Trust and Lingering
Jay Forrester, the primary architect of System Dynamics, enters our case studies at this point. Forrester has often declared that one should stand still and not do anything until they are clear about the dynamics operating in the system where they are choosing to act. Like Barry Johnson, Forrester is recommending that we linger for a while when seeking to optimize the benefits of a specific polarity. Johnson’s and Forrester’s recommendation certainly can be directed toward Susan and Rick. Optimization requires more from both Susan and Rick. Some additional thought and planning must be engaged if Johnson’s optimization is to occur.
Susan must identify criteria for accepting a new job (compensation, type of work, type of organization, etc.) She must flesh out a plan regarding departure from her current job after obtaining a new job in her own community or in Chicago. How does she make the move in a way that minimizes the negative impact of this move. Perhaps it isn’t Chicago, but instead is Cleveland (so that she can remain in her current home). What would be required in terms of transportation if she commuted to Cleveland? Rick would similarly have to optimize a move back to Vermont by setting up criteria for accepting a new job in his hometown, by becoming familiar with theaters and restaurants within a 50 mile radius of his hometown, and by spending some time on Zoom with some of his old Vermont friends in order to determine if they still have something in common with the now more “cosmopolitan” Rick?
I have focused on Susan and Rick’s work regarding the alternative polarity in this illustration of Johnson’s optimization process. The same process can be engaged when seeking to reinforce and optimize the benefits of the polarity in which one currently resides. Susan can focus on improving her current preference for S² (Home), while Rick can find new forms of support for his or quest-driven (O²) life.
Most importantly, the assessment of levels of Trust help to determine appropriate baselines. The higher the level of Trust with regard to competence, intentions and shared perspective, the more ambitious can be the baselines. The potential for integration, in particular, requires high levels of Trust.
Susan and Rick must Trust that they are sufficiently competent to engage successfully in this “daring” blending of home and quest. When Polystatic processes are engaged, there will be greater clarity regarding intentions (baselines) for these intentions are being repeatedly tested against predictions about the real world. The third facet of Trust is successfully employed when one is testing assumptions and predictions against real actions that are taken and results that are obtained. We can gain a level of clarity regarding untested assumptions and biased predictions by opening ourselves up to the ongoing feedback from an environment that resides independent of our Bubble of Belief (Weitz and Bergquist, 2024).
Optimization can be deployed not just by individual actors, but also by a group, organization or entire community. While those with gold may rule a system, it is possible to optimize the S² ( Home) focus on the achievement of security and safety by setting up laws and regulations that restrict the amount of money that can be poured into a campaign or by ensuring that nonprofit organizations that receive some of the “gold” via donations are truly operating on behalf of the welfare of all citizens (and especially those who currently are underserved). Rather than immediately decrying the role played by “gold” in the disruption of society (and thus reduction in security and safety), members of a community can focus instead on ways to maximize constructive use of available funds in order to ensure security and safety for all members of the community.
Download Article 1K Club
