1 of 11

Towards a multi-level theory of agility

Nicholas C. Westbury

Dstl

ncwestbury@dstl.gov.uk

2 of 11

What is the paper and presentation about?

Context: We’re researching a multi-level theory of agility for C2, to provide a context-sensitive account of the emergence of agility as a result of organizing processes

We’re going to discuss this with you

Intent: This presentation seeks to:

Explore and discuss with you whether an organizing paradigm is a good starting point for theory
Invite you to reflect with us
Invite interested parties to collaborate with us (contact details on paper)

Setting the scene

So we intend this work as a exploratory piece, not a definitive piece. We are adopting a position to be developed. Readers of the paper are asked to reflect on what they know, and to come and collaborate with us (with a hope for transdisciplinarity) on exploring the science and its possible meaning and implications for Defence. Any mistakes are our own, but in the spirit of a Snowden’s ‘probe’, we are excited to be wrong, and invite feedback & collaboration. Where I’ve used references in the presentation that are not in the paper, they are in the slide notes pages.

DJ Snowden and A Juarrero (via Snowden) are major influencers for this work. Snowden’s work is quite extensive and covered in papers, presentations and blogs. Prior engagements with Snowden and his work have occurred with the military / Defence research community over many years and it is difficult to track all of where the ideas in the paper have come from (Something we are actively doing for the continuing research).

Assumptions

The primary assumption, that is rarely challenged by Defence and actively resisted, is that the military first assume they are operationally separate from ‘other’ government departments, and then need to integrate. I some sense, this assumption actually causes the integration challenge. An alternative would be to reverse the ‘separate’ and ‘integrate’ – i.e. the military first assume they are operationally integrated with ‘other’ government departments, and then need to separate where the context demands it. Nick Westbury (the author of this presentation) in particular believes this reversal will become the norm within his working career.

That we are trying to better understand the organizing mechanisms that C2 needs for operating in complex and chaotic situations (c.f. Kurtz and Snowden, 2003), which define in large part the nature of operations involving the military (deliberately decided to not write ‘military operations’ here in order to link back to previous bullet). Operations involving the military typically involve multiple activists with their own perspectives that can conflict and be incompatible, with unintended consequences from the diverse range of actions the activists can do that are in part beyond the competence of the military, presenting unresolvable uncertainty, ambiguity/contradictions, surprise/novelty, deception, and direct and indirect strategies (e.g. ‘reflexive control’). We agree with Snowden and NATO, that you cannot specify and control the evolution of a complex system towards a preferred future as the other actors involved get a vote and vote by taking action. This invites the strategies that Snowden talks about in his Cynefin, and the idea of sensemaking through interaction with a complex system.

We are interested in multi-perspectival crisis and conflict situations.

We are not talking about ‘freeze – thaw’ temporal models of organisational change. We are talking about people changing what they are doing/using and who they are doing it with, in order to create organisational capabilities – as they are doing it. Exploring feedback, multiple probes and making sense of feedback (immediate and longer-term) (c.f. Snowden). Noting unintended consequences.

3 of 11

How are we framing this?

Framing: We strengthen the uncertainty / ambiguity / novelty aspect by framing agility as (substituting “changes in”):

“Agility is the capability to successfully effect, cope with and/or exploit [unanticipated, unexpected and unfamiliar] circumstances” (drawing on NATO, 2013, p. 20)
Noting the risk of deception / ‘reflexive control’, we need to consider adjacent possibilities not only as a response to novelty/surprise, but to protect us from exploitation of our ‘expectations’.

Reflective Questions:

How does C2 manifest changes in its collective capabilities via organizing processes as it conducts operations?

How does it prepare to do that?
How can it get better at that?

Notes

The framing places the emphasis on ‘beyond expectations’ (of either us or other actors). It should be understood that there are expected, expectable and unexpectable circumstances. In the sense that if I expect it, I can consider it within preparation, and I’m more likely to be looking for it and expecting it. If it is expectable, but outside what I am expecting, I may be surprised a little, but I can organize something. Where something is unexpectable, it is novel and unfamiliar, it is outside what I am expecting / can expect – which means I’m not looking for, and if I do see it will I perceive it, and if I do perceive it will I understand it?

