Epilogue / Part 3 of 3
Originally published in NextD Journal, Humantific Cofounder, GK VanPatter recently contributed to a three part "Conversation in Reflection" series focused on unpacking the infamous Stacey Matrix. Other contributors were Geoff Elliot and Roger James in the UK.
This conversation would be of particular interest to; 1. organizational leaders seeking to better understand Stacey Matrix and its implications for organizations facing rising complexity. 2. R&D pacitioners working on initiatives related to contributing to the evolution of complexity ladders, frameworks, matrixes, a subject of great interest to many right now.
Of particular interest to organizational leaders working on building innovation capacity and inclusive cultures is what GK points to as the Stacey Shadow Luggage.
With readers in mind, GK lists 8 observations and 8 opportunities.
You can read GK's contribution to the Epilogue / Part 3 of 3 below:
[You can Download the entire Epilogue below.]
GK VanPatter
It feels good to round the corner on this one. It has taken some reflection to arrive at where I am on this Stacey/Zimmerman material. Happy to share what I learned from this conversation experiment. Aspects of what surfaced surprised me and other parts not so much.
Taking a relook at Stacey Matrix and its surrounding/interlocking philosophies has helped put numerous previously fuzzy consulting arena issues into more robust perspective. Particularly relevant to our NextD Journal readers, it is clear that some of Stacey/Zimmerman views cascade forward into today. To say this another way; Some of the consulting arena messes of today are clearly visible in the Stacey/Zimmerman materials.
Some good news is that from a 2025 perspective, the hiccups in that material, once recognized, represent significant rethinking opportunities for readers today with the hopeful goal of creating a better, more inclusive world at a time of great uncertainty. The tricky part is that some of this involves taking advantage of awareness that often stated intentions and the prescribed mental gymnastics are simply not aligned. Not always an easy thing to do.
I never met Professor Stacey or Zimmerman but did take the time to take a fresh look not only at the matrices but some of their print materials as well as numerous posted videos of their talks. From that I got a better sense of where the Stacey Matrix came from and how their approach to complexity and organizational changemaking had similarities and differences.
This conversation was a little travel back in time to the “knowledge management, knowledge creation" era, 1994-2012. It was an important era that we operated in ourselves as Humantific. For numerous reasons, neither Stacey or Zimmerman were major players on our radar screens at that time. How we operated then and now is quite different from what Stacey or Zimmerman had in mind.
Here are 8 hopefully useful observations, accompanied by 8 opportunities:
SHADOW LUGGAGE
ACCESSABILITY
ARGUMENTS AGAINST WHAT/WHO?
DEPICTION OF NEW
LADDERS & MATRICES
PROBLEMS OR SYSTEMS?
MATRIX MANIA / OVER-EMPHASIS
CLOSING / REFUTURING ENERGIES
1. SHADOW LUGGAGE
At the top of my short list of issues seen in Part 1 & Part 2 impacting the practice arena today is a “stone-in-the-shoe” type issue, not in the matrix itself but in the underlying foundational orientations, which I refer to here in this series as Stacey’s Shadow Luggage.
Respectfully, Professor Stacey had a robust evolution trajectory in his professional career, which makes understanding his work rather complicated. To compress considerable complexity here; there seemed to be two central chapters of Stacey each different from the other.
The Stacey Matrix which appeared in his Chapter 1 (later abandoned) is not a great representation of what he had in mind in his later Chapter 2 work, aimed in the direction of creativity in organizations. The journey that Stacey was on, the transition he was engaged in from economics to traditional management paradigms to the enabling of organizational innovation was not without difficulties that are embedded and visible in the literature. Stacey would often refer to himself as moving from the orientation, rules, understanding and operational logics of one “Thought Collective” to another. That is a useful construct which we can make use of here.
As reflected in the Matrix, his early focus was on championing, prioritizing, supporting convergent thinking, depicted in management lingo as “decision-making”, “control” and reacting to “change situations” not making creative change.
