Curtis Gale Weeks

OST

In my last post, I explored the idea of EBOv2 after having introduced it as one of the key "principles" of 5GW.  I suggested three interrelating limitations or "stumbling-blocks" to conducting the more expansive and inclusive form of EBO, summarizing these stumbling-blocks as issues relating to scope.

I also suggested Open Space Technology as a possible guide for handling these issues of scope as they relate to conducting 5GW.  I have previously written about OST here (in 2007, when I first learned of it) and here (after learning of Peggy Holman's latest endeavor exploring the idea of "engaging emergence"), although I have not gone into much detail.

EBOv2

Previously in writing about EBOv2 (or, "Evolved EBO" as I quickly labeled it then), I noted that effects-based operations should be expanded to include two areas of observation when determining operations:

In general “effects-based” has two components:

1. “It is thus about producing desired futures.”  I.e., operations should be focused on pre-determined ultimate effects.  Our activities are therefore determined by those effects, or based upon those effects we are seeking.
2. “[T]hose engaging in effects-based operations must continuously adapt plans, rules, and assumptions to existing reality.” In other words, whatever effects actually occur within the world — as opposed to the pre-determined effects we have chosen — will shape our activities; our future activities will be based upon those effects.

One might summarize to say that, for successful adaptive operations, we must not only have a willingness to observe all that is occurring within our sphere of activity, but we must also have a clear primary goal.  In fact, we might go so far as to include a consideration of the OODA loop and say that the process of adaptation in EBOv2 is a conscious re-Orientation -- as opposed to an unconscious or subconscious re-Orientation.  Unconscious or subconscious re-Orientation occurs when either a) sight of the primary goal has been lost, b) the primary goal is, for whatever reasons, in the process of being altered (or is fluid), and/or c) the primary goal itself is unconscious or subconscious and not understood or apparent to the actor.  Of these, "c" may lead to a positive outcome with respect to the goal for any given action; but for ongoing and extended operations, "c" is more likely to devolve to either "a" or "b" over time than remain a useful guide.

The great stumbling-block for those who would conduct EBOv2 (and for that matter, those who have attempted plain old EBO) results from three different but interrelated conditions:

1. The setting of sights too low, with limited reach, when deciding a primary goal.
2. The inability to define, and thus observe and successfully act upon, an accurate sphere of activity.
3. The existence of others acting within the world who are themselves observing the world at large and setting their own sights on desired futures.

These conditions occur together.  A limited concept of the accurate sphere of activity reduces one's sights to accomplishing merely immediate objectives, never mind the fact that others operating in that limited sphere may be looking outside that sphere of activity for materiel and/or political/ideological support.

Furthermore, those others affecting the battlefield may not actually be within that limited sphere, at least not in a way that will be greatly affected by the limited application of EBO.  Exterior allies of the interior target may affect anything from the supplying of that target (in the case of materiel) to the global marketplace (economic or ideological) upon which the practitioner of EBO depends.  The application of a limited EBO, in an attempt to accomplish a limited goal, may begin to resemble, for lack of a better description, "pissing into the wind."

Finally, the practitioner of limited EBO, through a lack of foresight, may ignore others outside that sphere who could help accomplish even those limited objectives in a lasting manner by helping to achieve more significant objectives not within the limited EBO.  Thomas Barnett points at an example of this when he laments that "The Leviathan is screwed."  In that case, the Leviathan -- the military arm -- attempted to also be the SysAdmin -- or, nation-builder, ignoring the level of support from without, some of it coming within also, that would be required.  (This, incidentally, may be an example of "b" above, or of a shifting, fluid primary objective, since the great effort at SysAdmin was not a part of the major planning for the initial operations.)  Another example, or at least allegory:  short-term gains led our marketplace into the thickets of recession, with the only apparent solution as viewed by those in command being the expansion of the sphere of activity of governments around the world, whether through stimulus packages or bail-outs or broader regulation, often acting in unison.  (Regardless of efficacy or wisdom for any of these responses, these show the sudden realization that an expansion of the sphere of activity would be required.)

To sum:  Without a primary objective that is broad enough, and which takes into account all the domains or battlespaces and actors who may affect that objective, EBO becomes too limited to be of much use and in fact may become counterproductive.

