Holoptic Foresight Dynamics - Part 3: The Creation of a Foresight-Conducive Environment
Project: Polytopia

In Part 2 of the HFD series, I pointed out the main differences between monopticism, panopticism, and holopticism, highlighting the fact that the evolution toward holoptic environments is characterized by:

• The creation of emerging properties that are greater than the sum of the parts involved.

• Perception by the parts (people, nodes, actors, etc.) of the emerging whole as a “unique entity.”
  

• An awareness by the parts within the system of their individual diversity and their role in creating the emerging whole/larger purpose.

• Intentional evolution practiced by the parts and the whole.

With these environmental characteristics in mind, it becomes easier to understand how an intentionally implemented holoptic model – whether in business, government, or society at-large – could be highly conducive to organization-wide futures thinking, aspirational futures framing, and successful foresight strategy.

Today, many voices are realizing the necessity of futures thinking and Strategic Foresight for organizational development, environmental sustainability and resilience, issues of energy and food, governmental transformation, and the overall advancement of the human species. We are living in a critical time in human history, a time of a “shifting” of our systems, and a transformation of our way of global thinking, learning, and living. For these reasons, it is being said that futures thinking is quickly becoming one of the vital skills for survival in the 21st Century! However, most attempts to make this skill an integral part of any business or change process have been met with frustration, resistance, and futility. It has been noted that humans have a tendency to think in the short-term, looking for immediate gratification, solutions, or ROI, and preferring to deal with situations as they arise. This may be partially true, but it is also more than likely a result of learned conditions, situations, environments, and practices in our general human and social evolution. For instance, in terms of evolutionary theory presented in a model such as Spiral Dynamics Integral, individuals and groups do not have the conscious ability – internally or externally – to operate from the more holistic and transcendent ideas contained in higher-level memes if they are still living within the ideological boundaries of the lower-level dynamics of tribalism, personal power, or protectionism. In other words, it is not the skill-set of futures thinking or strategic foresight that is at fault when change processes or strategies fail, but rather the fact that we have yet to practice the culture, environment and memes that allow us to embrace and actualize foresight as a natural outflow of organizational and social activity.


The organizational and technological progress toward collective intelligence... but is that enough - and what's next?

As stated in Part 2, society in general is operating at somewhat of a panoptic environment at present, in which the parts have access to one-another – creating a new world of idea-sharing, opportunity, and innovation – but have not yet generated the “sense-making” ability necessary to embrace the larger purpose or unfolding “whole.” It is within such a sense-making environment – a holoptic environment – that futures thinking and active foresight can be successfully implemented, and can even become a common part of the system. In this environment, such a flow of futures thinking and strategic foresight could be seen as unfolding in 3 stages, even as the parts of the system increasingly evolve in their understanding of the emerging whole which they are creating and supporting:

1. Holoptic Resilience: In this first stage of foresight dynamics within a holoptic environment, businesses or social initiatives begin to implement resilience as a vital element in all strategic practices. Resilience is quite different from sustainability in that systems and strategy are outfitted with the internal and external ability to rebound, adapt, mold, and be flexible to any emerging situation (and even to “Black Swans” and surprises) rather than seeking to maintain an environment of balance or status quo within the system. Resilience is a key piece of futures thinking and foresight strategy, and a holoptic environment makes this idea and its implementation much more natural in that a more organic state of existence (rather than an unnatural and mechanistic practice, common in today’s businesses, governments, and cultural practices) is sought out under conditions that are conducive to decentralization, complex adaptive environments, and emerging properties. A holoptic environment is one of resilience itself, adapting to the emerging whole as its “picture” becomes clearer over time, and thus this initial stage of foresight becomes a valued dynamic. (For a great treatise on “resilience” as a foresight tool, see Futurist Jamais Cascio’s article in Fast Company entitled “Resilience in the Face of Crisis: Why the Future Will Be Flexible.”)


