Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

Causal Texture of the Environment

For those who haven’t read the 1965 Emery and Trist article, its seems as though my colleague Doug McDavid was foresighted enough to blog a summary in 2016!  His words have always welcomed here, as Doug was a cofounder of this web site.  At the time of writing, the target audience for this piece was primarily Enterprise Architecture practitioners.   [DI]


Causal Texture of the Environment

Published on February 4, 2016

Doug McDavid

This post is a quick summary (or reminder) of a seminal piece of work by Fred Emery and Eric Trist, which I personally think should be required reading for EA practitioners. We occasionally hear about outside-in thinking, and inside-out thinking, and this paper is a very good place to start to focus on these styles of thought about the architecture of enterprise.

The paper I’m referring to is named “The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments”*. Emery and Trist pioneered the idea of sociotechnical systems at the Tavistock Institute in London in the 1950s. There’s a lot that can be said about organizations as sociotechnical systems. For instance, it’s worth noting this quote from Wikipedia (as of 3 February, 2016):

“Sociotechnical theory … is about joint optimization, with a shared emphasis on achievement of both excellence in technical performance and quality in people’s work lives. Sociotechnical theory … proposes a number of different ways of achieving joint optimisation. They are usually based on designing different kinds of organisation, ones in which the relationships between socio and technical elements lead to the emergence of productivity and wellbeing.”

In this particular posting , I’m focusing in on one aspect of the work of Emery and Trist that they call the “causal texture” of the environment within which an organization operates. Here we get some insight into outside-in and inside-out thinking (as well as outside-out, and inside-in). I am specifically calling attention to this paper to set the stage in anticipation of my next posting on the ecosystems of enterprise.

Quoting from the paper:

“[A] comprehensive understanding of organizational behaviour requires some knowledge of each member of the following set, where L indicates some potentially lawful connection, and the suffix refers to the organization and the suffix to the environment:

L 1 1 , L 1 2

L 2 1, L 2 2

“L 1 1 here refers to processes within the organization – the area of internal interdependencies; L 1 2 and L 2 1 to exchanges between the organization and its environment – the area of transactional interdependencies from either direction; and L 2 2 to the processes through which parts of the environment become related to each other – i.e. its causal texture – the area of interdependencies that belong within the environment itself.”

Just for a bit of fun (!) let’s introduce the following graphic, that may prove to be useful in future discussions:

Lawful Connections
Lawful Connections

A key point here is the word ‘lawful’. The authors are trying to point out that there are very different systems of natural, psychological, (and artificial) laws that need to be considered for a full understanding of organizational situations. As they say “laws connecting parts of the environment to each other are often incommensurate with those connecting parts of the organization to each other, or even with those which govern the exchanges.”

The authors then proceed to lay out four types (steps) of causal texture:

  1. A “placid, randomized environment” is one where positive and negative forces are very stable, and simple organizations can succeed by simple tactics of trial and error.
  2. A “placid, clustered environment” exhibits systemic relationships between risks and rewards, where knowledge about patterns in the environment allows an organization to flourish under a tightly controlled strategy.
  3. A “disturbed-reactive environment” is one where there are multiple organizations that try to block each other from achieving their goals and reaping rewards. In other words, a competitive marketplace.
  4. “Turbulent fields” describe environments where there is not only competition among organizations, but the environment itself is in a state of constant flux. As the authors say, “lines of action that are strongly pursued may find themselves attenuated by emergent field forces.”

It seems fairly clear that the world of the 21st Century is very much a type 4 (or “Step 4”) environment. In such a situation, characterized by many moving parts, we can often observe the emergence of some stabilizing force. Emery and Trist suggest that such a force typically arises from the adoption of a set of shared values, or some kind of ethical code. Such a code of shared values provides a viable level of stability via “power fields” (in the words of Kurt Lewin).