The stumbling-block, in short, is an issue of scope -- with the attending issue of complexity.  In my next post, I'll look at the idea of  Open Space Technology as a guide for how we may approach and overcome that stumbling-block.  

Much could be said of this old post:  it's an exhibit of my tendency to go on and on, connecting diverse and probably hermetical ideas & references in some tapestry of dreaming and remembering; it's not to the point; it approaches the idea of 5GW from the philosophical, abstract point of view (and thus might not help very well the casual reader or combat soldier!); etc.

I remember this post from its first reference to Obama, before he became president, with a suggestion that perhaps he operates from a 5GW or at least a 5GW-leaning stance.

Still, to this day, I keep this thought in mind when I study what he is doing.  I'm undecided.  However, two other ideas color my general impression of Obama as it relates to 5GW:

• From my post on understanding 4GW better, and the ideas I developed in that post (which still inform much of my perception re: 4GW and 5GW), I take the idea that younger politicians may in fact move toward a 5GW approach merely as an undigested and little-understood response to the prevailing 4GW mindset that has informed politics in America for so long now.  So yes, it could be generational, reactionary; and, Obama may be one of these.
• Building on what I wrote in "Emersonian Circles", and through witnessing what is now occurring w/ Obama, my growing impression is that, yes, he has always wanted to be, and probably sees himself as, a "Great Facilitator" who could bring diverse people together to accomplish great things.

Add to these thoughts: a) the latest thoughts I have had that 5GW is more about facilitation than puppet-mastery, and b) indeed my most recent post on Engaging Emergence in which I highlight a video of Peggy Holman discussing that topic w/ a host who promotes a process of organization which utilizes "dynamic facilitators", and my impression of Obama's attempt at a 5GW-style leadership takes on new dimensions.

Unfortunately, he's under the impression he can do what he does openly--not to mention the fact that the "larger circle" he would draw seems to be fracturing with every passing week.  Of course, there could be some 5GW feinting, some jujitsu occurring that I simply have not -- cannot? -- see.
 

Peggy Holman, co-author of The Change Handbook, discusses "Engaging Emergence". (Be aware there is a 30-sec commercial at the beginning of this video, and then again 1/3 and again 2/3 of the way through this, if you watch it at Veoh.)

A few interesting ideas/phrases used:

• "Change with no one in charge."
• "Whole Systems change."
• "Be compassionate about disruption."

Peggy Holman also spoke with this host about Open Space Technology, a subject I briefly addressed long ago and, rather unfortunately, never revisited until now. Although not quite as interesting as the video above, nonetheless there are many great ideas which should relate to 5GW; in fact, the very framework of the concept behind OST may prove quite valuable.




For a much simplified and shorter explanation of OST, you can watch this video on YouTube.

I'll be back with more ideas about these in a newer post.

UPDATE: Peggy Holman's book proposal for Engaging Emergence at her blog: http://patternsofchange.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/book-proposal/

I've always been partial to the second diagram here, although I think Shane's consideration in the comments should be remembered.

The diagram is a simplification (and I generally dislike overly-complex diagrams), meant to show relationships between each G and the grade before it and after it when those come into conflict.

E.g., in a 2GW vs 1GW conflict, the 2GW force has positional/proactive advantages over the 1GW force, and the 1GW force is kinetically driven, or reactive, to what the 2GW force does. But in a 3GW vs 2GW conflict, the 3GW has the positional/proactive advantage whereas the 2GW is kinetically driven and reactive to the 3GW force.

The added fillip to this version of the diagram, of separating w/ greater space the two forces with every "up-grade" to the conflict, was intended to suggest not only a) the greater dispersal of kinetics within the conflict, but also possibly b) the greater time frames involved in proaction/reaction.  On the last, I think that whether the diagram successfully shows anything related to time frames may be debatable.

Also, I would note: my use of the term generation -- this is an older post, before "gradient" began to be used -- and the fact that, whatever utility exists in talking of grades or gradients, I still have more interest in considering linear developments and relationships between each "G" than some others currently writing about 5GW.