Are the futures thinking dynamics of resilience and transformation integral parts of a holoptic model?

2. Holoptic Transformation: In the second stage of foresight dynamics, the parts and the “whole” within a holoptic environment begin to think in terms of ongoing transformation of the system and its higher memetic/practical purposes rather than attempting to hold onto “business-as-usual” and outdated systems simply because they are familiar – even the initial state of the holoptic system itself! (We can see this in the present crisis or “shift” in which governments and organizations are attempting to simply “tweak” or “reboot” the current operating system, failing to recognize that it is no longer viable under the changing external emerging conditions and internal thought processes.) A good explanation of “transformational” vs. “static” systems can be found in an article from Dr. Jay Gary – Regent University Foresight Program Director – entitled Global Recession, Organizational Depression?:

To find a better mindset than “more bricks, less straw” will require us as leaders to understand the difference between organizational development and organizational transformation. Organizational development (OD), or growing within present parameters, is the normal way we speak about change as managers. We talk about taking a company to market and beating the odds. We talk about improving productivity among our employees. This is all needed. Even TQM or total quality management, fall under OD. OD is first-order change. Organizational transformation (OT), on the other hand, is second-order change. Rather than solve problems in their present formulation, it is the search for a better paradigm. In their book Organizational Transformation, Levy and Merry define OT as “multi-dimensional, multi-level, qualitative, discontinuous, radical organizational change involving a paradigm shift” (1986, p. 5). OD, or first-order change for my university would be mean doubling its endowment over the next decade and expanding like a traditional land grant university, with tenured professors, a large on-campus population, and an emphasis on undergraduate liberal arts. While this vision of growth is good and normative, it is only achievable with massive infusions of capital. OT, or second order change for my university would require us to search for a new vision of higher education in the 21st century. This would involve preparing people for self-leadership, for life-long learning, as a mobile workforce. It would mean empowering global teams, empowering our professors to work both from home and campus, such that our graduates could lead their own organizations into the molecular age…

Again, holoptic environments are transformational-friendly in that the emerging future – emanating from the parts and their collective purpose (the “whole”) – are seeking to produce organic growth toward higher orders or levels of purpose. In this atmosphere, conditions and actors seek out the place of transformational breakthroughs rather than remaining in the old growth curve without recognition of new orders of “life.” (Purpose, direction, goals, meaning, or the “whole.”) Beyond only implementing a landscape of resilience, the holoptic parts and whole desire to transform, making the work of futures thinking and foresight part-and-parcel of the system. There is no more fighting transformation by leaders or policy – it is welcomed!

The third stage of foresight thinking and activity that would more naturally unfold in a holoptic environment is entitled “Holoptic Precognizance,” and I want to leave this for the next installment in the series, giving it the full attention it deserves as the apex of the HFD model. I would simply end this installment by stating that the goal of futures thinking and strategic foresight is not prediction, but rather the discovery of alternative future probabilities and possibilities, as well as navigating and adapting for preferable future outcomes, in order to create strategy that leads to adaptation, transformation, increased innovation, successful risk management, and the development of unseen opportunities. The term “precognizance” does not point to the use of extra-sensory perception or prophetic utterance in this model, but rather a movement toward a state of powerful insight, “direction identification,” and understanding of the system goals, purpose and the unique entity of the “whole,” allowing for successful strategic endeavors to be put into place that manifest aspirational future outcomes.

References:

Image 1: Gauravonomics (Flickr)

Image 2: Addictive Picasso (Flickr)

Tue, Jan 5, 2010  Permanent link
Categories: future, FuturesThinking, Strategic Foresight, Foresight, Holoptic, Holopticism, Frank Spencer, Resilience, Transformation
Sent to project: Polytopia

RSS for this post

Holoptic Foresight Dynamics, Part 2: The Evolutionary Path

In my last post on HFD, I covered the basics of holopticism, noting that a many-membered view of the direction and purpose of the ”Whole” (i.e. organizational vision, collective mission, global human transformation, universal cosmology, etc.) would allow for a greater foresight ability and futures-fit capacity. At this point, an evolutionary question emerges: Is a holoptic ideology and practice set in the larger context of general human development – social development and evolution – or is a holoptic environment something that must be intentionally created only within conducive settings such as a transformative or “learning organization,” as well as in social entities or collaborative initiatives? I believe that the answer is “yes”… and “yes.”

