Nested Structures

Many things stack up: structures,?systems, even?knowledge?and understanding. Perhaps?identity?itself. Take our social systems: we tend to describe that we know ‘ourself’ (the basic unit of a social system, i guess), and from there we describe one type of structure: me to you. One plus one. Another fundamental unit. Most people can describe, with confident language, how these types of relationship work: they talk about?trust,?belief,?authenticity,?connection,?purpose, empathy, and so on.

We also hold stacked relationships into wider groups, bonded in different ways: families, clans,?tribes, communities, all socially bonded, and teams, Organisations, which are formally defined. Wrapped around these are other systems of identity and belief: religions, philosophies, worldviews, perhaps culture too.

These different systems can be understood at each level: the self, the intimate, the close, the wide.

But they do not simply scale in a clear way: the way we are at small scale is different than at large scale.

Social systems are just one example: knowledge stacks in nested structures too. We know things within domains, within taxonomies, within experience, much of which is itself a mental construct.

Our separation, division, even conflict or simple mistakes can come where we lack clarity between structures, or where our understanding is trapped within them. Worldviews, identities, beliefs, even currencies and power, do not necessarily flow between levels. We may be happy in one place, but lost in another, powerful in one domain, but helpless in another.

In my work and understanding i tend to see these nested structures as largely fluid: not simply on our individual understanding and preconception, but also according to the paradigmatic shifts of the context of the Social Age: specifically the ways that radical connection and social connectivity at scale alter some of the foundational principles. But as i’ve said before: i may be wrong on this. From the perspective of ‘now’ it’s hard to get a horizon view. We could be seeing change within a system, or change in the conception of the system itself. Time will tell, but i feel that the pragmatic view is to run with change, as it does not inhibit performance today, but may insulate us to a degree from the consequence of tomorrow.

A principle of understanding things in this way is that it highlights the need for?metacognition, and broader systems thinking approaches – essentially to be able to see and act ‘within’ the system, but also to have the breadth, community, and wisdom, to see the limitations of the system. Or to put it another way, to be cognisant of the limitations of our thinking and understanding, in the moment.

I realise i am allowing myself to be playful with broad concepts today, but there are direct consequences: i would estimate, subjectively, that around seventy percent of leadership teams i work with tend to be stuck in the immediate understanding. So they will tend to be pleased with their performance when they are able to diagnose problems and move rapidly to kinetic action – but will often lack the ability to diagnose or contextualise the wider context of action. Which i think it a rather neat case study in how to be disrupted, or out competed, whilst remaining blind.

It’s hard, of course, because we train people, and reward them, for performance, and ‘sense making’ within single domains – but i think our opportunity lies in the evolution of the domains. So a different mindset and skillset in many ways.