Stacey / Chapter 1: “I am interested in decision-making and control. The appropriate forms of decision-making and control depend on the nature of the change situation.”
Stacey / Chapter 2: “Explaining and understanding organizations is derived from the science of complexity. It is an approach that stands in sharp contrast to the certainty and generality of the currently dominant received wisdom about managing and organizing”
Big change! The complexity, the wrinkle is that although Professor Stacey evolved his focus, he kept much of his Chapter 1 convergent luggage.
The mind bender is that in his Chapter 2, Stacey wrote about and cautioned against “shadow” in organizational cultural contexts, but he had a rather profound blind-spot.
“Individuals co-construct both their individual selves and the world of other selves, and they do so in interaction with each other.”
“A person's mental models consist of the regularities that person has perceived in the complex world she or he has to operate in, and these models form the basis of the behavioral rules for operating in that world.”
Both Stacey and Zimmerman depicted “shadow culture” as rumors whispered in the back channels of organizations ("shadow system") that undermined official objectives ("legitimate system") rather than recognizing the default, hidden in plain sight shadow power dynamics present in their own convergent luggage.
“The shadow rules constitute a repertoire of thoughts, perceptions, and behaviors that are potentially available to an organization but are not currently being utilized for its main purpose. Instead, the shadow system serves a myriad of other diverse purposes that are often quite difficult to understand. These purposes range from individual politicking to unofficial efforts to support or sabotage the legitimate system…The boundaries of the shadow system are fuzzy and normally do not coincide with the clear cut boundaries of the legitimate system.”
The hiccup is that although Stacey can be seen in his literature and videos advocating the discussion of “what is really going on” in organizations that is a logic missing from the shadow luggage aspect of his own work. Clearly the rules, expectations, values and mental constructs of the Stacey/Zimmerman base-camp, the "Thought Collective" of traditional management prevented them from doing so.
Although Stacey embraced a dual approach (today known as Ambidexterity) that he depicted as “ordinary” and “extraordinary” “management”, the mindbender is that he seemed to never make the connection to the contradictory convergent shadow dynamic that he carried without acknowledgement.
Counterproductive to the building of “extraordinary” where divergent thinking is key, that convergent luggage dynamic, would have far more impact in organizations, then and now than any inventive use of Stacey Matrix. Curtain lifted; It’s the decision-support luggage that’s the problem in the jump to enabling innovation. The privileging of that luggage does not transfer well from one “Thought Collective” to the other.
It’s a blindspot that cascades forward into the consulting arenas today, with several outspoken consultants engaged in the same transition from traditional management/decision support orientations to the selling of innovation enabling, quietly carrying the same unacknowledged luggage.
Since we know that the table-top power dynamic found in most organizations today evolves around positioning convergent thinking (decision-making) as the highest form of value it’s not surprising that those carrying that luggage today can be seen advocating against strategically organized cultural change or even discussion in that direction.
These are complex Level 10 issues that innovation leaders need to be conscious of now. Of course it does not really work when innovation leaders are playing at Level 2 if the internal politics around unacknowledged dynamics is at Level 10 in terms of its sophistication. Adding into that mix external consultants advocating imbalance as it suits their orientations and needs, is not particularly helpful.
Making that luggage and those dynamics visible can significantly shift the power imbalance. At the end of the day neither psychological safety or inclusive culture building can be reached via privledging convergent thinking.
From my perspective, the unacknowledged Stacey Shadow Luggage, overpowers every other aspect of his Chapter 2 work. It was, it is, a dynamic hidden in plain sight. Once seen, that shadow luggage cannot be unseen.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
Moving away from that luggage is a prohuman move, not an abstract or political exercise. It is essentially advocacy for voices of divergence being sidelined and not strategically well represented. The opportunity is to first understand what it means to cognitively leave half your team behind. That is not something that any of us would do consciously but something that often is occurring right in front of us in organizations.
With awareness on-board, the opportunity is to jettison the Stacey Shadow Luggage by moving away from the privileging of convergent thinking (decision-support) in order to tap into and make use of the full cognitive potential of your organization and teams. As a 2025 innovation leader your task now extends beyond championing convergent thinking.