3 States of Human Emergence

In order to understand a movement toward holoptic organizational and social practice, I would like to offer a set of simple structural diagrams that highlight 3 general states of human emergence in terms of social and collaborative evolution. (It’s important to note when viewing these diagrams that they are overviews, and do not necessarily account for conditions of overlap, environments that supersede the next evolutionary step in human development, nor do they discount the complexities of leadership, organizational, and human development presented through theories such as Integral, Spiral Dynamics, Action Inquiry, “Theory U,” Appreciative Inquiry, S-Curve Thinking, Systems Thinking, etc. As I stated earlier, HFD is meant to compliment these theoretical frameworks, as well as provide an extended platform for “best practices” in Strategic Foresight, both within the world of business, as well as in the larger setting of global interaction and human futures.) In viewing these diagrams, a basic answer can be given to the question of why holoptic environments in general – and HFD in specific – is both a step forward on the human evolutionary path, as well as something that must be intentionally fostered in order to succeed. After all, as we further our social evolution, we are becoming more and more intentionally engaged in the process – technologically, governmentally, ecologically, bio-genetically, etc.

Monopticism

The first evolutionary environment (organizational and social) is Monopticism. A monoptic environment is characterized by separation between “actors/players” and “leaders,” and can be seen in settings where strong top-down hierarchy, individual promotion, and “command and control” models are at work. “Monoptic” is primarily a medical term meaning “Relating to the presentation of different stimuli to one eye” or “single-eyed.” When applied to an organizational, governmental, or social setting, it can refer to an environment where their is limited vision in terms of what can be seen, thought, or enacted. In such an environment, the various actors/players, leaders, and nodes that make up the system are not seen as interconnected, thereby developing a culture in which the elements involved fail to move toward collaboration, creative diversity, and holistic innovation. (This may also be seen within the “First Tier Memes” of the Spiral Dynamics theory and model which express survival, tribal order, exploitive self-desire, authoritative obedience, strategic achievism, and even self-sacrifice for group harmony.)

As can be seen in the diagram displaying a basic monoptic environment (see figure 1 at the bottom of the article), individual actors/players and leaders may communicate and have a sense of awareness of one another (certain actors/players “seeing” other actors/players, and some even having connective communication with each other; certain leaders “seeing” other leaders or actors/players, and vice versa), but overall, there is no systemic environment for collaborative connectivity, nor any platform for the development (or emergence) of a culture conducive to building holistic purpose and direction which would bring health to the individuals and organization itself.



Panopticism

The second evolutionary environment is Panopticism, characterized by a greater ability in all of the actors/players and leaders in a system to “see” or sense the ideas and activities of the other actors/players and leaders within a given system. Traditionally, Panopticism is viewed as a social theory – originally developed by French Philosopher Michel Foucault – that describes an environment in which a central power has full visibility of all entities in a given system. This theory can be easily understood from 18th Century English Philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s architectural treatise entitled Panopticon:

Bentham uses a prison as an example: it is a building with a tower in the center, from which all the surrounding cells are visible. The inside of the tower, though, cannot be seen. It individualizes and leaves them constantly visible; never knowing when they are being observed. The occupant is always “the object of information, never a subject in communication.” This type of design can be used for any population that needs to be kept under observation, such as: prisoners, schoolchildren, medical patients or workers… By individualizing the subjects and putting them in a state of constant visibility, the efficiency of the institution is maximized. Furthermore, it guarantees the function of power, even when there is no one actually asserting it. It is in this respect that the Panopticon functions automatically. Foucault goes on to explain that this design is also applicable for a laboratory. Its mechanisms of individualization and observation give it the capacity to run many experiments simultaneously. These qualities also give an authoritative figure the “ability to penetrate men’s behavior” with extreme ease. This is all made possible through ingenious architectural design… Although Bentham presents the Panopticon as a specified institution, Foucault insists that we consider it to be a model of functioning. It is a “mechanism of power,” a “figure of political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use.” Fewer people have to exercise power, while more are affected by its assertion. Anywhere the principals of Panopticism are applied, the flawless exercise of power is possible.

In this sense, a Panoptic environment is only concerned with surveillance, control, and discipline of a system. However, in an open-source atmosphere of Panopticism – much like we are seeing in today’s global culture – everyone is given the key to the panoptic architecture, creating an environment where all actors/players and leaders within a system can freely “see” one another, or discipline one another through what may be known as “sousveillance” (a “watching from below” or monitoring of authorities – and everyone, for that matter – by the general public). This type of panoptic environment – which he calls the “Participatory Panopticon – has been expertly detailed by Futurist Jamais Cascio:

Soon – probably within the next decade, certainly within the next two – we’ll be living in a world where what we see, what we hear, what we experience will be recorded wherever we go. There will be few statements or scenes that will go unnoticed, or unremembered. Our day to day lives will be archived and saved. What’s more, these archives will be available over the net for recollection, analysis, even sharing… And we will be doing it to ourselves… This won’t simply be a world of a single, governmental Big Brother watching over your shoulder, nor will it be a world of a handful of corporate siblings training their ever-vigilant security cameras and tags on you. Such monitoring may well exist, probably will, in fact, but it will be overwhelmed by the millions of cameras and recorders in the hands of millions of Little Brothers and Little Sisters. We will carry with us the tools of our own transparency, and many, perhaps most, will do so willingly, even happily… I call this world the Participatory Panopticon.

This wider application of Panopticism is defined by open-source sharing and collaboration (and subsequent innovation), and its acceptance in today’s organizational and social settings is manifested in popular ideas such as “crowd-sourcing.” However, such an open-source environment does not automatically lead to “sense-making” of the direction and emergent properties of the “whole” of the system, but only grants access to its parts. (This type of evolutionary environment can also be understood as a transition between the “First” and “Second-Tier Memes” of the Spiral Dynamics theory and model.) As pictured in the Panopticism diagram, actors/players and leaders can all “see” one another, but there is no nodal connection bringing about directive and purposeful holism to the system.



Holopticism

The third state of environmental evolution is the condition upon which the HFD model is based. As defined in Part 1 of this series, Holopticism is:

… a combination of Greek words holos (whole, holistic, all), optiké (vision), and tekhné (art, technique). It expresses the capacity for players in a given organization (or group) to perceive the emerging whole of that organization (or group) as if it were a unique entity, be it in a natural physical space or an online space (virtual).

The difference between a Panoptic and Holoptic environment can be expressed in the phrase, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” In Panopticism, the actors/players and leaders may be able to “see” one another, but there is little to no intentional interconnectivity that gives birth to the “whole” as a distinct entity (an emergent expression of the system). In a Holoptic organization, the nodes within the system are aware of both their distinct diversity or individuality within the system, and how the parts fit into ( and help to create) the larger purpose and direction that is unfolding within the system. This holistic awareness is a result of operating within the “Second Tier Memes” of the Spiral Dynamics theory and model, which is characterized by integrative and inclusive benefit to the system, but does not exclude the need for reciprocal benefit to the nodes as well. Such an environment displays a blurring of hierarchy, decentralization created by recognition of complex adaptive systems at work, and a “swarming” experience that is much more intentionally holistic than the disconnected sharing and intelligence creation produced in panoptic crowd-sourcing.



