working with emergence: Margaret J. Wheatley, How Large Scale Change Really Happens

[Connie Weber]

Here is an article about change.
"In spite of current ads and slogans, the world doesn’t change one person at a time. It changes as networks of relationships form among people who share a common cause and vision of what’s possible. This is good news for those of us who want to change public education. We don’t need to convince large numbers of people to change; instead, we need to connect with kindred spirits."

Wheatley describes in some depth what has happened with NCLB. Her intent is not to evaluate the "good and bad" of it, but rather to see how systems of influence get going.

"Change Happens Through Emergence
In all living systems (which includes us humans), change always happens through emergence. Large-scale changes that have great impact do not originate in plans or strategies from on high. Instead, they begin as small, local actions. While they remain separate and apart, they have no influence beyond their locale. However, if they become connected, exchanging information and learning, their separate efforts can suddenly emerge as very powerful changes, able to influence a large system. This sudden appearance, known as an emergent phenomenon, always brings new levels of capacity. Three things are guaranteed with emergent phenomena. Their power and influence will far exceed any sum of the separate efforts. They will exhibit skills and capacities that were not present in the local efforts. And their appearance always surprises us.

A simple way to understand emergence is to look at the phenomenon of the “Perfect Storm.” Meteorologists can never predict the sudden appearance of these super-powerful storms. Their power is a result of a number of discrete and often invisible factors converging in perfect synchrony. If any one of the elements were not present at that very moment, the storm could not emerge. It is the “perfection” of their convergence that creates such overwhelming power. This power cannot be predicted by assessing the strength of individual forces or by summing their combined power. It is the simultaneity of their convergence, that they all come together in the moment, that creates their power.

NCLB activated unseen dynamics in the atmosphere of America to create education’s Perfect Storm. Many local changes that had little significance in isolation converged with other changes to create a force no one can ignore. No one could possibly have predicted what emerged: educators hanging on to life rafts, struggling to maintain a focus on achievement, learning, the whole student, the arts and so forth, as they react to the gale force demands of high stakes tests.

This Culture of High-Stakes Testing is an emergent phenomena, what we name as a “System of Influence” In human organizations and societies. A System of Influence determines accepted practices and patterns of behavior; it sets the criteria for what’s important and what’s not. Over time, those who fail to conform to these requirements get labeled as deviant and pushed to the fringes. A System of Influence, like a culture, sets the values, norms, expectations, beliefs and assumptions. It determines where resources go, what practices to use, which behaviors to reward. To understand how these powerful, determining systems of influence arise, we have to look into the dynamics of emergence. Once we understand these dynamics, we can work with emergence to create a new system of influence that better serves our intentions."



The article brings to mind for me the importance of this initiative on the part of Mechelle, this site that brings kindred spirits together. Mechelle, I think what's going on here is very promising as a "system of influence" and breeding-ground for Communities of Practice. Thank you.

[Neli Maria Mengalli]

Freire wrote that the old does testament for the new. We need to think more about that, because we can reuse something in different context and inappropriately.

Building network isn’t sufficient, we need mapping. Emerge the need to evaluate the networks. If we are mapping and working with theory, minimize the relation power.

We must look back in to the communities of practice, otherwise we have an eternal beginning in courses.

I hope I have contributed!

[Connie Weber]

Can you explain what you mean by mapping, Neli? Also, ways to evaluate networks?
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion!

[Neli Maria Mengalli]

Dear Connie,

There are many papers about mapping. This is a good example: http://www.orgnet.com/orgnetmap.pdf.

About evaluate networks, http://people.bu.edu/mgaynor/sigcomm03.ppt... But we can see more...

[ ]sss

[Connie Weber]

Hi Neli,
I printed off the first article to read, and am studying the second this morning. I'd really like to talk more more with you about this. Right now I'm beginning the design of an evaluation of a couple of networks. They are simple, small networks with a complex interior! I have an educational orientation, not a business orientation; seem to be working through some of the undefined overlap of the two.
A lot is happening for education right now, isn't it? On the one hand, there are increasingly tight controls over acquisition of very specific (often outdated) skills sets. On the other hand, never has there been so much freedom and possibility--not just for students, but for educators. People can join together like never before, share tools, share knowledge... Sometimes it seems like we're on a collision course for two views of education (transmission of "knowledge bits" vs. learning how to be a knowledge hunter and discerner). At other times I think the two views can merge--but the design for this hasn't been laid out. It's a time of pioneering and exploring... and yes, we are seeing some "eternal beginnings" as you said.
Simply stated, what do you see as some of the primary lessons of communities of practice? Are those evident from the references you sent? What do you think are the most important things to keep in mind?