Being human creates the potential for exploiting us using such strategies as ‘reflexive control’ [1]. We need to consider alternatives / adjacent possibilities not only as a response to novelty generation from the environment, but to protect us from our ‘expectations’.

References

[1] Thomas, T., 2004. Russia's reflexive control theory and the military. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 17(2), pp.237-256.

4 of 11

What is an organizing paradigm?

Differences in research focus:

‘Organization’ emphasises object and being

e.g. effect of network structure on behaviour

‘Organizing’ emphasises process and becoming

e.g. networking behaviour resulting in persistence and change in a network structure

Dichotomy rejected… ‘And / both’, not ‘or’

They are mutually related and influence each other – Organization is a medium and outcome of Organizing - Both are context-sensitive expressions
‘Organization’ as an assembly of entangled organizing processes that interact at and across levels of dynamic organization

Persistence is a dynamic steady-state or a “dynamic non-event” (Weick, 2011)

Seemingly stable and reliably recurrent/regular aspects of organizations arises due to the continuously ongoing interaction of organizing processes, but it doesn’t have to…
…Novelty generation in response to deception, uncertainty, ambiguity and novelty…

Reflect: How do we move from resisting uncertainty, ambiguity and novelty generation, to exploring and making use of it?

Happenings

Structures

(being)

(becoming)

‘Organization’

‘Organizing’

Notes

Scholar’s trace the roots of ‘Becoming’ back as far as the 6^th Century BCE, to Heraclitus: “No man steps in the same river twice…”. Whereas ‘Process philosophy’ is more recent in the tradition of reference [1] going back to American pragmatism and German romanticism, which [5] pointed out as the major turn in Western thought. A process view of the world may be called an anti-Platonist perspective, thus breaking with dominant traits of Western thought focused on ‘Being’ (that’s sometimes called the “footnotes to Plato”) in which stability has been seen nobler than change (c.f. [3]). The picture shown suggests that rather than a dichotomy, Organization or Organizing, we can think of ‘And / both’.

Paradigms - Paradigms are philosophical and theoretical frameworks from which a community of practitioners (in the Kuhnian sense [7] [8]) can discern the legitimacy* of studies and the quality of their work. In more technical terms, a paradigm is a coherent integration* of ontological*, epistemological*, and axiological* / praxeological* assumptions [6] that underpin* both (a.) the methodological* principles and guidelines to be employed, and (b.) the broader theoretical framework* associated with the phenomenon being studied.

Legitimacy - The ability to be defended with logic or justification; validity; a specification of quality.
Integration - i.e. a text whose arguments form a logical and consistent whole
Ontology / Ontological assumptions - The study of / assumptions about: the nature of being or becoming [4]; or, “the types of entities assumed to exist and the nature of that existence” [6].
Epistemology / Epistemological assumptions - The study of / assumptions about: the nature of knowledge, “the possibilities of, and limitations on, our knowledge of the world” [6].
Axiological / Praxeological

Axiology / Axiological assumptions - The study of / assumptions about: the nature of value/values, covering ethics and aesthetics. The basis of what makes something ‘good’.
Praxeology / Praxeological assumptions - The study of / assumptions about: “how we should act in an informed and reflective manner” [6].
Different authors define Praxeology and Axiology differently and in often overlapping ways. Reference [6] notes that it covers questions relates to effectiveness, values ([6] uses the term ethics) and morals (implications for others).

Underpin - Paradigmatic assumptions define the nature of both the subject (i.e. observer) and the object (i.e. observed), and the relationship between the two.
Methodology / Methodological assumptions - The study of / assumptions about: “…a structured set of guidelines or activities to assist people in undertaking research or intervention. Generally, a methodology will develop, either implicitly or explicitly, within a particular paradigm and will embody the philosophical assumptions and principles of the paradigm.” [6]
Theoretical framework - Theoretical frameworks strive to be evidence based, but they have philosophical paradigmatic assumptions in them that unless challenged by evidence, which is often difficult to do, are assumed to be true. Over time philosophy and science have mutually informed each other, but there is no science without the philosophy of scientific practice.