2. ACCESSABILITY
Near the top of that useful to readers list would also be that it's important to note not only the sequencing of Stacey then Zimmerman but also the difference in approach, not just to the matrix but to language and communication generally, which impacts collaboration, cognitive load etc. Zimmerman was not only building on Stacey’s previous work, she was, to a significant degree, transporting it to the land of plain language.
With lots of talk in consulting arenas around “meeting people where they are” it is plain language that does that and not the often stilted, complexifying, archaic language found in more academically, theoretically centered material. In large measure, Zimmerman was meeting aspiring business leaders “where they are”, while Stacey was meeting fellow professors and PhD students “where they are”. Big difference, not only in terms of delivering on the promise of accessibility but also enabling the syncing with other tools and approaches, geared towards plain language.
It is not difficult to see that some present day consultants are building forward with plain language use while other consultants have gone backwards to reembrace complexifying language constructs.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
It makes little sense to be talking about sensemaking if your approach has fully embraced or even extended competitive complexifying language volleyball. Plain language enables smooth synchronization with other tools and methods including Visual SenseMaking and CPS. The Visual SenseMaking community has for many, many decades understood that meeting folks “where they are” is not just about words. That Visual SenseMaking approach is like Level 10 “meeting folks where they are” instead of Level 0 which tends to shift all the heavy-lift cognitive responsibility to the participants, as if in a competitive boys club. The choice is there to be made.
3. ARGUMENTS AGAINST WHAT/WHO?
Reading materials being positioned as thought leadership including Stacey Matrix can be confusing in terms of understanding who the various contrarian arguments are being built against. The question of “who is out of step, Who needs to change?” in the argument is often not made clear. Highly infused with the logic, skills, orientations and values of the Graduate Business Management School “Thought Collective” both Professor Stacey and Professor Zimmerman made valid observations regarding the need for changes to the logics and approaches being sold there in their own tribal settings. It was the traditional logic of those schools sold to several generations of organizational leaders that they were building arguments against. In particular both pointed out that the tradition of spending big blocks of time on detailed planning was obsolete in the context of complexity.
In his Chapter 1, Stacey was not quite there yet but by the time his Chapter 2 arrived he was fully in transition. Where were Stacey & Zimmerman in transition to, while making their arguments? As was pointed out above both were in transition from traditional business management orientations to the innovation enabling business. Two very different orientations. Essentially what Stacey & Zimmerman were doing was trying to use their invented interpretation of one “Thought Collective” to drive change in a “Thought Collective” they wished to transcend. Simply stated, that was their play.
In their literature they were/are NOT making arguments against the folks, tribes, disciplines, who already were operational in that changemaking arena. In fact there is very little in the Stacey/Zimmerman materials to suggest that either of them knew that much about who and what was already operational in that innovation-enabling, complex problem solving, changemaking arena.
If they did know it seems unlikely they would be arguing for the continuation of considering convergent thinking (evaluative thinking, judgment thinking, decision-making thinking) the highest form of value. That’s the championing that gives them away as it flies in the face of what was then and is now known about innovation enabling.
The Stacey/Zimmerman interpretation of what goes into, what was for them a new “Thought Collective” did not well reflect what was already known, in practice communities outside their own. Reading Stacey/Zimmerman material requires some time travel unknowing of what was/is already known, which in itself can be challenging. Convergent thinking, (evaluation thinking, decision-making thinking) was not then and is not today the king of the castle in the innovation/changemaking arena in which they were arriving.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
I wish this picture was simpler but alas it is not. It’s useful to be aware that today, what is a tad perplexing is that some eager consultants can be observed trying to redepict/extend the Stacey/Zimmerman arguments which were in large part against their own tribal traditional management practices as argument against all fellow practitioners of changemaking. Suffice it to say there is no shortage of giant egos in play around this subject. Big red flag to watch for is that this is often occurring while those super aggressive folks are themselves carrying the Stacey Shadow Luggage. The opportunity is to leave that bullshit behind.
