge (in the definition of this paper) and creativity. The way
Sphinx was organised was truly an emergent effect of the interaction between
people. In Figure 5 this is depicted as a series of âcells’. Usually people were
part of 2-3 cells at least. Some cells were permanent, others much more
transient, depending on the nature of it.
The âKnowledge groups’ were groups of people coming together to share ideas
and learning in areas that the people found important. The emergent nature of
it was that knowledge was being created when needed as perceived by the
group.
This is very consistent with the model described above, where the âorganising’
process and the âknowledge’ process happen âcomplicitly’. Effective action (i.e.
helping the client) emerged. And, interestingly, there was no-one steering this.
People’s deliverables with clients were placed on a âKnowledge Database’, in the
language of this paper containing Information and Data about work that people
had done. In the Knowledge groups (either the more permanent ones or the ad
hoc ones) people would then refer others to material on that database that
seemed to fit into the emerging theme. These other could then âcontextualise’
(read: create knowledge of these themes) in their own client environment.
The way of working was very successful and the company achieved very large
organic growth percentages year on year. The latter was of course not just due
to the way knowledge processes worked, but it certainly played a pivotal role.
Building on its success, the company decided on some aggressive growth plans.
The growth plans unfortunately coincided with an unforeseen sharp down-turn
in the consulting market in 2001-2. The company’s âmanagement team’
decided that more structure was needed and imposed (sic!) that structure based
on its views. This happens in many organisations because often âstructure’ is
associated with âcontrol’. In my experience this is a flawed concept where,
despite this flaw, many organisations are based on. It ignores the resonance
with people other than the managers.
One of the structural components that were introduced was that a âSphinx Way’
was developed. This meant to be an Approach (certainly not a detailed
methodology) that all in Sphinx would use as part of their âknowledge’.
âKnowledge Teams’ were instated (as opposed to: âencouraged to emerge’) to
cover the subsets of this Approach, enabling management to control were
money would be spent on.
This had as a consequence that the Knowledge database was ârestructured’ to
reflect the new Approach and the new Knowledge Teams were set up to
populate and maintain the database and proliferate the knowledge. Although
there are apparent advantages in doing that (for instance: common language)
the richness of the emergent knowledge groups was lost. More importantly,
âknowledge’ was now reified and thought to be âtransferable’. This did not
resonate with people’s experience at all! The Knowledge Teams very much
became mechanical groups and the Sphinx Way a management tool for
budgeting purposes. The database was no longer a source for conversation but
something that needed to be âpopulated’. Much money was spent on people
doing just that: populate it.
In the mean time, other changes happened and the company has since been
shrinking significantly. This might well be worsened because the main asset,
conversations that created novelty and new knowledge, was unwittingly
inhibited.
6 Conclusion
We cannot segregate the creation of knowledge from the organising processes
that happen in organisations (as in the Sphinx story). A helpful way of looking
at those organising processes is the relatively new idea of complex responsive
processes of relating. Using principles from the complexity sciences we can see
that out of the many complex interactions of gesture and response, patterns
will emerge in a self-organised way.
These patterns are leadership themes, reconciled individual intentions, etc. The
patterns make that people in organisation can act in a meaningful way.
Knowledge as emerging patterns of interaction.doc © 2003, Symphoenix Ltd Page 14 of 15
If we define knowledge as integrated pieces of knowledge in the âright’ context,
we can clearly see that knowledge can only be created in context. Without an
appropriate shared view of the context in which individuals act, knowledge is
not a meaningful concept since it cannot lead to effective action.
There is an all important leadership task to be able to help people see the
issues at hand (context) in a way that is important enough for those people to
choose to engage in the process of organising and -hence- in the process of
knowledge creation.
If people see the context too differently, actions will be âincoherent’ and no
positive knowledge creation and hence coherent action can happen.
The ideas of âbest practice’ proliferation as ways to share information and
âmanage’ knowledge, has the potential of working counter productive if the
context in which it is being applied varies significantly from the originating
context. Chances are that they will be quite different on a global level. In that
case the information does not resonate with people’s experience and no
positive action can emerge out of the organising processes. This may explain
the difficulty in proliferating best practices in large organisations.
The codification of information (via databases, memos, books, procedures, etc.)
surely is an important part of the knowledge processes in organisations. But
without the facilitation of open and honest interaction between individuals in
organisations and the presence of leadership skills to help people âsee’ the
emerging patterns and shared context there is very little knowledge creation
happening.
Sadly, in many organisations the emphasis of knowledge processes is focused
on capturing information, rather at this all important element of open, honest
and direct interaction.
Our suggestion is that leaders use structured conversations, for instance as
proposed by Knowles (2002) by using the Process EnneagramTM. This model
allows people to âsee’ the emerging patterns as well as provides with a coherent
forum (âmap’) for sharing context and learning.
(Frank Smits, © February 2003)
References
Adams, D. (1995). The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy in Five Parts.
London: Random House.
Cohen, J. and Stewart, I. (1994). The Collapse of Chaos, London: Penguin Books.
Heylighen, F. (1997). Classic Publications on Complex, Evolving Systems: a
citation-based survey, Principia Cybernetica Web,
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOCOPUB.html
Hock, D. (1999). The Birth of the Chaordic Age, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers
Kelly, S. and Allison, M.A. (1998). The Complexity Advantage, Boston, Mass:
McGraw Hill
Knowles, R.N. (2002). The Leadership Dance, Niagara Falls, NY: The Center for
Self-Organizing Leadership
Stacey, R. (2000). Complex Responsive Processes in Organisations, London:
Routledge.
Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C. and Plsek, P. (1998), Edgeware, Irving, Tx.: VHA,
Inc.
More Pattern Articles