References

[1] WHITEHEAD, A. N. 1929. Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. Cambridge UK. Cambridge University Press

[2] WEICK, K. E. 2011. Organizing for Transient Reliability: The Production of Dynamic Non-Events. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19,1, 21-27

[3] TSOUKAS, H. & CHIA, R. 2002. On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 5, 567-582

[4] Moon, K. & Blackman, D. (2014) A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists. Conservation Biology, 28: 1167-1177. doi:10.1111/cobi.12326

[5] LOVEJOY, A. O. 1936. The great chain of being - A study of the history of an idea. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[6] Mingers, J. & Brocklesby, J. (1997) Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies, Omega, Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 489-509, ISSN 0305-0483, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00018-2.

[7] Kuhn, T.S., 1974. Second thoughts on paradigms. The structure of scientific theories, 2, pp.459-482.

[8] Kuhn, T.S. and Hacking, I., 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50t h Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of.

5 of 11

How does capability feature in this?

Routine and Creative assembly of collective C2 capabilities as practice unfolds – Context-sensitivity

Satisficing “best we can do given what’s out there”
Both are generated in the enactment of organizing processes – Or dynamic (re)combination & assemblages (Snowden, 2015; 2021)

Making a distinction between enacted and formalised/codified…

(A) Formalised codified organization is important where it facilitates dynamic organizing or creates the capacity or headroom for it – makes ordered things easier

Constrains possibilities, whilst enabling others
e.g. rigid-, governing- and enabling-constraints (Snowden, 2015)

(B) Formalised codified organization can change where:

Recurrent patterns of C2 capability emerge from the organizing
Unnecessary or inappropriate constraints on the organizing are found

Reflect: How do we realise a dynamic relationship between organizing and organization to enable assembly of collective capabilities as practice unfolds?

Happenings

Structures

(being)

(becoming)

Happenings and structures

As Enacted

As Formalised/Codified

(A)

(B)

(N.B levels of last figure are implied, but not shown in both the enacted and codified figures above)

‘Routine’

‘Creative’

Notes

In the spirit of the agile manifesto [1], whilst we value dynamic organizing more than codified organization, we consider organization as important where it facilitates dynamic organizing or creates the capacity for it.

Rigid constraints – external constraint, very tightly applied for ordered/obvious problems. Governing constraints – external constraint with degrees of flexibility associated with expertise. Enabling constraints – internal, allowing more variety and are adaptable providing enough structure that the ‘team’ will evolve in a favourable way. [2]

Organizing – The ‘act of organizing’ places the emphasis on process, specifically a process of structuring that individuals perform collectively to intentionally impose meaningful and purposeful patterns of change and order in structure. Implying, organizing generates different organizational structures as an emergent property. Such a position also sees requisite variety as something that is constantly managed in the organizing processes for complex and chaotic environments, something that is continuously searched for in a satisficing manner of “it’s the best we can do given what’s out there”.

References

[1] FOWLER, M. and HIGHSMITH, J., 2001. The agile manifesto. Software development, 9(8), pp.28-35.

[2] Snowden, D.J., 2015. Keynote: Embrace Complexity, Scale Agility by Dave Snowden, accessed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYlqhvzI_VQ&t=6s

[3] Snowden, D.J., 2021. A systematic approach to innovation: from adaptation to exaptation, accessed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNl5z5URjQU

6 of 11

Where is the people and agency in this?

