Search

This paper aims to contribute to the design of a new conceptual model for coping with obtrusive interpersonal tensions in the context of a systemic organizational development process. The model integrates notions of the Value and Development Square (VDS) into a structured process, with ideas from the hypnosystemic work and solution-focused questions. This results in an approach that can be taught to and applied by those seeking solutions for interpersonal tensions within an organization. For the model's educational applicability, we developed a conceptual bridge: we split the attentiveness process—which occurs during the search for solutions for an unpleasant tension—into interrelated dimensions. In doing so, the process using the VDS can be observed in "small steps," and, if necessary, suitable interventions can be developed. This paper provides ideas for using this augmented version of the square, including specific questions for those involved in adverse interpersonal tensions that induce reflection and/or inspire a perspective change. With this adaption of the original VDS, we aim to offer a valuable tool for leaders, coaches, mediators, and employees. It aids in rapidly structuring complex situations where stressful tensions persist and assists those engaged in interpersonal tensions to transform those tensions into useful levers for collective goals.

If you have ever tried to follow a discussion on a controversial topic on any social media platform such as Facebook or Twitter, you may have noticed that even the smallest deviation from the majority opinion can lead to the exclusion of the person from the ongoing discussion. Terms like cancel culture, online bashing, Twitter storm, etc., also describe this kind of disassociating communication. However, every ostracism decreases the size of the remaining in-group, to the point where society could end up fragmented into multitudes of small social systems. On one hand, a democratic society in which a dialog is only possible in smaller units tends to be far more complex and thus far less capable of acting than a society that favors a broader discourse. On the other hand, social interaction that allows and incorporates many different opinions, views, propositions, and conclusions seems to require a large effort. For an open-minded discourse to succeed, our communication shall transcend both the content dialog (first-order) and the meta-dialog (second-order) so as to set the dialog in relation to its context. In this paper we spotlight the differences between associating and disassociating communication. We also use the viewpoint of social systems theory to explore not only answers to questions about the consequences of avoiding responsibility for the quality of our dialogs, but also the solutions a distinction-based approach offers to communication challenges.

In our daily practice as management consultants we observe disorientation, misconceptions, and open questions about the suitability, limitations, and/or benefits of novel management approaches. Certainly, there is a strong demand for up-to-date management practices, though at the same time there exist the dangers of misuse and misleading expectations, not necessarily from malice but rather, according to our experience, from lack of self-observation. In this context, second-order concepts are revealed to be useful and solution-oriented. Even though in literature we can find approaches to distinguish first-order cybernetics (FOC) from second-order cybernetics (SOC), none of those focus on organizations as social living systems or the organization's basic operation: decision making. Consequently, in this paper we discuss the essential ideas of SOC-based management methods and tools, focusing on the dissimilarities of posture and potential performance of these concepts. To contrast them, we compare Design Thinking with Comparative Systemic (CS) Management, two concepts that use SOC ideas, with two well-known FOC management approaches: the Plan-Do-Check-Act-Cycle (PDCA Cycle) and Systems Dynamics. Finally, we present the fundamental differences between FOC and SOC based decision making in management. Basically, we differentiate between concepts based on FOC or SOC by means of three modes of action: how they propose to coordinate (temporal dimension), structure (factual dimension), or legitimate (social dimension) decisions.

For more than two decades now, systemic and systems-based approaches have been broadly applied in management consultancy. Numerous definitions attempt to describe the added value of a system-based consultancy—and they mostly emphasize a supposedly holistic view of problems and solutions. In Peter Senge's work The Fifth Discipline, for instance, the organizational learning approach or systems thinking offers perspectives, methods and ideas that are still en vogue. However, as can be seen in the daily work of a systemic consultant, the greatest impact of this kind of work on leadership issues relies on the very basic concepts of distinction-based approaches as described by George Spencer-Brown or Niklas Luhmann. Being aware that any difference, even one that is perceived as small, may be the difference and then using this awareness as an impulse in the target direction is—as it can be shown in various empirical studies (cf. Steve de Shazer or Insoo Kim Berg)[1]—a very fast way for resilient solutions that include all relevant context factors. Working in organizations as communicating systems on the basis of differentiation/distinction rather than with content or interpretation offers us the possibility to make any goals of any type, even soft ones, manageable and controllable. This paper uses data from an ongoing qualitative study that is part of Philipp Belcredi's2 postgraduate work and analyses them from the point of view of theoretical concepts of distinction, second order cybernetics and social systems theory. This theoretical analysis spots parameters in solution-focused leadership communication that produce more effective leadership outcomes, in terms of both communication and results, and that locate innovative possibilities for consultancy and leadership offered by aspects of second order observations. [1] See e.g., Shazer, Steve, Putting difference to work. Norton, New York, 1991 or Shazer, Steve &. Berg Insoo Kim, 'What works'. Remarks on research aspects of solution-focused brief therapy. In: Journal of Family Therapy 19, 1997

If you travel or interact with larger companies, you probably have noticed some novel practices: The next step in automation for travelers has arrived: Recently, air passengers have been able to check in not only themselves but also their luggage. The banking sector is in transition. The number of branches and employees is declining; business is increasingly taking place on the internet and smartphones."Robot lawyers" that support or automate legal processes are the new trend in legal technology. They are expected to offer efficient alternatives to legal services. The above-mentioned examples illustrate a trend that seems to be unstoppable: Automated processes and even artificial intelligence are taking over the services sector. This is the economic sector, where the human workforce was once an indispensable source of added value. Such developments may lead to further questions about our future. From a social system-theoretical point of view, for instance, organizations are built through the communication of decisions. However, many of the current trends in business are based on creating machines or procedures that make decisions for people. If machines decide instead of humans, how can we validate humans as decision makers? In this paper, we want to focus on the above question using premises of social system theory and ideas of second-order cybernetics as guides for (a) a better understanding of the dynamics; (b) self-reflection; and (c) adapted perspectives for upcoming challenges.

Although globalization as a phenomenon is perceived in everyday life as an economic process, it is strongly con-nected with culture, knowledge, communication and mediated information, forcing today's societies to face novel communicative challenges while trying to maintain stability. For post-crisis societies, these challenges repre-sent a new level of complexity to overcome. Many re-gions in the world still face conflicts and crises and will eventually face similar situations regarding their commu-nication, media and culture. This paper uses data from two empiric studies made in post-crisis societies (Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo; studies in Santos 2010 and Shahini-Hoxhaj 2014) and analyses them through the perspective of cultural science, social systems theory, and systems thinking to answer the question: What kind of system dynamics can be helpful to generate knowledge, assuming the interactive use of media and global connection, and how can media educa-tion be an active support for the self-organization of a community in a transitional process? The societies in question are not only moving away from dictatorship, but they are also moving towards democra-cy, and the media as means of communication are con-tributing to this process. From the point of view of cultural science, the media are no longer just the producer of content for recipients. Media is the venue, the place where information, values and structures can be ex-changed and discussed. Recipients and producers of in-formation are now one and the same.