[p2p-research] responding about haskins [UPDATE & MORE]

[Michel Bauwens]

Dear Tom (and David):

Please also have a look at http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Governance and
at the synthetic visualization here at
http://p2pfoundation.net/images/P2P_Governance_Visualization_2large.png

In particular, I have resourced David's work here at:
http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Governance#Key_Graphical_Representations

Tom, is this context, I have an important request, I would also like to
present in some way your own work, but as it is evolving and changing, I
wonder if at some point you would not envisage an overview that I then could
reference there as well?

Currently, the section contains lots of material on all new forms of network
governance, but I'm also in the process of creating a much more specialized
exclusive area dealing with peer governance in the narrow sense (i.e.
governance of peer producing communities)

see: http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Peergovernance

Michel

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Tom Haskins <haskinstom87 at gmail.com> wrote:

> DAVID:
> Thanks for the added mentions on your updated blog post.
>
> Thanks also for the link to the Adler/Heckscher chapter!. I just finished
> reading it. I'm delighted with the dimensions they've added to some of the
> arguments I've been making by their:
>
> -- Application of micro scale, psychological dimensions like trust,
> loyalty, values, identity -- to macro scale issues like hierarchy and market
> forms
> -- Use of "dependence - independence - interdependence" characteristics
> much like the relational grammars I've been using
> -- Exploration of the impacts on processes of innovation and on
> responsiveness to customers/markets by advances into network/community
> formations and regressions into institution or market forms
> -- Explanation of the toxic effects of "tribal"/traditional community
> conduct inside bureaucracies/institutions and market-driven corporations
> I'm delighted to learn how some collaborative efforts have evolved inside
> large organizations to emphasize personal contribution, using metaphors of
> "value chain" and "business proposition" at a personal level, and setting up
> "strategy jams" to expand objectives far beyond the profit motive.
>
> I like their model of resolving ongoing tensions that creates a zig zag
> path of progress. Their picture of communities always present in shadow or
> foreground has given me a lot of reflect upon.
>
> I'm looking forward to your "long separate post" about all this soon.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 11:30 AM, David Ronfeldt wrote:
>
>
>> TOM (AND MICHEL):  fyi, i've finally added a few words and a pointer about
>> your efforts, and about p2p's reposts, as an update at one of my blog's
>> posts, as follows:
>>
>>
>> http://twotheories.blogspot.com/2009/05/organizational-forms-
>> compared-my.html
>>
>> MICHEL (AND TOM):  way down in the same post, i've added a new table and
>> blurb about an article by paul adler and charles heckscher that i think is
>> very interesting for all our interests.  i hope to do a long separate post
>> about it before long.  but meanwhile, i'd like to suggest you go download
>> and read their paper for yourselves (url is in my post).  it's about their
>> concept of building "collaborative community" in the corporate world.  their
>> approach, which involves distinguishing between traditional and newly needed
>> forms of community, overlaps a lot with what i try to mean by the network
>> form, and why it's different from the tribal form.
>>
>> onward (so slowly).
>>
>> ===
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Tom Haskins wrote:
>>
>>  David: Thanks for putting so much thought into my writing and diagrams.
>>> It's very helpful for me to see how my message is getting construed, what
>>> assumptions I appear to be making, what I may be overlooking or distorting
>>> and how I can refine/upgrade my emerging model.
>>>
>>> I've inserted by comments within this email, where I formulated what then
>>> followed as comments on Michels' blog.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:38 AM, David Ronfeldt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> i just submitted the following comment.  if you'd rather do something
>>>> else besides that, ok.  i've cc'ed haskins above.
>>>>
>>>> - - -
>>>>
>>>> Michel (and others?) -- This is intriguing.  I’ve looked at this and
>>>> related posts in the ongoing series by Tom Haskins at his blog.  He’s set
>>>> out on a rather daring course.  And I’m pleased to see continuing interest
>>>> in the TIMN framework.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I gather he is trying to show that TIMN, which I have pitched at the
>>>> societal scale, can also be used, along with other frameworks — notably,
