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