[Neli Maria Mengalli]

Connie,

About Communities of Practice (CoP) you can read more in www.ewenger.com/pub/pub_systems_thinker_wrd.doc. Networks are before stages...

The creation of Communities of Practice (CoP) is possible, given that the managers interested in taking part in initiatives do so voluntarily recognize, even if in a superficial way, the participative, professional and institutional dimensions.
This now emerging social phenomenon foresees cultural building in a more participative way and with the emergence of restructuring the professional networks. The Communities of Practice (CoP) strengthen the creation of new “we” and “knots” in the network.

:)

[Kevin Prentiss]

Whew. "Once we understand these dynamics, we can work with emergence . . . " ? I wish I could understand these dynamics . . .

It's tricky that the article says "a simple way to understand emergence . . . " and then goes on to say that meteorologists, with all of their expertise and satellite imagery, can never predict . . .

Is a system understood if its behavior cannot be predicted? Seems not very scientific. I think prediction understanding probably comes before behavior control - so we are two steps away from a Practice that works consistently?

So things percolate unseen and coalesce into storms.

I get that this means coalescing is something to strive for, and then I completely agree with your point that initiatives like this one are good and important.

But we are the "good" ones right? It's good for our ideas to coalesce of course, but what about the "bad" ideas like NCLB? How do we stop them from coalescing into a storm that batters our little boats?

Is it simply a race?

And if effective coalescing is what we are looking for - then is it network theory where n+1 is always a good thing? Does that mean that joining like minded groups together, instead of keeping groups separate, is a good thing?

How do we know if folks are "kindred spirits" who will help solidify that cause or wolves in kindred clothing that will muddy up the picture, confuse ideas, and reduce coalescence?

[Mechelle De Craene]

“The world is moved along, not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the aggregate of tiny pushes of each honest worker…Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” –Helen Keller

Thank you Connie for sharing this article and for starting this discussion thread.

Have a good evening all! Mechelle

[Connie Weber]

You are absolutely right to ask all these questions, thank you.

Wheatley would probably not say "like minded individuals", those were my words in praise of the comfort and starting point of networks like this. Now that I think of it, that was kind of dumb. Maybe "similarly-interested" individuals would have been the way to say it. I didn't mean that people had to agree--just that they have the drive to talk through--and listen--in an area of passion or interest. Wheatley would say that diversity is essential, that it builds up the strength of the network. It's an essential ingredient for formation of a thriving community.

She would also say that percolating and forming into storms is all part of the process that builds resilience. "Disturbances" are what vitalize us.

Thanks for all your thoughts; this helps me to think more deeply. I have a problem of tending to see the world through rose-colored glasses, and see much good in what is coming about with the ability to form these online communities. You are right that there are dangers.

I don't see it as a race. I see it more like forests that grow until branches touch and vines intertwine, while wildlife moves into neighboring territories, and all along underneath the tree roots wind around each other and form a new ecology, a new stability.

[Kevin Prentiss]

The metaphor through which we percieve certainly makes all the difference, doesn't it?

For me, the nature metaphor, like your latest blog post about running and thinking, makes me feel small and blessed to simply be a part of things much bigger than myself.

It's not "rose-colored" to me, through the nature metaphor, it's simply a much much bigger picture that doesn't much worry about my feelings or opinions. Grains of sand judging the ocean.

Through that metaphor it's extremely arrogant of me to think I can take even a minor function of "god" and understand a system enough to shape it.

On Mondays though, far more than Fridays, I like a task list I can believe in. : )

Part of this "believe in" might be self delusional - that there is a logic to things. A math to things. That I, and so many others who think and work, may be able to collectively do "better". My metaphor then defaults to systems and bits and logic.

They are colder metaphors than trees.

I prefer the presence and conversation of trees, but at the moment I'd like the algorithm for similarly-interested with the right amount of diversity for strength, but not too much to create disengagement.

Because if we could add that algorithm to our social networks in schools that would really be something, wouldn't it?