“So far as effective values emerge, the character of richly joined, turbulent fields changes in a most striking fashion. The relevance of large classes of events … is given directly in the ethical code.” Thus “a field is created which is no longer richly joined and turbulent but simplified and relatively static. Such a transformation will be regressive, or constructively adaptive, according to how far the emergent values adequately represent the new environmental requirements.”

This set of concepts strikes me as one of those things that, once you’re aware of it, you start seeing everywhere. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I enjoy having access to conceptual tools such as ‘causal textures’, ‘lawful connections’, and ‘values-based power fields’ to help understand and manage the forces of incoherence that our enterprises struggle with.

As I mentioned, I expect to refer back to this in my next post, which will focus on enterprise ecosystems. Happy trails, until then :-)

* A paper read at the XVII International Congress of Psychology, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 20-26 August, 1963. http://ackoffcenter.blogs.com/ackoff_center_weblog/files/10.1177_001872676501800103.pdf

For an overview of these postings, see: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/overview-postings-doug-mcdavid?published=u


Thanks for the digest, Doug!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

  • RSS on IngBrief

    • 1969, 1981 Emery, System Thinking: Selected Readings
      Social Systems Science graduate students in 1970s-1980s with #RussellAckoff, #EricTrist + #HasanOzbehkhan at U. Pennsylvania Wharton School were assigned the Penguin paperback #SystemsThinking reader edited by #FredEEmery, with updated editions evolving contents.
    • 1968 Buckley, “Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist: A Sourcebook”
      Resurfacing 1968 Buckley, “Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist: A Sourcebook” for interests in #SystemsThinking #SocioCybernetics #GeneralSystemsTheory #OrganizationScience . Republication in 2017 hardcopy may be more complete.
    • Wholism, reductionism (Francois, 2004)
      Proponents of #SystemsThinking often espouse holism to counter over-emphasis on reductionism. Reading some definitions from an encyclopedia positions one in the context of the other (François 2004).
    • It matters (word use)
      Saying “it doesn’t matter” or “it matters” is a common expression in everyday English. For scholarly work, I want to “keep using that word“, while ensuring it means what I want it to mean. The Oxford English Dictionary (third edition, March 2001) has three entries for “matter”. The first two entries for a noun. The […]
    • Systemic Change, Systematic Change, Systems Change (Reynolds, 2011)
      It's been challenging to find sources that specifically define two-word phrases -- i.e. "systemic change", "systematic change", "systems change" -- as opposed to loosely inferring reductively from one-word definitions in recombination. MartinReynolds @OpenUniversity clarifies uses of the phrases, with a critical eye into motives for choosing a specific label, as well as associated risks and […]
    • Environmental c.f. ecological (Francois, 2004; Allen, Giampietro Little 2003)
      The term "environmental" can be mixed up with "ecological", when the meanings are different. We can look at the encyclopedia definitions (François 2004), and then compare the two in terms of applied science (i.e. engineering with (#TimothyFHAllen @MarioGiampietro and #AmandaMLittle, 2003).
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2020/11 Moments November 2020
      Day shortening and temperatures dropping meant bundling up for bicycling.
    • 2020/10 Moments October 2020
      Clear autumn near home in Toronto, extended with a family vacation within Canada to Vancouver, where the Covid rates are more favourable
    • 2020/09 Moments September 2020
      Discovering more of the neighbourhood, bicycling mostly in the mornings.
    • 2020/08 Moments August 2020
      Moderate summer temperatures in a city normally overheated with activity, residents gradually emerging as public venues opened cautiously.
    • 2020/07 Moments July 2020
      Daytimes full of new work assignment and training, evenings and weekends bicycling around downtown Toronto as it slowly reopens from pandemic.
    • 2020/06 Moments June 2020
      Most of month in Covid-19 shutdown Phase 1, so every photograph is an exterior shot. Bicycling around downtown Toronto, often exercising after sunset.
  • RSS on Media Queue

  • Meta

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal