The Multiple Views of Cybernetics

Dr. Stephen Harwood (University of Edinburgh, Business School)

Cybernetics emerged in the 1940s, with Norbert Wiener’s book ‘Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine’ (1948) perhaps establishing ‘cybernetics’ as a paradigm. Underpinning it, is the basic concept of how an entity or system relates to itself, this being referred to as feedback, circularity and reflexion, and is associated with such concepts as stability, equilibrium, and homeostasis. Cybernetics attempts to address the question of how a system is (self-)regulated, in other words, is controlled to achieve a purpose or goal. It can be argued that this is achieved through communication, in terms of how an entity relates with others or self, in an ongoing mutually adjusting dynamic. Whilst one early application of Cybernetics was how to regulate a gun to shoot down an aircraft, attention has shifted to the challenges of organisation and society and their regulation. 

Cybernetics, drawing upon contributions from those working in many different disciplines, has in turn, influenced many disciplines, with concepts associated with feedback being absorbed into the mainstream of such disciplines as biology and engineering. Thus, cybernetics, in the form of first order Cybernetics, has perhaps retreated from an explicit presence, though its works remain influential. Nevertheless, Cybernetics has transformed, with second order cybernetics emerging in the 1970s, distinguishing it from its groundwork, this becoming known as first order cybernetics. This shifts attention from the cybernetics of what is observed, the observed system, to the cybernetics of the observer and the observing system (von Foerster, 1979). Intrinsic to this notion of an observing system are observers, language connecting observers, and society created through the use of language. Observers each have a voice and the capability to be a change agent. The notion of reflexion draws attention to observer self-awareness as well as responsibility for all actions, within a context of ethics and shared values and beliefs. Whilst there has been limited overlap with the social sciences (Stokes, 1990), second order Cybernetics has received ongoing attention, with one influential contributor being Stafford Beer with his Viable System Model. However, there appears to be limited diffusion of second order Cybernetics into the broader community. 

One of the challenges facing Cybernetics, is the prefix ‘cyber’, which has become associated with anything that takes place in the digital domain (e.g. cybersecurity, cybersex, cybernocracy). This has led to widespread confusion about Cybernetics, undermining appreciation of its value.

Nevertheless, the recognition that many of the challenges facing society are characterised by their complexity, there appears to be growing interest in Cybernetics together with systems thinking. This complexity raises challenges in terms of how to makes sense of it and handle. For example, sustainable development, if it is to be effective, needs to address, not only environmental and societal issues, but also accommodate economic issues, these being the three pillars of sustainable development (UN, 2002). This requires approaches that can systemically handle this complexity. One approach that has emerged is the VIPLAN methodology (Espejo, 1988, 1992; Harwood 2020). This focuses attention explicitly upon the observing system related to any situation and how the shaping of this observing system can enhance the likelihood of more effective engagement within the situation.

However, second order cybernetics has other interpretations. For example, Medvedeva (2017) makes the distinction between Western and Russian approaches to science, focusing attention upon second order Cybernetics. Whilst the Western view of second order Cybernetics incorporates the value systems and social dimension of the individual observer, the Russian view treats the individual subject as distinct from the social dimension, with these relating to second and third order (e.g. Lepskiy, 2017) Cybernetics respectively.

Irrespective of the two different traditions, a useful distinction is made here. This concerns the variety of shared social spaces each characterised by their own blend of ethics, beliefs and values, often overlapping, but rarely in isolation, these translating into communities with identifiable cultures and individual behaviours. Whilst cultural identity and religion typify these, more recent interests in such issues as corporate social responsibility, sustainable development and climate change, have created the challenge of how these can be embedded into operational contexts within organisations, institutions and society. This has led to the emergence of the notion of ontological Cybernetics (Espejo & Lepskiy, 2020). This focuses attention upon the shared context (a meta-system with meta-subjects) within which people act and interact as well as shapes and is shaped by these actions and interactions.

