Here’s draft chapter 7, sent from Bristol this time as our maternity and paternity France/Italy/Switzerland road trip has ended (Corisca was the highlight!
Just found your Substack and book and read the first 6 chapters one go. Very interesting and it resonates strongly with me and my own experiences. But I feel you are losing me in this chapter.
You mention the second law of thermodymanics and I starts to drift in (other) thoughts. This laws describes closed systems, and I'm not sure an organisation is a closed system? It's beginning to give me more questions, which is good, but I feel like I'm starting to disagree for the first time with your otherwise excellent writing.
I will come back to this chapter at a later date, because I definitely want to explore this further as I'm at a crossroads in this area myself, but justed wanted to share this first impression with you.
Thanks Jordy, this is exactly the sort of feedback I hoped for 🙏 I'll give it some thought. For now I've made a small edit around the intro, though I imagine I may have to go further.
I appreciate you offering these chapters freely. I binged on all seven in one go. The catapult story really landed for me. It inspired an analogy that has already been useful in helping me explain the difference between an orientation toward organizations as living systems and organizations as machines. I just moved into a house that people built for us. I can build a house. By contrast, as a gardener, I don’t build an apple tree. An apple tree builds itself, the best I can do is create the conditions for it. Right?
I wonder, I think many complexity theorists would say there is order in all domains. Is your usage of order and ordered systems too strong? Perhaps, not!
Also, is it fair to say that organizations *can* self-organize, as if they don't always? Regardless of the constraints, self-organization always occurs within in them, no? The scale and number options may be limited, but some sort of self-organization always occurs.
I ask these questions not as critique, but as wanting to understand more, particularly your view on it.
What immediately captured me is "why change fails" which I have witnessed often. Mostly I followed the complex systems summary. I had some questions about the survival of the most stable, as stable seems less accurate than most accurately flexible, though I agree that it does not come free. I wanted you to unpack how constraints work differently, and how they shape what can happen without specifying what does. I want to see that more clearly. I am all in that it is the interactions between people that gives energy, and maybe direction, purpose, flexibility? The section on Conflict is spot on and that leaders tolerate (avoid, suppress) conflict with damage that far outlives the conflict. I wonder if it is BECAUSE it decreases the intelligence of the interactions; the intelligence is found at the edge of the unknown, in developing the similarities and differences but this comes from my theory, not yours. Yes to section on systems, but was confused by the "patterns in progressive organizations might be effects rather than causes? Say more. And what do you wish you understood earlier? I agree so much with the limited promises of the interventions and the more modest implementation of experiments as the learning leg of the cycle, and how important it is to size the experiments small enough. All in for freedom and capability to interact, with the added caveat that learning the skills to interact without bias, assumptions and contempt is core skill. I got lost again at the "change industry...has a product." As you were writing I was bouncing the ideas off of Clean Language, Systemic Modeling, and will continue to read your work and ponder. Thank you so much for sharing.
I’ve really enjoyed the first five chapters, especially the way theory surfaces from lived experience rather than arriving as a lecture. Those chapters felt like they created conditions for reflection and left a lot of the intellectual work to the reader, which I value.
Chapters 6 and 7 land differently for me. The style shifts toward explanation and argument, and complexity starts to feel like it’s doing too much of the explanatory work. I find myself more drawn to a hybrid view of practice, where some things are genuinely complex, some are just complicated, and some are (or should be) quite ordered.
Related to that, I’d personally like sharper ethical lines and somewhat fewer global claims about “what’s best for organisations” or what they “really” are, especially when those claims lean heavily on complexity without much grounding in specific cases.
None of this makes the chapters uninteresting—on the contrary, essays like these keep me reading and thinking. I’m sharing this mainly as a reader who was very engaged by the earlier, more experience‑led style, and noticed the shift here.
Thanks Pavel, yes, chapter 7 (and 8) are the bits where complexity features most heavily. They probably contain the least lived experience and the most explaining. Part 3's aim is to land the books key argument - that we're offering linear recipies to complex problems, which admittedly isn't as enjoyable as the earlier parts.. Hopefully it'll pick up again 🤞
I really appreciate the way you write about complexity. The flow of concepts and ideas is very well structured , making it easier to conceptualize what could be an overwhelming topic.
The world of Consultancy is shifting (thankfully) and I’m glad to share a space where not knowing is welcomed.
Just found your Substack and book and read the first 6 chapters one go. Very interesting and it resonates strongly with me and my own experiences. But I feel you are losing me in this chapter.