>>>> Cynefin and Fiske’s relational models —  to analyze what’s going on at the
>>>> “micro scale” of discrete small groups, firms, and other enterprises.  He
>>>> appears to be interested in analyzing dynamic situations where pressures for
>>>> innovative changes are mounting, where old hierarchical and market ways are
>>>> proving deficient, and where it would be advisable to adopt new network/P2P
>>>> designs, but where stress and strain may drive the participants back into a
>>>> kind of tribalism before they manage to advance anew.  That’s not a full
>>>> summary of his effort, but it looks like a major strand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with that thrust, for I have often noticed that the TIMN forms
>>>> and related dynamics can be found at all levels of society, across all eras.
>>>>  I’ve even wondered about an assessment methodology for doing analyses at
>>>> the micro level.  But my efforts remain focused on the societal level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, I compliment Haskins for his efforts.  But in addition to
>>>> compliments, I also have some questions, issues, and suggestions for
>>>> revisions.  Perhaps I should offer them directly at his blog or via email
>>>> (we had a preliminary exchange about Fiske’s models).  But your blog has
>>>> shown an abiding interest in and been a good venue for TIMN matters.  So
>>>> here goes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. The charts and related text appear to miscategorize one if not two of
>>>> Fiske’s forms.  Fiske's CS (communal sharing/solidarity) corresponds to the
>>>> Tribes category, not EM (equality matching).  Fiske himself agreed that
>>>> tribes mainly reflect CS.  There is discussion somewhere at this blog about
>>>> this.  That’s not convenient for someone who wants to associate Networks or
>>>> P2P solely with Fiske’s CS, but that does not mean it’s okay to
>>>> miscategorize the Tribes form.  There are circumstances where Tribes exhibit
>>>> EM — after all, tribes are often egalitarian — but CS is their fundamental
>>>> relationship.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we apply any single category of Fiske's relational grammar to
>>> anything as large as a single tribe, we risk anthropomorphizing the tribe.
>>> Relational grammars speak to the micro scale of personal relationships,
>>> coordinating interactions, social bonds, cognitive representations of
>>> significant others, interpersonal vulnerability/insecurity, self regard,
>>> differentiation of self from others, organizing mental representations of
>>> perceived inter-relationships, etc. Because tribes, institutions, markets
>>> and/or networks are comprised of many personal relationships, all four of
>>> Fiske's forms would apply to all four TIMN forms.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2.  The various charts and related text often read quite negatively
>>>> about the nature of the tribal form.  The charts tend to depict people being
>>>> reduced to a raw kind of tribalism — full of defensive attitudes and
>>>> behaviors — because of external pressure and disorder (note that I state
>>>> “disorder,” not “chaos,” as explained below).  But the charts do not
>>>> recognize the bright aspects of the tribal form, or that tribes are not
>>>> always faced with chaotic disorder — sometimes life is quite pleasant and
>>>> orderly.  And that applies to all kinds of tribe-like organizations across
>>>> the ages, modern ones included, even inside corporate organizations.  And
>>>> when the tribal form is functioning well, it may help with the other forms.
>>>>  The blog postings note this at points, but only incidentally.  Only the
>>>> Networks form gets consistently positive depictions.  Is some kind of bias
>>>> going on here?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I admit to a conscious bias in all this and no doubt have some
>>> unconscious biases as well. I believe every situation is inherently complex,
>>> highly interdependent, cyclical and capable of yielding emergent solutions.
>>> The network response to situations is the only one sufficiently complex to
>>> be sustainable, resilient, and mutually effective when stressed by the
>>> complexity. The tribal, institutional and market forms are progressively
>>> more responsive to the inherent complexity, but each falls short. Thus
>>> tribal responses are the least sustainable and most vulnerable to the
>>> adverse impacts of the complexity, most likely to get regarded as expendable
>>> by institutions, markets and networks, and most prone to violent conflicts
>>> between other tribal responders.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3.  The charts and related text correlate the TIMN and Cynefin
>>>> categories to each other in what may not be the most accurate way.  This is
>>>> the first I’ve come across Cynefin, so I’m not steeped in it.  But I gather