From a operationalisation perspective, attention focuses upon the processes whereby an idea becomes part of the everyday guiding principles of the context. For example, within the quality domain, the ethos of producing quality has emerged with TQM (Total Quality Management). This shifted attention from the inspection of the product to the underlying principle of doing things right without error. In traditional western manufacturing this has required a cultural change in the way things were done. Nevertheless, whilst this has been challenging, in recognition of its importance, the underlying ethos of TQM has been embedded in the international quality standard ISO9001. More recently, the issue of corporate social responsibility has emerged as an important set of principles to guide organisational behaviour. However, it too implies a cultural change within organisations with associated challenges in adoption, in particular at the executive level. In 2010, the principles underpinning social responsibility were embedded in the international standard ISO 26000:2010. In both examples, the effort is upon transforming the beliefs, values and attitudes of everyone to the shared principles relating to quality and social responsibility respectively. However, this does raise the question of how this can be achieved. 

An insight is perhaps gained from the development of the Scottish national tourism strategy (figure 1), which was launched in 2012. Unlike its predecessor, a public sector driven strategy launched in 2006, this was the private sector driven strategy, led by the Scottish Tourism Forum (STF), but supported by relevant government agencies. Rather than this being a strategy developed by a body and rolled out across the industry, the aim was to understand industry requirements, with the strategy expressing the voice of those operating within the industry. A steering group (TLG), supported by a smaller working group (SG) were established, comprising major industry figures and run in a boardroom manner. One significant challenge was the very fragmented nature of the Scottish tourism industry, it lacking an organisational structure to bring everyone together, although at a local level there were many local tourism groups. This is an interesting case, as it draws attention to the requisite organisational mechanisms for people to contribute to the development of strategy, these being primarily in the form of meetings, bringing people together within different localities, as well as with the many stakeholders such as trade associations and politicians. The strategy development itself was expedited by a project team comprising individuals from government agencies. The outcome was a strategy captured in a single image, which could be easily shared. Three months prior to launch of the strategy, the STF was replaced by the Scottish Tourism Alliance (STA), this being a membership organisation. It was quickly, relatively successful in enrolling sufficient members to capture a significant number of those engaged in Scottish tourism, thus creating an organisational context to support the sharing of the strategy. Following the launch, delivery groups were established to establish and implement action plans. The 2019 review revealed that there was

evidence of progress and success across all asset blocks and a number of destinations and cities. This is a result of action plans and activities being aligned to TS2020 and industry’s understanding of and buy-in to the national strategy

Further,

Despite the disparate and dispersed nature of the tourism sector, there have been good levels of engagement at all levels of the industry not evidenced prior to TS2020.

It appears that the transformation of a preliminary vision into an aligned configuration of activities to achieve the intent, was successful.

Figure 1 The development of the 2012 Scottish national tourism strategy

There are several lessons from this example. Core is the importance of the cybernetics of the strategy development process. This unpacks to reveal

• the vision and the desire to set direction, which can be viewed as a trigger for subsequent events
• the establishment of a governance structure for strategy formulation, this being centralised in the TLG, delegated to sub-groups and diffused through an informal network, through which the strategy is executed.
• the formation of channels for communication to engage with the many disparate stakeholders. This establishes a shared direction through the medium of the ‘meeting’ and accomplishes the buy-in of those who can make it happen.  

Underpinning this is a self-developing organisation of stakeholders enabled by a reflective communicative mechanism which allows the industry to take stock of its identity, establish where it wants to go and create a harmonised approach to get there (Espejo & Lepskiy, 2020). This is the focus of the cybernetic loop in the VIPLAN Methodology - the creation of conditions conducive for effective conversations that takes place in the learning loop. The ontological cybernetics perspective introduces a specific theme within the second order cybernetics lens. It focuses attention upon the manner in which beliefs, values and attitudes become established in everyday practice.