Steven E Wallis, PhD

From Preface:

While there will always be unanticipated consequences (particularly over the long term), a deeper understanding of policy may lead to interesting insights into how we might take more consequences into account as we develop more effective policy. Policy success means we have an understanding of the world such that our plans are successful and we reach our goals. While there are many successful actions, there are few quantifiable policy successes. In contrast, there are many examples of policy failures. Ecologically, economically, militarily, and politically, we don’t seem to be able to create effective policy.

Recent advances in critical metapolicy suggest new approaches for analysis based on insights from complexity theory. Specifically, that we can quantify the complexity and the co-causal relationship between the propositions within a policy. And, critically, that there is a correlation between the quantifiable structure of a policy and the effectiveness of that policy in practical application. It has been suggested in the literature that we can use methods such as propositional analysis (PA) to determine the effectiveness of a policy prior to implementation based on the policy text. Such an approach would enable scholars to develop more effective policy and provides a new tool for practitioners to choose between competing policies.

In this book, I test that assertion by applying PA to six policies in three comparative case studies. Cases include military policy, economic policy, and international policy. Because of the great difficulty associated with finding policies that were effective (let alone comparable cases), these studies may be seen as somewhat obscure. I certainly invite all readers to join in an effort to find additional cases for more comparisons.

In each case comparison, the quantified structure of the policy is compared with the historical consequences of implementing the policy. Generally, the results of the study support the assertion. I found that policies with higher levels of structure (higher internal integrity and greater complexity) tend to be more effective in practical application. And, conversely, policies of lower complexity and less internal integrity tend to be less effective. Additional insights are also discussed along with implications for future research and application. Some important next steps for this line of research would be to conduct additional case comparative studies as well as larger scale, statistical analyses. The usefulness of this methodology across a range of policy fields suggests that it is generalizable across most, perhaps all, areas of policy interest.

As the editor of this book, I worked with a global group of high-level thinkers who are bringing some fresh new ideas into the study of management - and the way we think about management theory.

Table of Contents

Section I: Applications in Practice and Theory

Chapter I: Emerging The Evolutionary Corporation in a Sustainable World – Toward a Theory Guided Field of Practice

Alexander Laszlo, Syntony Quest, USA
Kathia C. Laszlo, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico

Chapter II: Leaders, Decisions, and the Neuro-Knowledge System

Alex Bennet, Mountain Quest Institute, USA
David Bennet, Mountain Quest Institute, USA

Chapter III: Exploring The Implications of Complexity Thinking for the Management of Complex Organizations

Kurt A Richardson, ISCE Research, USA

Chapter IV: Decision Integrity and Second Order Cybernetics

Anthony Hodgson, Decision Integrity Limited, UK

Chapter V: A New Approach to a Theory of Management: Manage the Real Complex System, Not Its Model

Donald C. Mikulecky, Virginia Commonwealth University
Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, USA

Section II: Research, Theory, and Metatheory

Chapter VI: Consortial Benchmarking: Applying an Innovative Industry-Academic Collaborative Case Study Approach in Systemic Management Research

Holger Schiele, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
Stefan Krummaker, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

Chapter VII: Systemic Paradoxes of Organizational Change: Implementing Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Marianne W. Lewis, University of Cincinnati, USA

Chapter VIII: Metatheorising Transformational Management: a Relational Approach

Mark G. Edwards, University of Western Australia, Australia

Chapter IX: The Structure of Theory and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: What Constitutes an Advance in Theory?

Steven E. Wallis, Foundation for the Advancement of Social
Theory and Fielding Graduate University, USA

Section III: Cybernetics and Organizational Evaluation

Chapter X: The Dynamic Usage of Models (DYSAM) as a Theoretically-Based Phenomenological Tool for Managing Complexity and as a Research Framework

Gianfranco Minati, Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy

Chapter XI: Knowledge Cybernetics, a Metaphor for Post-Normal Science

Maurice I. Yolles, Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Section IV: Multiple Levels and New Perspectives

Chapter XII: The Arrival of the Fittest: Evolution of Novelty from a Cybernetic Perspective

Alexander Riegler, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Vrije
Universiteit, Belgium

Chapter XIII: Co-Construction of Learning Objects: Management and Structure

Thomas Hansson, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden

Section V: Metamodeling and Mathematics

Chapter XIV: A System Approach to Describing, Analysing and Control of the Behaviour of Agents in MAS

Frantisek Capkovic, Institute of Informatics, Slovak Republic

Chapter XV: Identification and Response Prediction of Switching Uncertain Dynamic Systems using Interval Analysis

Kyarash Shariari, Laval University, Canada

Chapter XVI: Selection of the Best Subset of Variables in Regression and Time Series Models

Nicholas A. Nechval, University of Latvia, Latvia
Konstantin N. Nechval, Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Latvia
Maris Purgailis, University of Latvia, Latvia
Uldis Rozevskis, University of Latvia, Latvia

One paradox of modern society is the widespread use of highly complex mechanisms of economic and social self-regulation which produce a large number of unintended and often undesirable side-effects. Human conceptual systems (theories, policies, and mental models which support our thinking) are good enough to keep the self-regulatory mechanisms in operation; yet they are not good enough to prevent and control the undesirable contingencies. Systems thinking, and complexity science are growing in their usefulness for understanding our social systems as well as our conceptual systems. The present paper examines and explains this paradox by combining the ideas from the burgeoning science of conceptual systems and Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Drawing on Luhmann’s argument that social systems build up their internal complexity by disregarding the complexity of the environment, we propose to differentiate between those conceptual systems that reflect the intra-systemic complexity of simpler systems and those that reflect the intra-systemic complexity of sub-systems in combination with systems of systems to include the environmental complexity. Thus it comes about that the former conceptual systems, exemplified by physics, are much more effective and successful than the latter ones, often corresponding to social sciences. The chasm between the qualities of these systems can be overcome by using the tools of Integrative Propositional Analysis.

