Latest / Complexity Cogitators Podcast / #014 - Navigating Organizational Paradox
Transcript
- Joakim von Prónay: What does it mean to accept and navigate a paradox? How come it is so difficult for organizations to accept that adding more details to a plan only increases the likelihood of it being wrong? Luckily for us, Eric Wenzel wrote a book called A Course in Paradoxical Thinking Why Transformations Cannot Be Managed and So Must Be Managed. That is what we are talking about today on Complexity Cogitators. My name is Joachim van Bronay, and together with Marco Ahumada Juntenen, we try to make sense of organizational behavior. Marco. Marco: You are Kim. Joakim von Prónay: today we have an interesting thing in front of us. Because you have been starting to eye the book by Erik Wensel called A Course in Paradoxical Thinking, which I have read and I came across and I recommended to you. But we are at a stage where I have read the book a while back and you have not. But we still thought it was an interesting starting point for today's conversation. Marco: And I can see why you recommended that book for me. my keyword bingo is a tingling. So I'm Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Marco: I I'm quite enjoying the read thus far. I've come some ways in, I'm exploring the first of the four paradoxes that he describes in the book, but it it's clear already from the foreword that I'm going to enjoy this writing. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Yeah, nice. And and we thought that's where we would take our conversation today. We would at least mention the four paradoxes that he brings up in the book and his description or explanation of what a paradox is, and then we would simply take it from there. without necessarily digging into what Eric talks about in the book, but more so what we think about when we touch upon these topics. But to start with, I'll read how he describes a paradox. And then maybe you can give us the four paradoxes. So Eric talks about a paradox as the phenomena of two contrary conditions existing simultaneously, thereby creating a constant and irresolvable tension for the involved participants. Changing circumstances merely alter their appearance, so paradoxes remain a constant. At most, they shift into new forms. So two opposing factors two sides of a dichotomy, so to speak, that are pulling in opposite directions that are simultaneously true. That is one way of or that's essentially how I would describe a paradox. Marco: That's interesting definition of a paradox to me. It's Maybe it's my mathematical mind. all the maths I've studied that that tells me that This is different from my understanding of a paradox which is two things that cannot be true at the same time, or is that just a contradiction? Joakim von Prónay: Hmm. That's a good question. I haven't thought about it from the mathematical point of view. Marco: the book makes no claims to being a mathematical conjecture. Joakim von Prónay: No, but y okay, you s you s you said that all the math you studied, so you you yeah. Marco: well I'm I'm just saying that it it's taking it it's it's taking some processing to to accept that way of understanding a paradox. Joakim von Prónay: Mm-hmm. No, that's a good question actually. I think I I have always no, I have not always seen it, but I've grown to see it as two state two states or two conditions or two things, two opposite things being simultaneously true. But I I believe lately I've more so been looking at it from an organizational point of view. So organizational behavior and how organizations structure themselves and execute their strategies and and whatnot. And within the within that little box I believe I see it in a dichotomous nature of two things pulling in opposite directions. Whereas you try to optimize for one, it it simply it simply won't work because the other one is still is is still present even if you acknowledge it or it or not. But it's interesting to look at it from a point of view where a paradox are it's two things that cannot simultaneously be present or true. Marco: 'Cause he calls them contradictionary, which is strictly weaker, right? Joakim von Prónay: Mm-hmm. Marco: for example, on a given day or at any given moment I f I might feel happy about something and sad about something else, and those things exist in tension, but clearly they can be true at the same time, but they are contradictionary conditions. Does that make it a paradox? I would say those are just two conditions in tension. Kind of like if you decide, if we take the Agile Manifesto for example, it's the we're we're back to those four values again. We used that a com as a common example on this show. We're not sponsored by the way. if if we think for whatever reason we decide no well th they're not in contradiction tools let's say processes and tools and individuals and interaction. They are intention, but I would say that it's not it's a poor paradox because you you obviously want both to some degree. Joakim von Prónay: No, but I bel I believe Marco: I'll drop that. Joakim von Prónay: if you if you then take it to the extreme. If you fully stand in one of the camps, so to speak. And you truly, truly want to optimize for only one of them, you will you could potentially see it as a paradox because you're trying to optimize away the other side. Marco: Right. Joakim von Prónay: So potentially. Marco: But then then it being a paradox is a matter of perspective. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, yeah. Marco: Let's see how does the Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Marco: definition continue then? thereby creating a constant that it so it's not going away, an irresolvable tension for the involved participant. So it's both and irresolvable. So the tension cannot be resolved, which means you're gonna be stuck in between, pulled by these two different forces in a way. Joakim von Prónay: Hmm. Yeah, and I think with that with that addition I think it fits to the agile values because it's supposed to be a constant tension. You're supposed to use it as a way to balance what you're doing. Marco: The reason I I picked up on this is because I read an an article some time ago that was critical about aesthetization. as a tri tricky word, did I get it right? Slower. Joakim von Prónay: Can you say that word one more time? Yes. Marco: aesthetization using the aesthetics of paradox. Joakim von Prónay: Mm-hmm. Marco: because it's a cool word. that carries something mysterious, irreconcilable And at least this author was kind of critical to not be in the word not being used rigorously, but more as like an aesthetic move. So that's why when I read this, that's interesting. How if I applied that lens to this definition? So that's why I ended up here. But we shall see if we think that the paradoxes feel paradoxical when we start moving on to them. But for now let's accept that this is the author's definition of paradox. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. But maybe to continue, maybe let's let's mention the four paradoxes that Eric talks about in the book. Marco: Before we do that, I think he he uses a very well known paradox as an example in the foreword. So the paradox of tolerance. which states kind of that for a tolerant society must be intolerant to intolerant views in order to remain tolerant. So out of this we can pick out the conditions. So the selective application of intolerance is what makes us tolerant. I think that's a appealing paradox because it feels I think it certainly qualifies to the irreconcilable. Because by which judgment Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, exactly. Marco: do you then apply selectively this intolerance? Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Intolerance should not be tolerated. Marco: Right. But only certain kinds of intolerance. Joakim von Prónay: That is a paradox, truly. Yeah, exactly. Marco: I I thought that was a fun one. And that certainly got me on board on okay, so we're talking actual paradoxes. At least for me that that that feels like the right kind of territory. But then this book is constructed around four four paradoxes, and I've kind of skimmed my way through them to in an attempt to try to present them. and the first I'm more familiar with because This is the chapter I'm currently studying. And it's a paradox of unplanned planning, which means that it seems that the more and in higher detail you plan, the less likely it is for that plan to materialize as intended. So maybe when we get back to it we can try to what are the conditions that are intention in that paradox. And then the second paradox is the one of self-organizing order. It seems that no matter how much we try to define or specify an organization, it is always subject to the forces of emergence because humans are gonna human and you cannot exactly predict How that organization is going to look. and then I don't mean the boxes and arrows that you draw between names of groups of people and policies, but what happens in reality when Well, between humans who try to understand this organizational condition. third paradox is that of unfathomable foundation. And here you're gonna have to help me, maybe because I did not manage to parse out the paradox or a clean definition of it from the scheming I did ahead of this episode. But this my understanding is basically that it seems to be hard to predict the future because you know cannot fully understand the present. Something along those lines it's about predictability being difficult based on the failure of understanding the current condition. Something like that. Or do you have a correction there? Joakim von Prónay: No, not at this not at this point. I that's roughly my understanding as or I I remember as well. But let's have the caveats that we can't pr precisely promise that this is what is meant. Marco: For sure, I'm I'm doing my my biggest caveat face right now if silently of course. and finally the paradox of the large in the small, or was it the small in the large? Well, both goes because that's the paradox. the paradox is that the small and the large both define each other in complex systems. So you cannot understand the the large the whole as a combination of the small, and in the same way, you cannot fully understand the small as. Joakim von Prónay: merely a part of the whole. Marco: Or kind of like a function of the system. So for example, I live in Sweden, but Sweden is hardly defined by who I am. But but I am part of the system Sweden. And in the same way, living in Sweden has an effect on me, but it doesn't define me. So I am part of that system and that system eff affects me. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, for sure. Marco: So so so those are the four four paradoxes that the book is built around. Joakim von Prónay: We have laid laid the foundation. Marco: I think there's two more concepts relevant to the foundation, So there's four kinds of intelligences or kinds of knowledge or wisdom, I think might be the right word for it. So he promotes the one one called Metis, Metis, which is a kind of cunning, the wisdom that you use to seize an opportune moment, sort of navigating the now. And the other one promotes is pronesis, which is that of practical wisdom. Joakim von Prónay: yeah, so this is from Greek mythology essentially. The like the Greeks talked about these different forms of knowledge. And in my my own take that I used to have is essentially Phoenicis and Metis here to to me were very c closely related. I would Haphazardly combine them and say that that's that that this is wisdom. That's how I have talked about these things in the past that I didn't separate. But essentially phronesis is then the practical wisdom, so ethical, ethical judgment about the right action, knowing what ought to be done, essentially. And Methis cunning intelligence, so adaptive, situational, improvisational, knowing how to navigate something. So this is more how I would than describe intuition that you have grown over time and fr from from experience and doing doing