Why 'reactive' approaches dominate change

It appears that the case nowadays is for most anyone to take initiative or action they need to be under cover of a perceived ‘problem’. A problem that is probably what Horst Rittel called a ‘tame’ problem. Rittel called situations that were not amenable to being solved, in a straightforward way that tame problems were, ‘wicked’ problems. But when faced with wicked problems, the response is to try to transform wicked problems into tame problems — problem solved.

The default to ‘reaction’ instead of ‘proaction’ may be a modernized habit of thought, distinct from historical approaches, but in any case, it is the dominant approach nowadays. I have often asked people to consider refraining from using the term ‘problem’ for a day or so. Turns out it is nearly impossible. Try it.

There is no denying that there are problematic situations. Things can be broken, malfunctioning, unknown, threatening, undesirable, or a host of other attributes—all called problems. For some, it is clear what needs to be done. For others, it is not clear at all. Determining a strategy to move towards something rather than away from something is hidden as a strategic possibility when in a problem stance.

People are structurally adapted to backing away from undesirable states of affairs rather than turning and moving towards more desirable states of affairs. I have theories about why this is the case however an interesting set of alternative ideas has been offered by David Brooks on why this may be so although he doesn’t frame it so simply as action or reaction. Still, there seem to be some interesting points to be considered in his thinking:

https://lnkd.in/g4jH_jJq

Comments

Design, Wicked Problems & Throwness

Horst Rittel is one of the seminal residents in my 'Berkeley Bubble'. Recently a friend and colleague sent me an article about ‘double-wickedproblems’ . I have become ever more aware of the increasing number of references to ‘wicked problems’ in all forms of media that seem to have missed Rittel’s deeper insights . This brought up the concern I have about the use and miss-use of the term ‘wicked problem’. The term ‘wicked problem’, first introduced by Rittel in West Churchman’s seminars at Berkeley, was in reference to his conceptualization of the impossible challenge of dealing with significant social issues using traditional, rational, ‘problem solving’ methods. In most cases what are miss-diangnosed as ‘wicked problems’ are actually complex or complicated problems that can be simplified or broken into smaller 'tame' problems allowing for a straight forward 'problem solving' approach to be taken. This approach is believed by many to be capable

Center for Systemic Design draft prospectus

PROSPECTUS Center for Advanced Systemic Designing Introduction Our futures can be approached in four ways: 1) drifting—adapting to whatever happens, 2) colliding—reacting and enduring, 3) retreating—backing away from undesirable states or conditions, or 4) advancing—navigating into desirable states-of-affairs. The norm nowadays is to drift, collide or retreat into the future. The fourth approach, the proactive approach, is the more apt response given the complex challenges and rising expectations that are the new norm for the foreseeable future. The fourth approach depends on the agency of individuals who have the capacity to handle the challenge of securing desired outcomes in indeterminate situations on behalf of concomitant stakeholders and clients. They achieve this by serving—design agency—as members of design teams and design cohorts. These systemic designers are skilled polymaths who have the ability to create assemblies of essential elements into coherent whole system

It is Rocket Science!

As a scholar practitioner advising people in businesses, governmental agencies and even universities, it is too often the case that the refrain: “this is too abstract”, “this is too academic”, “this is too complicated”, “this is too hard”…is heard when the reality of what is required to actually change complex systems by design begins to sink in. The implied judgment is that 'thinking' gets in the way of practical 'doing' and doing should be simple and easy—i.e. ‘keep it simple stupid’. People want to claim the competencies of change agents but they hope to gain that competence through ‘edutainment’ or by learning the ‘tricks of the trade” or some other minimally demanding means. The famous pragmatic nature of Americans has led to the rise and nurture of prideful anti-intellectualism, which has reinforced the historic split between thinking and doing inherited from centuries of Western tradition. However the best designers have learned how to reintegrat

Accidental Vagrant

Search This Blog