4. DEPICTION OF NEW
With a sense of humor I would also include on the learnings short list a phenomenon that came into view in the Stacey/Zimmerman materials and that is the narrative around “new”.
A challenge for anyone trying to do sensemaking in this subject is that some consultants were then and are today busy describing complexity as a new frontier, a new territory but then (knowingly or unknowingly) they depict as the new complexity approach, orientations and activities already long in play elsewhere, in parallel communities of practice.
The best example that I took note of while reviewing Stacey literature and watching the Zimmerman videos was the multiple part suggestion that complexity requires intervening at the level of interactions and behaviors with a set of simple rules and that this is a new thing coming from “complexity science”…according to Zimmerman from “biology”.
Reading some of the hyperbolic perspectives being tabled under the banner of complexity and “new” there is often a sense of Huh? :-)
Ten Example Quotes from Zimmerman:
1. “When you are doing things that are simple and complicated you can plan and control but in the Zone of Complexity that does not work very well."
2. “Checklists are great for simple and complicated situations. Minimum specs and simple rules are for when you need adaptability...
3. “You are not setting up the recipe or the checklist, instead you are setting up a set of pre-conditions or boundary conditions within which you want people to behave, leaving lots of room for creativity and adaptability.”
4. "Complexity Science suggests that if we are going to have really impactful interventions we need to intervene at the level of interactions.”
5. “Can we intervene at the level of interactions and can we set the simple rules?”…"The idea of simple rules comes from biology”
6. "Ecological resilience is the ability to adapt and have deep change for creative destruction...to continually learn from surprises. This is what the complexity lens brings to our talk here….”
7. “In complexity the unit of analysis switches from the parts of a system to the rules of relationships or interactions between them.”
8. “In complex systems what we are trying to figure out is what are the explicit or implicit rules of relationships that are going on and can we intervene there because even a small change there might change everything. That is the power and optimism we take from a complexity perspective.”
9. "Complexity can be an unbelievable opportunity for innovation. For novel recombination of elements…It's also an unbelievable opportunity for adaptability."
10. "If we can change the rules of interaction maybe the parts themselves become less significant….Emergent outcomes are shaped by “min specs.”
The notion of “checklists” as the norm at that time must have presumably been referring to their traditional management “Thought Collective”. It was not applicable to any community already involved in complex problem solving, organizational transformation, innovation enabling or strategic design. If presumed so that would have been a total misreading.
In terms of "new", orientation towards interactions, behaviors and simple rules as well as making no assumptions around challenge framing existed in other communities of practice, in particular, within the behaviors-oriented *CPS community for many decades before Stacey and Zimmerman arrived.
In his 1996 book, Complexity and Creativity in Organizations Stacey referred to "providing space for novelty" as part of "an entirely new perspective on what it means for organizations to learn" but perhaps unbeknownst to the traditional graduate business school management "Thought Collective" it has been known in the *CPS community since the 1950s that such space making is not accomplished by privileging convergent thinking.
One might ponder: What does it mean when some academic leaders, some consultants depict these basics as new frontier dynamics springing from complexity science? Who is the intended audience for such narratives? The desire to differentiate in academia and in practice often seems to override common sense, a recipe which can create muddy waters.
Of course, like the notion of “best practices”, the notion of “new” is a relative term. New to the graduate business school curriculums, faculties and audiences with such backgrounds might not be new in the context of enabling innovation practice at that time and now.
5. LADDERS & MATRICES
For our model creating readers let’s acknowledge that ladders and matrices are two different things. The Stacey Matrix is not really a “matrix” but rather a complexity ladder turned sideways at 45 degrees. Stacey populated his angled ladder with content related to decision support, an interest and orientation seen in his early work, as pointed out earlier.