>>>> this:  Cynefin is about four problem-solving situations and approaches —
>>>> simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic.  In addition, there is a fifth
>>>> situation — disorder.  It looks to me as though Haskins’s charts and related
>>>> text are often more about disorder than chaos, given Cynefin’s definitions.
>>>>  It’s not clear to me how Cynefin defines disorder, but it views chaos as an
>>>> unorderly (but not disorderly) situation where cause and effect do not have
>>>> a fixed relationship — they’re unsettled — and if you solve a problem
>>>> repeatedly, the answer turns out to be different each time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The charts show a continual association of Tribes with chaos.  But
>>>> that’s tantamount to saying that Tribes are not patterned as to cause and
>>>> effect, or that Tribes mainly arise when cause and effect are chaotically
>>>> uncertain.  But in fact, Tribes are often patterned and principled, even
>>>> doctrinaire, especially when faced with disorder.  Tribes are not
>>>> “illiterate” (as one chart claims).  Moreover, contrary to other charts,
>>>> Tribes often do “sense” and “categorize” before they “act.”  Tribes are not
>>>> just a milling, messed-up mass of people acting impulsively that arise only
>>>> in times of disorder.  True, disorderly and/or chaotic times can lead people
>>>> to revert to the tribal form — that is a TIMN principle, and I’m pleased
>>>> these charts and related text reflect it — but that’s different from saying
>>>> that Tribes pose a chaotic approach to problem-solving.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the extent that the TIMN and Cynefin frameworks can be given a
>>>> mash-up — and it’s an interesting, even fun idea — perhaps it would work
>>>> better if the associations were rotated.  Show that Tribes associate not
>>>> with “chaotic” but with “simple” approaches to problem-solving — as indeed
>>>> they really do in comparison to the other forms. Then, Institutions go with
>>>> “complicated,” and Markets with “complex.”  That fits with historical and
>>>> current realities.  It also fits with the principles used by the author’s of
>>>> Cynefin to discuss their framework (though in one write-up they seem to warn
>>>> against relying on these four simplifying terms).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The confusion I've created appears to be between the categorizing of the
>>> situations themselves and the responses to those situations. I'm only using
>>> the Cynefin framework of (chaotic, simple, complicated, complex) to
>>> characterize the situations, not the responses to them. Cynefin also
>>> characterizes responses to situations differently (novel, best, good,
>>> emergent practices).
>>>
>>> I'm proposing that tribal responses are the only ones viable amidst
>>> chaotic situations. My take on the difference between chaos and disorder in
>>> the Cynefin framework regards disorder as outside their framework. No
>>> practice can be formulated because there is no basis for even experimenting,
>>> improvising or winging it. Chaotic situations allow for tribes to form, to
>>> provide safety to their members, to guard against traitors, and to
>>> continually experiment with its adaptations to the chaos (novel practice).
>>> When situations get simple due to increasing stability, institutions can
>>> form and provide complicated infrastructures, governance, etc (best
>>> practices). When situations get complicated by diversity, empowered middle
>>> class citizens, societal distribution of access, rights, resources, then
>>> markets can form and provide complex mechanisms, systems, etc (good
>>> practices). When situations get complex due to the predominance of markets,
>>> enterprises, commercial innovations, networks can form and function as
>>> complex adaptive systems which are living, self organizing, and congruent
>>> with P2P precepts (emergent practices).
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that would deprive one of associating Networks with “complex”
>>>> — and leave only the option of associating them with “chaotic” situations.
>>>>  That may not appeal to P2P proponents who like complexity theory.  But why
>>>> not?  At least for current times.  It makes more sense than associating
>>>> Tribes with chaos.  As noted above, unless I’m misreading, the essence of
>>>> Cynefin’s chaos category is that cause and effect are not fixed — they’re
>>>> unsettled — and if you solve a problem repeatedly, the answer comes out
>>>> differently each time.  Isn’t the rise of Networks having such effects?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here’s a thought-experiment to try to illustrate it:  Imagine a large
>>>> but bounded set of people, men and women, in one place, where the problem is
>>>> to pair up, perhaps in dining, dancing, or dating relationships.  It’s not