Human Agency permits the possibility of unpredictable emergence, due to the paradoxical stance of human nature

Embodied and affected by stress / burden; bounds on their rationality / deliberations / ability to anticipate; disposed / habitual – but also possess some capacity for reflection, learning and change – as a result, people exhibit selective attention in sensemaking

Agency over the organizing processes is both simultaneously enabled and constrained by how they are relationally situated (embedded)

Preparedness to act shapes the selectivity of attention, reflecting social expectations, and the task, goal or challenge at hand
The meaning of experience / feedback is negotiated continually and deliberately, constructing abstractions of various levels that situates individuals relationally, meaningfully and purposefully
Experience internalised as frames/schemas can enable or constrain sensemaking depending on the practice context

Organizations are many bundles of distributed attention with differences in perspectives

Multiple Coherences – i.e. Bundles of people who are continually assembling context-sensitive manifestations of collective capabilities to both make sense and take action – they are organizing themselves relationally, meaningfully and purposefully, as they work – Covers both routine and novel organizing
Multiple Coherences in organizing, where coherences are also structures that are both the medium for, and outcome of, organizing

Reflect: Are multiple coherences a good or a bad thing?

Enactment as organizing in context

Formalising / Codifying as organizing for context

Ind

Team

Org

Levels of abstraction

Agency & Sensemaking as organizing in context

‘Bundles’

Notes.

Please refer to Sections 2 and 3.2 of our ICCRTS paper for the list of references associated with sensemaking and human agency.

Agency is simultaneously enabled by influence over the organizing processes; whilst also constrained as each individual is relationally situated in time and space with each other (Giddens, 1984)

As part of sensemaking, they each individually and collectively reflect upon and negotiate the meaning of feedback/events continually and deliberately (Klein et al., 2007, Entin and Entin, 2000), in order to construct/update models of the unfolding situation. The ‘models’ situate and localize the individuals meaningfully and purposefully in relation to each other, the available resources, to a level of recursion and to the levels of abstraction, as well as placing them in the context of the relevant aspects of the environments that they have relationships with.

The assumption that shared information creates shared situational awareness (SA) implicitly assumes rational decision-making. It doesn’t say much about how information is used, how decisions come about, and how coordination emerges. One major obstacle to common SA is the existence of different perspectives on the same situation in different parts of an organization. This selectivity of attention has been acknowledged as a fundamental aspect of human cognition since [1], and has generated insights in line with the Thomas theorem: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” [2].

Agency - Emphasizes the human ability for tactical considerations about how to present oneself and play out a role in any concrete situation, drawing on different institutionalized expectations, in turn shaping future expectancies. Thus, people shape society as much as society shapes roles, identities and perceived possibilities of action. Even if every condition of a situation is fully known, we still cannot predict behaviour. Instead we have to acknowledge the role of human agency; that society, activity and actors matter equally; and that people “may play the same hand differently according to their skill and the flow of the game” (Whittington, 2006, p. 615).

The levels of abstraction shown on the slides are arbitrary in the sense that when working with people from other HQs or from other Enterprises, they may not be abstracting in that way. Abstraction is most likely context-sensitive also. We as researchers have found the following levels of abstractions very helpful: individual, team/group, organization (i.e. HQs), Enterprise (cuts across levels of Command) and Inter-enterprise (working with others/partners).

References

[1] JAMES, W. 1890. Principles of psychology. Henry Holt & Co.

[2] p. 572 of THOMAS, W. I. and THOMAS, D. S. 1928. The child in America: Behavioral problems and programs. New York: Knopf.

[3]

7 of 11

Where is the context of practice in this?

Are multiple coherences good or bad?

Coherences should probably be cross-functional, and then it probably depends on the context of practice
Snowden (2015) / Jackson (2019) suggest that different sensemaking strategies are needed, which would be different ways of organising in, and interacting with, different types of practice context

E.g. Complexity generates novelty, ambiguity, uncertainty – interact with it to make sense

Can’t control to an outcome – novel outcomes and unintended consequences – actively searching using multiple probes and acting on feedback to move to preferred adjacent possibilities – e.g. Snowden’s (2015): probe, sense, respond – Snowden focuses more on human-oriented incremental rather than transformational change, based in his reading of sense-making and complexity sciences
Might applying McChrystal’s (2015) ‘Gardening Metaphor’ to multiple beneficial-coherences within this context increase an Organization’s sensitivity / attention?