many, many, many things wrong and learning and reflecting on those experiences. That's how you that's how you build your myths, your your your cunning intelligence, your your essentially bodily intuition to know how to navigate in the moment without perhaps being able to explain why. you're thinking that way or why you have come to that conclusion. So that will be a a nuance of the two. And then the two additional from the Greeks is episteme, theoretical knowledge, and techne, so technical skill. But I think in our context when the organizational and organizational behaviour, I think the pharmisis and metes are very interesting. Marco: And I agree based on the short exploration I've had a bit so far it it rings very closely to how I how I think about the kinds of sensibilities that I try to cultivate in myself in organizational work and and and encouraging others. where myth is as I understand it is more related to Finding the potential in the moment rather. And and for Nessis is the less like you called it, navigation. 'cause that to me made a bit of a difference. That there's a kind of direction. directionality Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Marco: to it. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. I think for for me, I think it comes also comes with the ability to be able to live with and hold the paradox. You accept the paradox that is true and then you use your metes to navigate the current situation or the now. 'Cause if we take that in contrast to phronesis then, knowing what ought to be done, so having the practical wisdom of what we what we should be doing from an action point of view. if you're unable to accept the paradox, then the practical wisdom will not really get you anywhere, or it will not help you fully navigate. Marco: I'm going to offer a very simplistic mapping here that's sort of I feel taking hold in me and then we might puncture that completely, but let's look at look at it as a starting point. When I think about MITIS, I think about a sensibility that is very similar to what we sometimes call organizational agility, so sort of Adaptability in in the moment I like how you call it intuition. It's sort of making decisions based on current input. And then the Fernesis somehow connects me a little bit to how I reason around the strategy work or working strategically, sort of the navigational aspect of it, what ought to be done. So it implies that there is a kind of direction that the the decisions or like the wisdom or the action should be leading to. That there is a kind of good value, whatever you want to call it, that is realised through this kind of wisdom. What do you think? Joakim von Prónay: The image that started to paint in my mind was, of course, when you brought in the word strategy. I think the the the pragmatic execution essentially of of a strategy or of a direction is the translation or the the shift between phronesis and mythis. So if we if you know what what what ought to be done then We apply our judgment and our intuition to the situation, and we put those those actions that we believe ought to be done into the current situation, filtered through our intuition, and then we see what can be pragmatically executed on to actually help us navigate. Because you you might have a sign or an arrow pointing in one direction, but given the landscape, given given the environment and given the context. that's not exactly the direction you can walk in and you need to filter So so this is kind of the picture that you you painted in my head. And I think we we mentioned it in the in the pre pre conversation we had as well. This goes very much very much in line with more war machine logic from Deleuze and Guattari. Like the ability to navigate an ever changing landscape. Marco: Yeah, based on the here and the ethics of this moment and politics Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Marco: probably. And another thing that is appealing to me with with this i is that b both of these tie into my understanding of chirological sensibility rather than this mechanistic kind of more chronological way that at least techni rings to me Joakim von Prónay: No, no exactly. And it's even mentioned here that that Metis and Kairos goes ha goes hand in hand. That you need you need metes, you need cunning intelligence to be able to identify the opportunities as they present themselves, when they present themselves, in order to act on them and seize them. Marco: Right, so could you say that metas is a kind of a chirological sensitivity, kind of being more aware to the potential or when to act and how? Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely, absolutely. That's my my understanding of it. Marco: I like that. Joakim von Prónay: And and furthermore, metis cannot be learned from books alone. You can't read your way to métis. You need to be exposed to varied and challenging situations and you need to deliberately reflect on the things that worked and didn't work. So you need to deliberately build your métis over time. Marco: So it's kind of situated knowledge, entirely contextual. Joakim von Prónay: Yep, exactly. One of the you you can't ask an AI chatbot and receive Metis. Marco: so Metis is not artificial intelligence but something else entirely. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, as I would put it, at least. Marco: Yeah, I like that. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Humans one, robots zero. But if we go back to the the first paradox that he mentions, so the paradox of unplanned planning, perhaps. Maybe be a bit more maybe we can be a bit more specific in our in our conversation here. Because this is also the one where we we both have quite a lot of experience and exposure to this one from different perspectives and using different words. But essentially the the more details you put in your plan, the less likely it is that that plan happens. That's the paradox. And I I I have said for a for a long time that it's better to be roughly right than precisely wrong in my concept of pragmatic planning here in a soft enterprise software organizations. That's one of the key words that I use or the one thing I want you to take away if you listen to one of my talks on this on this topic is that it's better to be roughly right than precisely wrong. And the more details we plan, the more likely we are to actually get it wrong. And if we then make future success contingent on the fact that we are precisely right or that we are right, then then then we should not add more details to the plan. And this is the paradox, especially in organizations. This is very hard to get across. Marco: Well, it seems paradoxical. I'm gonna be a bit critical here. I was a bit disappointed about this being framed as a paradox. I don't think this is a surprising thing about reality. it only seems like a paradox if you think that the world is a machine. that I'm doing all of this but it doesn't seem to work. So to me it's it's it it's not a paradox. it's predictable effect of a misapplied method. i I don't think there is a contradiction about the world being complex and you trying to describe it in high detail and then being surprised that you're wrong about it because you couldn't describe everything. So I I would say this is not a paradox, it's just a kiasmus of some kind. So I don't think even his own definition of a paradox holds, for this paradox. So maybe that's a Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Marco: bit harsh, but I might be surprised if I keep reading, but so far that's what I've come away with. I don't think he's wrong, I just think the framing as paradox is unnecessary. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, and you you you might be right with this one, as as you say. I think I I agree with what you what you add here as well. But it's at least experienced as paradoxical in modern organizations. We can at least ho Marco: Right. And that sorry. Joakim von Prónay: yeah, we can at least agree on that that that that's that's how it's experienced. And I believe and if I look at the the the different types of knowledge here as well, I think This is experienced as a paradox if you do not possess métis. So if you don't have the cunning intelligence to be adaptive, situational and improvisational in the moment, taking in the context and everything that is happening, and you only address it through what you think should be done and what ought to be done and how to do that, and then you add more and more details, and then you're You have ex excellent technical skills in your craft, and then the result is still not there, or the plan is still not coming to fruition. In that sense, I think this is this is what I mean when I say it's experienced as paradoxical in organizations, because we have so many people that are so good at planning and strategic thinking and execution and so on and so forth, but still the whole. maybe we get into the paradox of the large in the small and the small in the large. When you don't put all the puzzle pieces together and accept these paradoxes as framed, then yeah, it might be might be paradoxical that more planning details will not yield a better or more accurate result. Marco: Yeah, I think I said something to that I'm trying to r remember my phrasing, but it was something along the lines of this being paradoxical is a matter of perception. So in the way you understand the contradiction or the reality around them. Like If you are a Lego character, it's very hard for you to imagine things sticking together without having these Lego connectory things. So if you would step out into reality you would be confused by how complex things are. in the same way that if if your understanding of the world and of organizations is mechanical if if if you believe in a linear method of trying to get these things done, then you would be confused that these two things are intention. I'm doing my darnest to describe this thing in as high detail as possible, but it doesn't work. It seems that if I plan less, I get more of what I thought simply because I planned in less detail. I mean it's a matter of perception then. But going back so I'm trying to that makes me think about the last part of the definition of paradox that he used is that changing circumstances merely alter their appearance. So paradoxes remain a constant. At most they shift into new forms. That is the like the last part of his his definition. So what he's saying that these paradoxes are a state of being so they're ontological it's just a question of they appear different from different perspectives is what he says. I I think his own definition of paradox fails in this case. But that doesn't change the chapter from being an interesting discussion about the phenomenon. And I liked how this ties into your the thing you say about pragmatic planning and and better to be roughly wrong, right? no, roughly right than precisely Joakim von Prónay: Roughly right than precisely wrong. Marco: wrong. Yeah, it's a good it's a good sound by He does this fun thing where each part or chapter, I don't know exactly what the name of the structure is, but is built around a thinker. And one of the things he says is that to cr to understand this thinker, you need to understand the history. So there's a lot of context, very interesting context, and history around each thinker and their background And then he draws from from the work of these thinkers into framing this theme, which I think is really interesting. It's gives a deeper familiarity with these thinkers and and kind of a foundation for for the thinking. there's like a constant stream of of jabs at contemporary management writing and practice. so Ken Wilbur and Dave Snowden and all of these pop management literature books get poked at a little bit. I think even lean startup gets a a bit of a prod as well. I I find that quite enjoyable. Joakim von Prónay: Mm. Yeah, me too. Me too. I I I need to I need to read it again. But I think th this goes to my my original frustration when I started working as a consultant as well. If all if all of these methods