And: I have never answered, but have often wondered, what precisely the G relationships would be between gradients further apart than +/- 1.  E.g., 5GW vs 3GW or 4GW vs 1GW.  I think we have  had some too-brief statements of principle concerning such conflicts but I am not entirely satisfied with them. 

the changing of an icon to green may seem like a great action of support — the beating of paths into highways in the field — but it is more appropriately the sound of multiple people clapping one hand in the effort to increase the volume of their outrage.

Or to paraphrase w/ another recent paraphrase:  "You are with us or you are against us."  In this case, the sound of so many single hands clapping was not accusing those in the West who were not clapping -- at least not directly -- but  targeted the Iranian regime, as if to say, "See how much of the world is arrayed against you?  If you are not with us, then you are surely against us; we know that, and you should be aware that we know that."  That is, the either/or proposition of this 4GW-style manipulation set up one clear side while leaving the membership fuzzy and potentially alterable:  the Iranian regime could join with the Greeners, if it so chose, or would remain the Enemy.

So in hindsight (though I realized it at the time) the Greening of Twitter, although not itself a 5GW activity, may not have been entirely ineffectual.  Yes, some effects may have resulted from it, but only 4GW-style effects.  (This doesn't mean it was much of a 4GW campaign, however, if judged on its success or failure.)

Addendum (added):  Actually, due to the fuzziness, the action did "attack" those in the West also; in other words, "If you don't join us....does that mean you support the Iranian regime?"  All this goes back to what I wrote on Alignments and 4GW & 5GW manipulation.

My "Lazarus Effect,"  as Joseph Fouche has characterized it -- my return to the blogosphere -- seems a little cranky in retrospect.  It seemed a little cranky almost as soon as it was written.

The subject of 5GW may have been the greatest pull for my return.  Just before leaving the blogosphere, I had begun to notice certain discombobulations re: the theory of 5GW; or, approaches taken by others writing on the subject that varied with my own.  My general theory of the theory of 5GW, at the time and still, is that

1. whatever I or others do or do not write about 5GW, 5GW will happen -- even if it turns out to be more or somewhat other than what we have written; so,
2. the more the merrier.  And why not?

However, yes, I do have a particular conceptualization of it.  I have followed a train of thought from the very beginning (as early as mid-2005) which, however much it has required modification, has led to this particular point in my understanding of 5GW.

Also when beginning the Principles posts, I was keenly aware of the forthcoming Handbook of 5GW.  This awareness produced, and continues to produce, some apprehension surrounding the Principles posts.  On the one hand, I needed to flesh out my own dream of 5GW; but I know that others take a different approach to 5GW -- some, a greatly different approach -- and I know that a hard-and-fast "these are the official Principles" which are "key" to understanding 5GW may appear uncharitable to those others currently writing on the subject.  This may especially create a discordance when the Handbook appears, if others not directly involved in developing the theory of 5GW read the Handbook then browse over to the site D5GW.

However I remain as before under the theory that multiple views are necessary (which is why I invited the contributors I invited to D5GW) and suppose my apprehension will disappear with time.  Meanwhile, I am still  taking my time in writing the series.

Really there are 3 parts to this post.

1. The first, that utter destruction of foes may be impossible.  (Owing to their decentralized structure, etc.)
2. Co-option may therefore be the only solution.
3. However, due to the nature of the beast -- i.e. the peculiarity of self-interest -- plenty of chaos may ensue during the realignments; in other words, not so gentle a process, at least at first.

But ever since that post, PurpleSlog and perhaps others see the post as a type of "Love" advocacy.  Yes, I suppose that a broadly considered "love" may be behind the whole approach.  But w/ #3 I meant to include the understanding that all won't necessarily be, for lack of a better word, a rose garden.

Generally I don't like to consider that more negative proposition, but I think it's important to keep in mind.

I have elsewhere, in paraphrase of the idea,  used this as a guide:

"You are with us or against us!" -- 4GW

"You are with us, or you will be..." -- 5GW

--but the proviso is, the 5GWers do not say this to the audience, but think it of them.  Heh.

I am prone to mention John Robb in almost any discussion of 5GW although I do not think he has looked far enough into the issue to be relied upon for an assessment.  I.e., his Global Guerrillas theory has a place in consideration of 5GW but does not define it; and, his ideas re: resilient communities also have a good place in 5GW theory; but he has not synthesized these two in order to arrive at a full-scope consideration of 5GW.