Reflect: Could organizing processes support both coherence forming and breaking?

We refer to coherence breaking as ‘constructive-decoherence’ – triggering a change/shift, or a pivot in the enacted coherences – because if decoherence is not present, then would an agile pivot be possible?
Might organizational agility be associated with two mutually intertwined, and supportive organizing processes of cohering and decohering?
How might the processes of cohering and decohering operate simultaneously before, during and after the dynamic changes, shifts or pivots that characterise agile organizations?

Reflect: How might coherences be actively ‘gardened’?

8 of 11

Do we have to start thinking of ‘networking’ and ‘systeming’?

A ‘networking’ behaviour might explore and probe multiple interpretations / perspectives for beneficial coherences, whilst also searching for constructive-decoherences.
A ‘systeming’ behaviour might engage in patterning / gardening the cohering and decohering tendencies of the networking behaviour, possibly to adjust the degree of exploration versus collective convergence.

Meaning: ‘Systeming’ is to ‘system’, as ‘networking’ is to ‘network’
Does it change what and how collective capabilities are manifested within the networking?
Do patterns of interaction emerge with dynamic teaming / networking as they follow their focus of interest in accordance with their sensemaking?
Should they nurture the ongoing work in the respective teams rather than to instruct in detail what they should do and risk locking the goal-seeking behaviour into more rigid formal structures?

The ‘systeming’ and ‘networking’ behaviours might work together at a higher order to include and exclude, prioritize and marginalize, scale and collapse particular coherences, as well as changing the number and diversity of alternative coherences being included.

Might this broader inclusion create a wider attention within the organization that when combined with the dynamism, creates the basis for agility within the organizing processes?

Ok… But can we visualise this… somehow?

9 of 11

An attempt to visualise this…

As far as Snowden’s “Shallow dive into Chaos”?

Decohering supported, cohering supporting

Mixed

Cohering supported, decohering supporting

Are there Options?

Temporal – deliberate use of moving through stages
Structural – deliberate partition of parallel activities
Behavioural – use of approaches empowering staff to explore coherences and constructive-decoherence

Systeming of a coherence

Networking

Individual and small teaming

Groups of multiple teamings

Large scale org organizing commitment

Key

Systeming of coherences

Coherence

Notes

Number 1 collapses collective action into small teaming (where ‘teaming’ is meant in the active sense of assembling and moving between teaming situations). These explore widely and seek to generate novelty. How far the constraints are relaxed is not sure, and this brings to mind Snowden’s “Shallow dive into Chaos”. Number 2 is a mixed state, where inside the same organisational cluster, there are small bands of people exploring / probing alternative coherences, with some significant organizing commitment behind a number of coherences that look pretty promising, but the organization hasn’t chosen yet to commit, and this brings to mind Snowden’s liminal states. Number 3 is showing a organization where they have committed a large chunk of people/resources to a main effort, but are also exploring in earnest something else promising, whilst running multiple probes with small bands of people.

Systeming in the sense of behaviour and practice that is regulating the deconstruction or constructive of system structure. People are fundamentally limited in terms of time and effort, and whilst the military personnel may be networking, there is a need for some way to focus their attention for best effect.

The higher order ‘Systeming of coherences’ - include and exclude, prioritize and marginalize, scale and collapse particular coherences - number and diversity of coherences

References

Please refer to Snowden’s recent blog series for a discussion on the recent version of Cynefin with liminal zones.

10 of 11

In summary…

We proposed an ‘Organizing paradigm’ as a good starting point for theory

That the organizing capability is an indicator of organizational agility
Two organizing processes of cohering and decohering
Practice associated with Networking and Systeming behaviours
In order to unleash the ability to dynamically manifest collective C2 capabilities

Invitation:

You are invited to collaborate with us in researching a multi-level practice theory of agility in the organizing paradigm, and the associated organizing practices and structures

Our contact details are on the Paper

11 of 11

CLASSIFICATION

11

Discover more