In Part 3 of the HFD series, I will specifically speak to the 3 general states of unfolding foresight dynamics that can be inherent within an evolutionary holoptic environment: “Holoptic Resilience,” “Holoptic Transformation,” and “Holoptic Precognizance,” each of which adds a greater future-fit capacity within organizations and social settings.

Tue, Dec 29, 2009  Permanent link

RSS for this post

Holoptic Foresight Dynamics, Part 1: A New Model for Creating the Future

I recently spoke at a conference where I introduced a broad futures concept that I have been developing: Holoptic Foresight Dynamics. HFD (as I will refer to the concept hereafter) is a strategic model that can help organizations, governmental entities, cultural institutions, and societies to become foresight competent – and even develop foresight expertise – as a part of their cultural dynamic and cosmological foundation. In other words, HFD creates an environment in which the cosmology of a group undergoes a drastic alteration, allowing for a clearer view of alternative and emerging futures (as well as preferable and visionary futures) that are born out of the creation of a holistic view of the organization. As I wrote elsewhere:

Holoptic Foresight (Dynamics) creates a change of story from ‘many separates’ to ‘one whole,’ allowing for greater ability to be adaptive, flexible, and futures-fit.

This idea is born out of my interest and work in Causal Layered Analysis, Spiral Dynamics, Integral Theory, Collective Intelligence, Networking Theory, Appreciative Inquiry, Action Logics, “Theory U,” “Swarming,” and of course, Strategic Foresight theory and methodology (As well as several other social and leadership evolutionary assessments and theories. I would also include Organizational Culture Assessments, Learning Environments, and Jaccaci’s “Metamatrix” as other human development methodologies that have reinforced this concept.) A broader and connected view of these ideas and models have helped me to see that Strategic Foresight – a vital construct in organizational and human development – functions best in an atmosphere where assumptions are uncovered (as an ongoing process), people are individually and collectively evolving toward a holistic purpose (though diversity at all levels remains intact, and is even fostered), and the system at work is accessible by all parties involved (a decentralized environment/intentional complex adaptive system).

Before I explain the basic idea behind HFD (and its larger application to multidisciplinary futures work), let me define “holopticism.” In it’s most basic definition, “holopticism” is:

… a combination of Greek words holos (whole, holistic, all), optiké (vision), and tekhné (art, technique). It expresses the capacity for players in a given organization (or group) to perceive the emerging whole of that organization (or group) as if it were a unique entity, be it in a natural physical space or an online space (virtual)… A holoptical space is a space in which each participant gets a live perception of the ‘Whole.’ Each player, thanks to his/her experience and expertise, relates to this “Whole” in order to adjust his/her actions and coordinate them with others’ moves. Therefore there is an unceasing round trip, a feedback loop that works like a mirror between the individual level and the collective one… Holopticism – the link between individuals and the whole – provide players with the capacity to operate in a sovereign, independent (diverse) way because they know what to do for the sake of the whole and the sake of themselves. Therefore there is not only horizontal transparency (perception of every other participant in the organization or group), but also a vertical communication with the emerging ‘Whole.’

In Part 2 of my explanation of HFD as an underlying, internal, organizational model for adapting better foresight understanding and practices, I’m going to discuss the evolutionary path toward holoptic social environments (“monopticism,” “panopticism,” “holopticism”), and begin to explain how holopticism can specifically impact Strategic Foresight and futures thinking, creating a collective culture that leads to what could be known as “Holoptic Precognizance,” a state of operations that produces a much greater degree of success in mapping and actualizing aspirational futures and organizational/social/global vision. Though no one can ever predict the future, there is a "place" in social and organizational evolution where the direction and purpose of the “Whole” can be seen by those involved, and where those involved in that “Whole” can adjust their thoughts and actions to allow the emerging or aspirational future to come into being.

Sat, Dec 26, 2009  Permanent link

RSS for this post