Collective Active Attention

Research: Collective Active Attention to Weak Signals

a complexity approach to organisational attentiveness

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding of the effect of paying attention to weak signals during on-going interactions in an organisation when facing unpredictability and paradox.

Context

In my adolescent years, I often felt overrun and taken by surprise by many events. Later in life, as a consultant, I heard my clients complaining about the same problem: “how to detect change early and adapt an appropriate manner”.

On many occasions I would recognise an event after the fact; I had missed the signs, often because I simply had not been paying enough attention. These signs, weak signals (Ansoff, 1975; Eijnatten, 2002; Haeckel, 2004; Day & Schoemaker, 2006; Hiltunen, 2010), are tiny changes that point to possible future change. From Chaos theory (Lorenz, 1963), we learn that complex systems that are far from equilibrium are highly sensitive to small changes in the dependence on the initial condition. What does that mean?

This means the even the tiniest changes may lead to the most extreme events, hence the key importance of continuously paying active attention (James, 1899), even to the tiniest change. E.g. initially, no one recognised the ‘Phoenix Memo’ as a weak signal of the 9/11 attack.

Since 9/11, and again since the financial crisis, there is a renewed interest in weak signals in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, this is still traditionally aimed at the enhancement of the predictability of business processes (like Luckham, 2010). However complex this may be, this does not provide us with the necessary new insights. Weak signals may indicate shifting positions in patterns of interrelating, e.g. an organisation, such as shifting power positions, changing conversations, and inclusion vs. exclusion (related to Stacey, 2007). When an important weak signal has been overlooked and turns out to be important, it often leads to the game of blame-and-shame between people. So, weak signals, or overlooked or not, may trigger a wide range of ‘gestures’ and responses (Mead, 1967) driven by themes like ego, anxiety, shame and power differences (Elias, 1939/2001). When put in this perspective, weak signals are emergent social issues or mental objects which are difficult to investigate in terms of planning & control. I therefore will investigate this phenomenon from the perspective of “complex sense and respond processes”.

Stacey advises to pay attention to the pattern of interrelating; herein, attention itself should also be regarded as a pattern of interrelating. It would not be very effective if one is alone in paying attention to weak signals, or if many individuals are attentive to different unrelated signals and consequently take different actions. This is counterproductive. In addition, the meaning of the object of attention is a product flowing from social interactions, a mental object. Therefore, we need to make the shift from individual attention to collective attention. This makes it relevant to study the process of collective interrelating, but attention should be mindful and active to have an effect (Schwartz, 2002): hence this study entails collective active attention to weak signals. It should answer the question whether we are dealing with weak signals (systemic or mental) or weak processes of collective attention…