ABSTRACT Sustainability is an important topic for understanding and developing our society (including business, government, and NGOs). For scholars who want their academic contributions to have an impact, sustainability is important for our conceptual systems (including theories, models, and policies). Because our conceptual systems share similarities with our social systems, we may investigate their characteristics to gain insight into how both may be achieved or at least understood. Theories of the humanities as well as the social/behavioral sciences are changing very rapidly. They are fragile and few seem to have any longevity. At the same time, the theoretical base does not seem to be " advancing. " They are not supporting highly effective results in the real world, so we continue to have

A policy model may be understood as the part of the written policy that describes “how the world works.” Past models have been non-systemic, leading to policies that fail to reach their goals. Recently, Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) has been developed and applied as an approach for objectively evaluating and improving policy models so that they are more systemic. However, those applications have been “desktop” analyses; using previously published texts as sources for analysis and investigation. The present paper extends the IPA methodology by reporting on a “workshop” approach; blending IPA with facilitation of subject matter experts to more rapidly develop policy models that may more effectively help organizations to reach policy goals.

ABSTRACT A rapidly growing body of scholarship shows that we can gain new insights into theories and policies by understanding and increasing their systemic structure. This paper will present an overview of this expanding field and discuss how concepts of structure are being applied in a variety of contexts to support collaboration, decision making, learning, prediction, and results. Next, it will delve into the underlying structures of logic that may be found within those theories and policies. Here, we will go beyond Toulmin’s logics of claim and proof that have not proven useful for advancing the social sciences and focus on five structures of “causal logic.” The results suggest a useful and more comprehensive approach to developing deeper understanding of our conceptual systems such as theory and policy.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the internal structure of Gandhi's ethics as a way to determine opportunities for improving that system's ability to influence behavior. In this paper, the author aims to work under the idea that a system of ethics is a guide for social responsibility. Design/methodology/approach – The data source is Gandhi's set

Many observers view organizations in terms of their components. We might say, for example, that the ISSS is an organization comprised primarily of SIGs, and individuals. Such a view, however, might be considered "atomistic" or "hierarchical." This paper suggests that such views may distract organizational theorists from developing new insights into the nature of systems. The technique developed and used

Purpose – The aim is to investigate the state of complex adaptive system (CAS) theory in the organizational theory literature and to provide a map for future studies of CAS theory. Design/methodology/approach – Abstracts were searched via electronic database and a range of recently published (1996-2004) books and articles were identified that contained a relatively concise description of CAS. Content

ABSTRACT When creating theory to understand or implement change at the social and/or organizational level, it is generally accepted that part of the theory building process includes a process of abstraction. While the process of abstraction is well understood, it is not so well understood how abstractions “fit” together to enable the creation of better theory. Starting with a few simple ideas, this paper explores one way we work with abstractions. This exploration challenges the traditionally held importance of abstracting concepts from experience. That traditional focus has been one-sided—pushing science toward the discovery of data without the balancing process that occurs with the integration of the data. Without such balance, the sciences have been pushed toward fragmentation. Instead, in the present paper, new emphasis is placed on the relationship between abstract concepts. Specifically, this paper suggests that a better theory is one that is constructed of concepts that exist on a similar level of abstraction. Suggestions are made for quantifying this claim and using the insights to enable scholars and practitioners to create more effective theory.

Abstract: Popper’s well-known arguments describe the need for advancing social theory through a process of falsification. Despite Popper’s call, there has been little change in the academic process of theory development and testing. This paper builds on Popper’s lesser-known idea of “three worlds” (physical, emotional/conceptual, and theoretical) to investigate the relationship between knowledge, theory, and action. In this paper, I explore his three worlds to identify alternative routes to support the validation of theory. I suggest there are  alternative methods for validation, both between, and within, the three worlds and that a combination of validation and falsification methods may be superior to any one method. Integral thinking is also put forward to support the validation process. Rather than repeating the call for full Popperian falsification, this paper recognizes that the current level of social theorizing provides little opportunity for such falsification. Rather than sidestepping the goal of Popperian falsification, the paths suggested here may be seen as providing both validation and falsification as stepping-stones toward the goal of more effective social and organizational theory.

In this paper I provide a brief history of the emerging science of conceptual systems, explain some methodologies, their sources of data, and the understandings that they have generated. I will also provide suggestions for extending the science-based research in a variety of directions. Essentially, I am opening a conversation that asks how this line of research might be extended to gain new insights – and eventually develop more useful and generally accepted methods for creating and evaluating theory. This effort will support our ability to generate theory that is more effective in practical application as well as accelerating the development of theory to support advances in other sciences.

This “meta-policy brief” is an analysis of  “Scoring the Trump Economic Plan: Trade, Regulatory, & Energy Policy Impacts” by Peter Navarro & Wilbur Ross
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Trump_Economic_Plan.pdf

This brief is different from most as it is focused on the internal logic structure of the policy. As such, it offers a new and useful “x-ray” view of the policy that is different from, yet compatible with, other evalauations. In brief, this evaluation shows that the Trump Economic Plan has a low likelihood of success and a high chance of unanticipated consequences negatively impacting the environment and global economy.

While current systems-based methods of organization development provide some benefit to improving the ability of organizations to reach their goals, we are continually seeking to improve the way we support our internal and external clients. This paper reports on an emerging systems-based analytical method, “Integrative Propositional Analysis” (IPA) and its use for improving the capacity of an academic research institution. This preliminary report suggests new approaches for improving the usefulness of strategic plans (to improve organizational effectiveness) and improving policy models so that the organization may better serve its external clients.