Category: inspiration

 

In his research on cultural differentiation in multi-agent simulations, Verwaart (2011) concludes that an expert system approach is feasible for modeling these differentiations. Cultural differences as defined by Hofstede (2001) and the trust and tracing game (Meijer, 2009) set the base line. The cultural differences are dimensions of private-professional relations, hierarchy impact, cooperation-competition preference, xenophobia and virtues. The game is about explaining the impact of cultural intertwining differences in relatively simple context, with a focus on individual efficiency.

The field of application is a field area of outsourcing, and not an area of ‘free radicals’ and ‘functionals’, like my fields of interest. See the model of Van der Reep (2006) for the differences:

My basic interpretation of this model -of which I cannot find scientific evidence (yet)- is as follows:

OUTSOURCERS	FREE RADICALS
MONOLITHS	FUNCTIONALS

Further development on this model is done by Van Leeuwen (dutch: waardekompas, 2006), focussing on the necessary roles and relations in teamwork, within the context of strategy developments.

Focussing on a dynamic environment and simple demand, Verwaart validates his expert system approach using:

• Hofstedes model of Synthetic Cultures (emphasizing single dimensions),
• the principle of weak junction (the highest value of the effect of a set of dimensions is used as the resulting simultaneous effect),
• the principle of face validity (experts compare the tuned model to reality) and
• empirical reference (outcomes of game versus studies),

He is also aloof regarding the conclusions:

A problematic issue is, that similarity of the outputs of gaming simulations and multi-agent simulations is no sound proof that the agent correctly implements the human decision making mechanism. This issue is known as under-determination. A validation method is proposed, which builds on the model’s composed structure. Under-determination can be avoided by separate validation of the components in micro-games.

All in all, the two most interesting aspects -to me- are that:

1. Verwaart is combining different approaches: Multi-agent simulation (parallel approach) to demonstrate how tuning of cultural dimensions (serial approach) impacts individual trading rates (serial approach) in a field of simpel demand and dynamic environments.
   Extrapolating this to my own study, we get: Visualization of behavior (parallel approach) to demonstrate how tuning of individual loyalties (parallel approach) impacts group performance (serial approach) in a field of complex demand.
2. Hofstedes 5 cultural dimensions are described as a mixture of norms and attitudes (Aizen). They act as a source for misunderstanding and therefore a source for multiple intentions (example). This creates an environment where group behavior benefits by cognitive restructuring ({needs a summary of blogposts}) and visual salience (how we tick {+rewritten blogposts}). 

According to wikipedia cognitive bias is:

…a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations. Implicit in the concept of a “pattern of deviation” is a standard of comparison; this may be the judgment of people outside those particular situations, or may be a set of independently verifiable facts. … a general term that is used to describe many observer effects in the human mind, some of which can lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation.

Wiki provides a list of the more commonly studied cognitive biases:

• Framing by using a too-narrow approach and description of the situation or issue.
• Hindsight bias, sometimes called the “I-knew-it-all-along” effect, is the inclination to see past events as being predictable.
• Fundamental attribution error is the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior.
• Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions; this is related to the concept of cognitive dissonance.
• Self-serving bias is the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests.
• Belief bias is when one’s evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by their belief in the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

A more complete list of cognitive biases provides about 100 differrent cognitive biases, in 4 categories:

• 1 Decision-making and behavioral biases (40+)
• 2 Biases in probability and belief (20+)
• 3 Social biases (20)
• 4 Memory errors and biases (10+)

It seems humans have developed quite a number of skills in order to cloak their behavior or motives, and also mislead themselves. What if we try and uncloak group individual attitudes as part of effective group behavior in the midst of complexity? 

Wilson, Lindey and Schooler’s article ‘a model of dual attitudes‘ (2000) concerns how a new attitude can arise, while the old attitude is not replaced, remaining in memory.
They  complete a line of attitude-research:

1. Stability and Automaticity: attitudes as strored evaluations (rigid, resistant attitudes and a low thresshold for ‘popping up’)
2. The liability of Evaluation: Attitudes as context-sensitive constructions (attitudes constructed through real time experiences)
3. The anchoring and adjustment model of attidude change (reconciling (1) and (2))
4. Dual attitude model (like 3, including the notion that and ‘old’ attitude is suppressed and not overwritten)

… when an initial attidue is strong, it biases the processing of new information in an attitude-congruent direction

They split impicit and explicit attitudes, where implicite attitudes are described as unknown origin, activated automatically and influence uncontrollable responses. It seems people are unaware of the origin of these attitudes (thus their evaluation), but not of the attitudes itselves.
Wilson et al. describe 4 types of dual attitudes:

1. Repression (anxiety-provoking attitude is kept out of awareness)
2. Independent systems / independence (two evaluations -implicit nonconsious and explicit conscious- of attitudes exist independently, where the implicit is unaware and does not have to be overriden)
3. Motivated overriding (people suppress a consious attitude with another created or retrieved attitude)
4. Automatic overriding (automatic suppression)

Other dimensions of attitudes, besides dual attitudes are:

• Different categorizations of the attitude object (i.e. different attitudes of a politician when using category ‘debating skills’ or ‘political view’)
• Ambivalence (both positive and negative feelings toward a stimulus, i.e. ‘callories’ and ‘taste’ of a cheese cake)

The writers also label their 4 types to different literatures relevant to their model: human motivation, attachment, dependency needs, attribution style, prejudice and stereotyping, affective perseverance, attitudes towards relationships, dissonance.

They also suggest that people can have more than two attitudes, a multiple attitude system. Extrapolating from a personal perspective: Regarding to group behavior, within a group their is also a multiple attitude system, where between explicit and implicit attitudes, also a more or less shared attitude duality arises: a multiple attitude system within and between groups. 

Nice presentation of Simon Sinek, about convincing and beliefs. Although I do not find scientific research supporting some of his suggestive quotes:

The part of the brain that controls decision–making, doesn’t control language.

… and:

People don’t buy what you do but why you do it.

This is one of many blogposts refering to Sinek’s TED talk, however I am not an early adopter of his beliefs. I want to believe…

… but I am not sure whether Sinek sells his beliefs or his book in this movieclip.

Daamen uses a number of models in his study Strategy as force (2010), about providing a useful understanding of the strategies behind urban development project strategy. One of them a I agree with on the quadrant level, alhough it’s 8 segments are questionable.

What I do like are his examples and explanations about shifting strategies and strategy dynamics.

Also interesting is the approach of Actor orientations (Scharpf, 1997), describing that ‘specific combinations of knowledge and ignorance tend to be shared among the actors’. Like most other research, this study does not describe exactly how this model will help groups in real time.

Note that the elements of role-specific preferences are different from Aizen’s model about beliefs, intentions and behavior. I argue that a shared perspective is more effective when the basics (intentions / beliefs) are shared, in order to overcome loyalty related ambiguities of a coorperation in complex situations.

Check at least from the 14th minute:

An ugly version (1u) together with equal alternatives (1 || 2) promotes the normal version (1).

Kurtz and Snowden contribute to the insights and interdependence between organizational learning and networks, with this article called Bramble bushes in a thicket (2007).

A nice explanation of naturalistic approach (emphasizing the inherent un-knowability where people seek to understand a sufficiency of the present) and idealistic approach (privileging expert knowledge, where leaders set out an ideal future state). Details in this clarifying slidedeck stating:

Two of the most important elements of the naturalistic sense-making approach are: narrative and networks.

Especially the paragraph about Inter-organizational networks and productive conflict offers insights I correlate with. Here’s two quotes:

Inter-organisational networks help organisations improve productive conflict within their boundaries in two ways: first, by increasing the productive conflict experienced by groups and individuals of the organisation who are in contact with the outside network, and second, by making each internal group’s norms for conflict management more visible in comparison. It does not seem that much work has been done specifically on the types and natures of conflict in inter-organisational networks to date. Certainly there has been discussion of how conflicts of interest can arise between partners in business ventures, but there has not been strong attention to how inter- and intra-group conflict plays out in inter-organisational learning networks.

Holmquist (2003) makes the case that learning in intra-organisational and inter-organisational networks is intermingled and that conflict is a critical ingredient in this intermingling: “The explorative character of much interorganizational learning does not occur by itself; it occurs as a result of a confrontation and a combination of single organizations’ experiences.” He also makes the point that because inter-organisational networks typically have a less centralised structure than the organisations themselves, employees who participate in such networks are exposed to “conflicts and instability as a result of the lack of formal authority”, which can increase productive conflict within their own organisation. All of these signs point to the utility of inter-organisational networks as a source of not only new knowledge but also of productive conflict that improves the organisation’s ability to reinvent itself from within.

I love this metaphore of the bramble (desire-difficulty / cooperation-competition):

Organizations (and the individuals that make them up) are much like “bramble bushes in a thicket”, and the nature of their many interacting and co-evolving identities is self-similar as well as deeply contextual and ambiguous.

This article of Forsén, Lundin and Löwgren describes a conceptual design study towards a visual ‘front end’ of a knowledge system for large organisations. Explaining video here and interactive demo here (eat that, facebook & linkedin!).

Nice graphics. I like the idea of the ‘random people generator’ and I am courious about the impact. Nice touch that you can switch other/random people into the center of your search…

As pointed out on their website:

To summarize, all participants wanted the real system and claimed that they would use it if it was deployed.

I wonder how IKEA makes all employees fill in and update their profiles…

In this article about ‘Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization’, Walker, Shelley and Bourne describe two methods for visualizing stakeholders. One metaphorical, one abstract, both aimed at (1) defining risks and (2) engagement with potentially supportive stakeholders. The more abstract tool basically helps identifying and describing (a) the scale, and scope of the influence and (b) the degree of the impact. The metaphorical tool basically helps identifying stereotypical charcteristics.

Most important lesson: these tools seem to help engage the group dialogue, although it stays a bit foggy exactly how and to what extent visualizing a stakeholder map makes an impact to group behavior.

Jill Bolte Taylor’s stroke of insight (TED) makes us experience a stroke from the perspective of a brain scientist

An eye opener: our left hemispher works like a serial processor, whereas our right hemishpere works as a parallel processor.