>>>> hard to imagine how a Tribe, or a hierarchical Institution, or a Market
>>>> method in that setting might lead to a simple, complicated, or complex kind
>>>> of solution, respectively.  But how to imagine a chaotic solution that does
>>>> not amount to utter disorder?  I haven’t figured out an image for this
>>>> situation that really fits the Network form, but here’s a way to make the
>>>> situation chaotic:  Have the session start on time, but also have the
>>>> participants arrive at different times and from different directions.  That
>>>> would mix things up.  The session would still get underway with the same set
>>>> of people, but in an unorderly (not disorderly) fashion.  And the problem of
>>>> pairing-up would still get solved, but probably quite differently each time.
>>>>  No?  In any case, I repeat, the associations between the TIMN forms and
>>>> Cynefin models may bear rotation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4.  I have some issues with what I see on charts that associate TIMN and
>>>> Cynefin with different modes of group work, in a spectrum that runs from
>>>> action, to coordination, to cooperation, to collaboration.  That spectrum is
>>>> a start, one that draws on suggestions from another blogger.  But it needs
>>>> revisions too.  In particular, the nature of group work for Tribes is rarely
>>>> do-something-anything “action” as the charts claim.  Work in Tribes normally
>>>> revolves around rituals and codes of conduct — a collectively ordained mode
>>>> not evident in their spectrum.  For Institutions, their term “coordination”
>>>> is fitting; but it’s more than that — it’s command, control, and
>>>> coordination.  In Markets, “cooperation” does occur, as the charts indicate;
>>>> but that’s not the main mode — what’s missing from their spectrum is
>>>> “competition" (and sometimes competitive cooperation, or cooperative
>>>> competition).  Associating Networks with “collaboration” is fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Given the positional stances that emerged from that group work chart,
>>> I've concluded it's a serious oversimplification. My second attempt is the
>>> TIMN practice post where tribal responses work the insider/outsider
>>> distinction, institutional responses belabor the upper/lower differences,
>>> market responses pressure themselves with responsive/arrogant distinction
>>> and network responses get refined by recognizing the difference between
>>> living and automated systems. The internal dynamics of a tribe handling
>>> their insider/outsider issues could easily involve some action,
>>> coordination, cooperation and collaboration. Likewise for the other 3 TIMN
>>> forms and all four forms of group work.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, there’s a partial set of comments to mull over.  I admire the
>>>> effort and enthusiasm that has gone into these charts and the related texts.
>>>>  The series amounts to quite a saga.  I also gather that the blog author —
>>>> Tom Haskins — may well have a particular set of “micro scale” circumstances
>>>> in mind where his points hold up, and my comments are made moot.  In any
>>>> case, I hope to post more, new material about  TIMN and its dynamics at my
>>>> own blog before too long. -- Onward, David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.S.:  Thanks for the invitation to leave a comment here with this post.
>>>>  But since my comment is so long, feel free to move it elsewhere if you
>>>> prefer.  I’ll apprise Haskins that I have left a comment here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - - -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 8:29 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can also post your comment as a full blogpost,
>>>>>
>>>>> Michel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:59 AM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, i've wondered about replying via your blog, since i saw your post
>>>>> about haskins.  i've got a comment drafted, but i think i'll wait until
>>>>> tomorrow or the next day.  thanks for bringing the idea up.
>>>>>
>>>>> ===
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not explicate your issues and comments on haskins, that can only
>>>>> bring the effort forward, and you could do it via our blog?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything I can ever do to spread TIMN around, let me know, I consider
>>>>> it one of the very best efforts to make sense of network-based change
>>>>> dynamics, and I will be using it in class next week,
>>>>>
>>>>> Michel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>>
>>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>>>
>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN, http://
>>>>> www.shiftn.com/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090618/c1bbd2db/attachment-0001.html>