You mention the second law of thermodymanics and I starts to drift in (other) thoughts. This laws describes closed systems, and I'm not sure an organisation is a closed system? It's beginning to give me more questions, which is good, but I feel like I'm starting to disagree for the first time with your otherwise excellent writing.
I will come back to this chapter at a later date, because I definitely want to explore this further as I'm at a crossroads in this area myself, but justed wanted to share this first impression with you.
Thanks Jordy, this is exactly the sort of feedback I hoped for 🙏 I'll give it some thought. For now I've made a small edit around the intro, though I imagine I may have to go further.
What a cover! I can’t wait to get my hands on this.
I appreciate you offering these chapters freely. I binged on all seven in one go. The catapult story really landed for me. It inspired an analogy that has already been useful in helping me explain the difference between an orientation toward organizations as living systems and organizations as machines. I just moved into a house that people built for us. I can build a house. By contrast, as a gardener, I don’t build an apple tree. An apple tree builds itself, the best I can do is create the conditions for it. Right?
I like that analogy! Thanks for reading, and congrats on the build and move. You'll be eating apples in no time 😊
Great read!
I wonder, I think many complexity theorists would say there is order in all domains. Is your usage of order and ordered systems too strong? Perhaps, not!
Also, is it fair to say that organizations *can* self-organize, as if they don't always? Regardless of the constraints, self-organization always occurs within in them, no? The scale and number options may be limited, but some sort of self-organization always occurs.
I ask these questions not as critique, but as wanting to understand more, particularly your view on it.
What immediately captured me is "why change fails" which I have witnessed often. Mostly I followed the complex systems summary. I had some questions about the survival of the most stable, as stable seems less accurate than most accurately flexible, though I agree that it does not come free. I wanted you to unpack how constraints work differently, and how they shape what can happen without specifying what does. I want to see that more clearly. I am all in that it is the interactions between people that gives energy, and maybe direction, purpose, flexibility? The section on Conflict is spot on and that leaders tolerate (avoid, suppress) conflict with damage that far outlives the conflict. I wonder if it is BECAUSE it decreases the intelligence of the interactions; the intelligence is found at the edge of the unknown, in developing the similarities and differences but this comes from my theory, not yours. Yes to section on systems, but was confused by the "patterns in progressive organizations might be effects rather than causes? Say more. And what do you wish you understood earlier? I agree so much with the limited promises of the interventions and the more modest implementation of experiments as the learning leg of the cycle, and how important it is to size the experiments small enough. All in for freedom and capability to interact, with the added caveat that learning the skills to interact without bias, assumptions and contempt is core skill. I got lost again at the "change industry...has a product." As you were writing I was bouncing the ideas off of Clean Language, Systemic Modeling, and will continue to read your work and ponder. Thank you so much for sharing.
I’ve really enjoyed the first five chapters, especially the way theory surfaces from lived experience rather than arriving as a lecture. Those chapters felt like they created conditions for reflection and left a lot of the intellectual work to the reader, which I value.
Chapters 6 and 7 land differently for me. The style shifts toward explanation and argument, and complexity starts to feel like it’s doing too much of the explanatory work. I find myself more drawn to a hybrid view of practice, where some things are genuinely complex, some are just complicated, and some are (or should be) quite ordered.
Related to that, I’d personally like sharper ethical lines and somewhat fewer global claims about “what’s best for organisations” or what they “really” are, especially when those claims lean heavily on complexity without much grounding in specific cases.
None of this makes the chapters uninteresting—on the contrary, essays like these keep me reading and thinking. I’m sharing this mainly as a reader who was very engaged by the earlier, more experience‑led style, and noticed the shift here.
Thanks Pavel, yes, chapter 7 (and 8) are the bits where complexity features most heavily. They probably contain the least lived experience and the most explaining. Part 3's aim is to land the books key argument - that we're offering linear recipies to complex problems, which admittedly isn't as enjoyable as the earlier parts.. Hopefully it'll pick up again 🤞
I really appreciate the way you write about complexity. The flow of concepts and ideas is very well structured , making it easier to conceptualize what could be an overwhelming topic.
The world of Consultancy is shifting (thankfully) and I’m glad to share a space where not knowing is welcomed.
Thanks Henry! 🙏
This fascinates me. What kind of feedback is most helpful to you at this particular time?
I've no preference, whatever comes to mind I'd love to hear, thanks Cathy 🙏