1) Name and define the first order cybernetics principles.
At the simple cybernetic level we place ourselves outside the system as observers of
what is going on inside the system. Using a metaphor of a black box to describe a
system whose operation we are trying to understand by observing what goes into and
what comes out of the system. We do not see ourselves as either part of the system or
concerned with why it does what it does. Our focus is on describing what it does. We
ask questions such as who are the members of the system? What are the characteristic
patterns of interaction in the system? What rules and roles form part the boundaries of
the system and distinguish it as separate from the other systems? (Becvar & Becvar,
2014).
We attempt to define the degree of openness and closedness of these boundaries, thus
how freely information is able to be transmitted into and out of the system. We consider
the balance between stability and change. Although we acknowledge historical content,
our focus is on the present, the here-and-now rather than the past. We are also
concerned with the tendency of the system to move either toward or away from order.
All questions are asked from the framework that understands reality as operating
according to the principles of recussiveness and feedback/self-correction, the two basic
elements of a cybernetic system (Becvar & Becvar, 2014).
.
Recusion
Becvar & Becvar, (2014) argues that when dealing with recusion in an organization, we
do not ask the question why? We are interested with the cause of the behavior or the
situation. We instead see people and events in the context of mutual influence. Rather
than examining individuals and elements in isolation, we look to their relationship and
how each interacts with the other. We see the behavior of A as a logical complement to
the behavior of B, just as B‟s behavior is a logical complement t the behavior of A. From
the systemic cybernetic perspective, meaning is derived from the relation between
individuals and the elements as each defines the other. Causality becomes a reciprocal
concept to be found only in the interface between individuals and between systems as
1
, they mutually influence each other. Responsibility or power exists only as a bilateral
process with each individual and element participating in the creation of a particular
behavioral reality.
Feedback
It refers to the process whereby information about the past behaviors is fed back into
the system in a circular manner. It is a behavior and is thus all-pervasive, for “we know
nothing of our own behavior but the feedback effects of our own inputs” (Powers, 1973,
p. 351). There is positive feedback and negative feedback. They refer to the impact of
their behavior on the system and the response of the system to that behavior. Positive
feedback acknowledges that a change has occurred and has been accepted by the
system, and a negative feedback means a status quo is maintained. Both the feedback
processes may refer to something good and/or something bad. For example, if test is
labeled positive indicating that a woman is pregnant, they provide her with information
that a change has occurred in her body and she‟s going to have a baby. In this case the
outcome is good. Were the test to come negative, indicating she is not pregnant; that no
change has occurred, the outcome would be bad. By contrast the positive results of
pregnancy for a woman who does not want a baby would be a bad outcome for her
(Becvar & Becvar, 2014).
.
Morphostasis/ Morphogenesis
Morphostasis is the tendency of the system toward stability, a state of dynamic
equilibrium. Morphogenesis refers to the system-enhancing behavior that allows for
growth, creativity, innovation, and change, all which are characteristic of functional
systems. In a well functioning system, both the morphostasis and the morphogenesis
are necessary. They cannot be separated; they represent two sides of a coin.
Cybernetics proposes that “change cannot be found without a roof of stability over its
head. Similarly, stability will always be rooted to underlying processes of change”
(Keeney, 1983, p. 70).
2
At the simple cybernetic level we place ourselves outside the system as observers of
what is going on inside the system. Using a metaphor of a black box to describe a
system whose operation we are trying to understand by observing what goes into and
what comes out of the system. We do not see ourselves as either part of the system or
concerned with why it does what it does. Our focus is on describing what it does. We
ask questions such as who are the members of the system? What are the characteristic
patterns of interaction in the system? What rules and roles form part the boundaries of
the system and distinguish it as separate from the other systems? (Becvar & Becvar,
2014).
We attempt to define the degree of openness and closedness of these boundaries, thus
how freely information is able to be transmitted into and out of the system. We consider
the balance between stability and change. Although we acknowledge historical content,
our focus is on the present, the here-and-now rather than the past. We are also
concerned with the tendency of the system to move either toward or away from order.
All questions are asked from the framework that understands reality as operating
according to the principles of recussiveness and feedback/self-correction, the two basic
elements of a cybernetic system (Becvar & Becvar, 2014).
.
Recusion
Becvar & Becvar, (2014) argues that when dealing with recusion in an organization, we
do not ask the question why? We are interested with the cause of the behavior or the
situation. We instead see people and events in the context of mutual influence. Rather
than examining individuals and elements in isolation, we look to their relationship and
how each interacts with the other. We see the behavior of A as a logical complement to
the behavior of B, just as B‟s behavior is a logical complement t the behavior of A. From
the systemic cybernetic perspective, meaning is derived from the relation between
individuals and the elements as each defines the other. Causality becomes a reciprocal
concept to be found only in the interface between individuals and between systems as
1
, they mutually influence each other. Responsibility or power exists only as a bilateral
process with each individual and element participating in the creation of a particular
behavioral reality.
Feedback
It refers to the process whereby information about the past behaviors is fed back into
the system in a circular manner. It is a behavior and is thus all-pervasive, for “we know
nothing of our own behavior but the feedback effects of our own inputs” (Powers, 1973,
p. 351). There is positive feedback and negative feedback. They refer to the impact of
their behavior on the system and the response of the system to that behavior. Positive
feedback acknowledges that a change has occurred and has been accepted by the
system, and a negative feedback means a status quo is maintained. Both the feedback
processes may refer to something good and/or something bad. For example, if test is
labeled positive indicating that a woman is pregnant, they provide her with information
that a change has occurred in her body and she‟s going to have a baby. In this case the
outcome is good. Were the test to come negative, indicating she is not pregnant; that no
change has occurred, the outcome would be bad. By contrast the positive results of
pregnancy for a woman who does not want a baby would be a bad outcome for her
(Becvar & Becvar, 2014).
.
Morphostasis/ Morphogenesis
Morphostasis is the tendency of the system toward stability, a state of dynamic
equilibrium. Morphogenesis refers to the system-enhancing behavior that allows for
growth, creativity, innovation, and change, all which are characteristic of functional
systems. In a well functioning system, both the morphostasis and the morphogenesis
are necessary. They cannot be separated; they represent two sides of a coin.
Cybernetics proposes that “change cannot be found without a roof of stability over its
head. Similarly, stability will always be rooted to underlying processes of change”
(Keeney, 1983, p. 70).
2
