Template:Modernism versus pragmatism: Difference between revisions

A running theme in the [[JC]] is the distinction between top-down and bottom-up of organisation models.

We are in the swoon of a passionate love affair with [[data]], [[technology]] and the [[algorithm]]. [[Thought leader]]s perceive an inevitable, short, path to a [[singularity]] where everything can be planned, everything calculated, everything provisioned, we will no longer have to rely on irrational, costly, inconstant, error-prone [[meatsacks]]. [[This time is different]]; this time we behold a future of [[technological unemployment]] but unlimited leisure.

Now I am a crusty old refusenik, and while that is largely borne of self-interest — I ''am'' an irrational, costly, inconstant, error-prone [[meatsack]], after all — before mortgaging our futures to the machine, I think it is worth nutting through the digital prophecies to see if they hold water.

Every story needs a [[narrative]] and this one starts with a fundamental, philosophical divide: on on hand, ''[[determinism]]'': the view that the [[Causation|causal]] principle holds, in theory, we can calculate all outcomes from first principles, our main challenge is outright data processing capacity; on the other, ''[[pragmatism]]'': the view that, whether or not the causal principle holds, it’s too hard, too constraining and too inflexible. It’s better to live with uncertainty and figure things out as we go.

[[Determinism]] begets [[modernism]] and aspires to ''centralisation'': we should aggregate and optimise processing power; management’s main function is orderly administration and maintenance of the machine which, by operation of logic, will dispense optimal outcomes by itself.  

[[Pragmatism]] begets [[systems thinking]] and aspires to ''decentralisation'': the world is fundamentally unpredictable; it is best dealt with by experienced experts; management’s main function is to empower and equip experts and optimise their ability to communicate.

The top-down models are “[[modernist]]”. They view organisations as [[complicated]] machines. [[Form]]al design is important, and follows (centrally-determined) function; the more efficient your contraption is, the better it will navigate the crises and opportunities presented by its environment — the market. [[Modernism]] regards the market as an extremely [[complicated]] mathematical problem: hard, but— theoretically — calculable. ''Modellable''. Should a model not work, one must refine it.  

Shortcomings in current [[technology]] mean we cannot — ''yet'' — fully solve that problem. We still need humans to make sure the machine operates as best it can, but the further humans are from that central executive function, and the better the algorithm gets, the more humans resemble a maintenance crew: their task is simply to ensure the orderly functioning of the plant. As technology advances, human [[agency]] can be progressively decommissioned.  

The modernist narrative focusses on [[Legibility|what it can see]], which is necessarily limited to the ''formal'' inputs and outputs of its own model. There are at least two consequences of this.

 

Firstly, [[modernism]] cannot see ''informal'', but vital, interactions between components of the system that are not in its model: random acts of kindness, the star seller’s sales technique, the time every staff member spends building lateral relationships, the value of those relationships, the necessary work beyond the [[service catalogue]], the work-arounds that  the machine going; the ad-hoc tricks that make up the difference between meaningful performance and work-to-rule.

 

Theory: it is not the structure of an organisation, but its interactions that determine its outcomes. A badly organised firm that nonetheless interacts well with its customers will perform better than a perfectly organised firm that interacts poorly, does not interact at all.

“You are in a queue. an operator will be with you shortly. Your call is important to us.” The difference is neatly illustrated by what remains of [[the beginning and end of Elvis Presley]].

When you put it like that, it becomes obvious. Success is an [[emergent]] property of a [[system]]. Systems are defined by their flows, not their stocks. Components that don't interact are not in a system. Stocks — formal, structural capacities — only ''facilitate'' flows. But formal structures are easier to see than interactions. [[Modernism]] focuses on what it can see.

Secondly, thanks to its [[physics envy]], [[modernism]] is a ''[[negative sum game]]'': its baseline is immediate, costless performance of the program. Positive variance from this baseline ''is not possible'': the goal is ''to lose as little energy as you can''. But friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, the system loses energy. We can minimise entropic loss with engineering and environmental control but it remains practically impossible to conserve energy, and ''theoretically'' impossible to create it.  

Human operators create a great deal more [[entropy|entropic loss]] than unattended algorithms. If the only measurement is accurate performance of instructions, humans must be worse at it then machines. Modernism can give credit to insight, diagnosis, model revision or reimagination because ''there is no such thing as a valid alternative model''. Economics is a kind of applied physics. There are no alternative facts.

If bettering an [[algorithm]] is impossible, it stands to reason: [[meatware]] is expensive and inconstant: the largest risk to the organisation is [[human error]], thus the strategic direction of an organisation’s development is to eliminate it where possible. Where that is not possible, human activity should be constrained by rigid guidelines and policies to reduce the probability of mishap, and monitored and audited to record and correct those errors that do happen top prevent them happening again. To the modernist, malfunction and [[human error]] are overarching business risks.