As mentioned in Part 2 of this conversation, many complexity scales and ladders can be found in history dating back to Aristotle’s Ladder of Being created in 300 BC, with hundreds, probably thousands, of variations cascading forward across centuries, under various names including; Ladder of Abstraction, Ladder of Inference, Ladder of Complexity, Model of Hierarchical Complexity, Complexity Scales and Complexity Matrixes.
Acknowledging that the complexity scale/ladder/matrix idea is not new, clearly it is what goes inside, whether that makes any sense or not, that matters. Today some frameworks reflect the logic that complexity is relative to each viewer while others veer into being prescriptive which tends to reflect the presumptions of the framework creator, rather than each viewer’s input.
Zimmerman and many others arriving later seemed to strip much of the decision related content out of Stacy Matrix/Ladder and adapt the content for use with other units of consideration (not just decisions) as was pointed out in Part 2.
Zimmerman later introduced several additional models, including a simplified 45 degree angled ladder abscent the term Chaos.
Image Credit: The Zimmerman Framework for Defining Complexity, from Getting to Maybe, Westley, Zimmerman, Patton, 2007
Long story short: It is not found in the Stacey/Zimmerman materials but today we know that the ladder logic of moving upwards towards more complexity can be connected to how Open Systemic Challenge Framing (not found in systems thinking or design thinking) is constructed while the 2x2 matrix and various grid logics seem to be one-offs not interconnected to other tools.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
Since no one person or firm owns the terrain of matrix/ladder making, there is nothing stopping ongoing widespread R&D, rethinking and experimentation in that direction. Many different Matrix versions already exist, some adding to clarity and some to confusion.
With the holes in the present approach understood, there is plenty of opportunity to move matrix/ladder making reinvention forward into a new generation not tied to the shadow luggage, complexifying language, presumptive "best practice" or unenlightened process scripting.
Zimmerman was building on and rethinking previous work and so can you. The R&D cycle continues.
6. PROBLEMS OR SYSTEMS?
As was artfully pointed out in the Zimmerman Memorial there continues to be some confusion in the systems thinking community regarding what the Stacey/Zimmerman Matrix was intended for. While Stacey was narrowly focused on decision support when he created his matrix, Zimmerman was most often referring to problem categorization, not systems. Of course decisions, problems and systems are three very different things.
Image Credit: Dimensions Defined, The Zimmerman Framework for Defining Complexity, from Getting to Maybe, Westley, Zimmerman, Patton, 2007
Switching from consideration of decisions to the consideration of problems Zimmerman kept the Stacey Matrix dimensions of "Certainty" and "Agreement" adding "Predictability" somewhat oddly regarding "how to solve a problem".
It would be fair to say that was not, is not the central focus or concern in the CPS "Thought Collective" especially in complex organizational settings where often what the problems actually are is fuzzy and unknown at the outset. CPS has other "fish to fry" other than debating problem "Certainty", "Agreement" and "Predictability".
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
Be clear what your team is looking at. While systems tend to be visible, fuzzy problematic situations are often not at the outset. It is true that inside organizations not one type of challenge, but many types, simple, complicated, complex typically coexist. Lets be clear that matrix guessing gaming including the Zimmerman Framework for Defining Complexity is not systemic challenge framing.
7. MATRIX MANIA / OVER-EMPHASIS
With roots in Stacey Matrix, the matrix mania that now exists seems to be a testament to wide-spread interest in, some might say addiction to, soundbite-Instagram,- X, - TikTok-like logic, over-simplifying complex fuzzy issues, and gaining a rapid, low investment feel-good sense of mastery.
With the help of technology are our collective attention spans shrinking while the challenges facing us grow more complex? In sensemaking and changemaking practice it is certainly something that we think about.
It might be useful to readers to point out that matrix mania has gotten to the point where the simple use of a matrix framework is being sold as equivalent to actual intervention skills. Whether it makes any sense or not, today it’s an easy sell to convince folks that matrix guessing games are as significant as the skills needed to actually undertake changemaking interventions. Lets not miss the irony of the matrix mania over-simplification occurring in the age of complexity. Always good to have a sense of humor in this business..:-)
Often seen inherent in the matrix guessing games is the proverbial "matrix hat-trick", the giant feel good presumption that the skill sets needed are somehow already present, just sitting there, fully fleshed out in the organization and ready to be pulled from a hat, instead of expressing more realistically skill abscence. Of course the acknowledgment of skill absence tends to put the team and the organization on a different time line.