are so good, why aren't they seemingly working? Like that that was essentially I think one of these thoughts came to mind when I was many, many years ago when I was reading lean startup. These seem like all very good ideas. Why aren't everyone doing this then? And why isn't it why isn't it working for everyone everywhere? And I think that's my my take on most pop management approaches. And I think that's that's the interesting, as you say as well, when he phrases the the thinkers that he that he draws from to create the the the foundation and bring them into context. Most of the thoughts we have in in modern literature and modern publications around these things are not new thoughts. We have had them over and over and over again. in just different framings. And then I think it's fascinating to explore what the old Greeks had to say and how that applies to modern life. Because So many things are still the same. Even though so many things are so new. And I think this is also where when we read these books and these things and these thoughts, I mean, where we build our episteme, our techne and our phronesis, we need to reflect on that to acquire our myth. And I think the last step is where it is where most organisations fail, especially on an institutional level. Marco: quick diagnosis of that I think is that Metis doesn't scale because you can't sell it, you can't package it, you can't transfer it easily because it comes from lived wisdom and And the thing is that if you only you have this toolbox of framework then you will choose them based on something that seems applicable is useful enough. So sometimes we confuse applicability with usefulness or Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, absolutely. And I think th this goes back to especially now in the age of AI, where AI is a tool and all the different forms of AI, with LLMs and neural networks and and whatnot. That if you didn't have quality execution of the basics before you add AI tools, you're not gonna get extraordinary results. Maybe this also ties into the paradox of the large and the small. That if you don't have good engineering practices in a software development organization, simply adding AI tools is not all of a sudden gonna give you exponentially better outcome because you still need good engineering practices. And I think this comes this goes in building a successful and high-performing organization as well. There are basics that you just need to have in place and that you need to do. You can't just smack AI on it and believe. Now we are now we are the best. Because everyone can just smack AI on everything. And everyone is smacking AI on everything. I think I reflected on this the other day. In the last two years, I have only seen the the apps and the applications, especially mobile apps that I use on a daily basis, they have degraded in quality. Basic functionality is now behaving erratically in many of the apps. so the the result is not there. But let's not get into this as an AI bashing episode. more a re reflection. Marco: Not this one. Joakim von Prónay: No, I'll take that another time. Marco: Is the the German word fingers gefühl? Is that the same as mythis? Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, maybe. Is the Swedish word fingetops känsla the same as Smithis? Maybe. Marco: I it seems related at least. Just a around. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, it seems related, yeah. Yeah. Marco: Because I I was thinking we were talking about building simple features is that the little glue between the between the the the building blocks that you can duplicate that humans can connect with reality and user needs and these small chirological needs that arise when you try to build these that machines are completely blind to. As a kind of fingerspitzgefil or mytis or something that kind of makes a difference in the end, perhaps. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Do you have any concluding thoughts, Marco? Marco: Yes. I mean I I thought it was an interesting I really want to get much deeper into Metis and and Fronesis and and this book seems to be a a good source of an experienced person's application of that. So I'm looking forward to reading that more and discussing that more with you. It seems like those are two words that will fit well into my framework of of understanding my approach to organizational work. So I ex Joakim von Prónay: Yep, I think they will be they will come back. Marco: I will I imagine that they might return here in our conversations as well. Joakim von Prónay: No, the only concluding thoughts I have at the moment is that once again, I'm going back historically from my own perspective, is that when much of the challenge that I have faced over the years in organizations are just that the these things that are phrased as paradoxes here, they are not accepted or even seen in the organizations. They're trying to manage around them and not live with them. And this is where Marco: yeah, or through them. Joakim von Prónay: Or through them, yeah. Marco: Manage through them. I think that's a lot more common. Joakim von Prónay: Yeah, yeah. So th and this is where a lot of the a lot of the headaches come from. And it's the the lack of organizational metis. Marco: Those are very good words to end this on, I think. Joakim von Prónay: I think so too. Marco, it's been very interesting. Marco: It has very much been so. Joakim von Prónay: Cool. With that said, Michael, thank you for the conversation. Marco: Thank you. Till next time. Joakim von Prónay: Ciao. Thank you for listening to the whole episode. If you enjoyed the conversation, please consider leaving a review and sharing the episode with at least one other person who you believe will also enjoy it. It truly helps us reach more people. And if you don't follow us already, please consider subscribing to our Substack on complexitycogitators.substack.com. And if you have a topic that you want us to talk about, drop us a message. We are more than happy to receive suggestions. Bye for now.