The punch line in the real world is that many organizations struggle to master, and scale, one hopefully adaptive changemaking skill set. The notion that multiple skill sets synced to the scale and complexity of challenges being faced are already on board and geared for activation is part of the rather over-simplified, feel-good, matrix guessing game fantasy vibe.
The up-front application of matrix guessing games seems to be roughly equivalent to a pre-consult where participants make some guesses, often without adequate information, that feeds into further investigation. Other than deciphering the language code of the various matrixes, matrix guessing is not a particularly heavy lift. Enlightened readers get to decide how much time you want your organization to spend there.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
Some good news might be that heavy use of matrix guessing game frameworks tends to eventually generate awareness among leaders responsible for changemaking that something more robust is going to be required to undertake actual interventions.
Matrix mania does tend to exist in a parallel universe to the R&D of actual intervention methods, tools and approaches. In itself, matrix mania does not represent the focus or the current state of the sensemaking and or changemaking communities.
CLOSING / REFUTURING ENERGIES
As practioners for 2+ decades, we are well aware that taking on the role of speaking up for the whole instead of silently supporting comfortable, not inclusive current state imbalance is not for the faint-of-heart. Critism of cognitive imbalance is fighting the good fight if it is one that you believe in.
It is true that in some contexts that advocacy can be perceived as rocking the boat, speaking inconvenient truth to power, etc. In the midst of such undertakings it's useful to keep in mind that although imbalance, convergence in particular, is deeply rooted in the old paradym, that is really not the direction collective "we" are heading in....:-) One quite straightforward aspect of the complexities facing collective us is that we are going to need all brains on deck to get out of the giant world mess we are collectively presently in. Championing convergent thinking is not going to get that job done. Now the job of leadership is bigger.
OPPORTUNITY TODAY:
In the face of high conflict politics and or strategic uncertainty around culture building get some help...:-) Happy to share: Building Strategic Psychological Safety below.
Hope this is helpful readers and good luck to all.
End.
You can download the entire Epilogue here:
Humantific is corporate sponsor of NextD Journal / Making Sense of Design for Complexity.
Appendix A
“ZIMMERMANS NINE PRINCIPLES OF WORKING WITH COMPLEXITY:
View your system through the lens of complexity in addition to the metaphor of a machine or a military organization.
Build a good-enough vision. Provide minimum specifications, rather than trying to plan every little detail.
When life is far from certain, lead with clockware and swarmware in tandem. Balance data and intuition, planning and acting, safety and risk, giving due honour to each.
Tune your place to the edge. Foster the “right” degree of information flow, diversity and difference, connections inside and outside the organization, power differential and anxiety, instead of controlling information, forcing agreement, dealing separately with contentious groups, working systematically down all the layers of the hierarchy in sequence and seeking comfort.
Uncover and work with paradox and tension. Do not shy away from them as if they were unnatural.
Go for multiple actions at the fringes, let direction arise. You don’t have to be “sure” before you proceed with anything.
Listen to the shadow system. That is, realize that informal relationships, gossip, rumor and hallway conversations contribute significantly to agents’ mental models and subsequent actions.
Grow complex systems by chunking. Allow complex systems to emerge out of the links among simple systems that work well and are capable of operating independently.
Mix cooperation with competition. It’s not one or the other.”
*Visual SenseMaking, CPS (Creative Problem Solving), Ambidexiterity, Organizational Transformation, Innovation Capacity Building and Psychological Safety are six of the numerous communities of practice that Humantific participants in and contributes to.
Related Materials:
Complexity and Management, Stacey, GRiffin, Shaw, 2000
Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations, Ralph Stacey 2001
コメント