Modelling The Consequences Of The Soviet Fall

Modelling the Consequences of the Soviet Fall Systemist, 1995, 17(4)183-200

M.I.Yolles Abstract

The Conflict Modelling Cycle is yet another phased cyclic systems approach that was originally intended for change in large group social settings rather than situations in enterprises or smaller group settings. This methodology is explained together with the ideas of Critical Systems Thinking, and together they generate a paradigm within which to examine the dramatic change towards the market economy that has occurred within Central and Eastern Europe. 1.

Introduction

The rise of Communism has historically been a brief respite in the development of the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Many of the pressures and conflicts that existed prior to the rise to power of the groups operating this political ideology have been submerged by autocratic rule. They have now re-appeared as though the communist empire had not existed (Kemp and Yolles, 1992). The Yugoslavian problem is a sever example of this (Katunaric, 1993), and the problems of a search for state (rather than “underworld”) structural stability within the Russian Federation is another. The changes that have occurred since the demise of the Communist block, and in particular of the USSR, have held the attention of the world media. It has moved dramatically towards a market economy, causing a great deal of uncertainty, insecurity, and individual hardship. Industries, previously supported by the state, now find that they must adjust from production quotas to economic targets. What does this mean not only to the problems of enterprise management in these countries, but also in terms of its governmental policies in dealing with the future? How can we model this in order to come to some conclusions? We say model, because whenever we generate explanations, this is precisely what we are generating. Models present the only way through which explanations of reality can be generated, as argued within modern epistemology (Hirscheim, 1992; Mingers, 1995). Our interest here is to propose one approach that offers a promising opportunity to examine such changes, and assess where they might lead. This is the systems approach. In pursuing this, we will look at how it is possible to examine situations like the changes in Central and Eastern Europe through methodologies that provide structure for inquiry into complex situations. Methodology (Yolles, 1996a) structures the way in which we undertake inquiry. It can be defined as a phenomenon that constrains the way in which a paradigm (that in effect defines a group’s world view) is applied to a situation to be inquired into. A methodology can also be described as the logos of method (Checkland and Scholes, 1990, p284). The methodology that we shall introduce is called the Conflict Modelling Cycle. This was originally designed to provide a structured approach for social science inquiry, where inquirers have sometimes applied ad hoc approaches to exploration of its models rather than adopting methodological approaches. It is possible to view organisations, whether they are commercial business or nation states, in terms of their paradigms. Simply expressed, the paradigm (Yolles, 1996) represents a way of representing culture, assumptions and logic, and language that explains their behaviour. While there is no space here to explore the impact of the dramatic change to the market economy of Central and Eastern Europe in any detail, our intention is simply to indicate the nature of the paradigms, and to show how viewing situations in terms of paradigm shifts and through the Conflict Modelling Cycle can help understand situations such as this and anticipate problems.

1

2.

Critical Systems Thinking and Paradigms

Critical Systems Thinking (CST) (Flood and Jackson, 1991, Jackson, 1992, Yolles, 1996) is concerned with methodology as applied to situations. It advocates the examination of situations in a systemic way by not only looking at them from the systems perspective, but also in other terms which include: (1) Social awareness in situations, (2) methodological complementarism, (3) human well being and emancipation as part of the evaluation of situations. Social awareness is concerned with the modelling approach adopted to address a particular situation. Some methodologies may be more or less socially appropriate than others. For example, an organisation may not wish to consult with its non-managerial members, and so certain soft systems approaches that involve such consultation would be inappropriate. This means that an understanding of the cultural, social, and political dimensions of the situation must occur. Methodological complementarism represents the idea that different methodologies may be more useful for a particular situation than others. In particular, it also allows for the possibility of a collection of methodologies to operate together. Unfortunately, we have no space here to discuss methodological issues. Human well being and emancipation relates to the idea that members of an organisation should be developed such that their potential is maximised. This has a consequence for the organisation in that a well developed individual whose abilities are appropriately used can contribute more to the organisation. It may be said that the three categories of CST are applicable to not only methodologies, but models as well; we consider that the solution options to defined problems are themselves models. Paradigms can be said to lie at the basis of these ideas. They explain the space of an organisation in the sense that there is a logical connection between the paradigm and the operations. It is on the paradigm that is built policy. We have referred to the concept organisation, and it should be said that we use it in its broadest concept here as an organised body(1): something that has (a) an orderly structure, (b) a working order, and (c) is organic. Examples of such broadly defined organisations may, therefore, be enterprises, cultural minority groups, or nation states. The paradigm lies at the basis of modelling processes, when the modelling approach should be matched to the situation. The paradigm was defined at length by Kuhn (1975) in a variety of publications that showed a development of his ideas. In modern systems usage it is normally applied to the context of a group of people who are involved in some form of philosophical investigative endeavour, like inquiry into scientific method. However, as we shall argue, there is no reason not to apply it to social groups that operate within political regimes with a particular orientation. Kuhn defines the paradigm as a group phenomenon that governs the group itself. He also defines it to represent: common symbolic generalisations, shared commitment to belief in particular models or views, shared values, shared commitments of exemplars (that is concrete problem solutions). Rosenhead (1981), indicates that it consists of implicit rules, that is, those which are belief related, and an idea which is consistent with that of Kuhn.. The paradigm as a group phenomenon enables us to recognise that it operates with a culture of its own. The concept of culture (Williams et al, 1993, p14) involves not only values and beliefs, but also attitudes and behaviours, and thus the definition of a paradigm should be extended from Kuhn to involve culture. These terms may be best defined by reference to the work of Rokeach (1968, p112, 113, 127), when it can be shown that values, attitudes and behaviours are all in some way predicated on belief. Since the paradigm is a cultural phenomenon, it will have a language associated with it that enables the ideas of the group to be expressed. There is a body of theory that expounds the relativity between culture and language. For instance, in the study of natural languages within sociocultural environments, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Giglioli, 1972) explains that there is a relativistic relationship between language structure and culture. It in particular relates to the communication of ideas between members of the group. This line of thought is also

2

supported, for instance, by Habermas (1979), and by Maturana (1988) and the ideas contained within the subject of autopoiesis or self-producing systems (Mingers, 1995, p79). Here, language is considered to be an activity embedded in the ongoing flow of actions, rather than a purely descriptive thing. It therefore has the attributes of activities that occur within a sociocultural environment, to which it responds. Language can be argued to operate paradigmatically to enable social structure (Giddens, 1979; Wilden,1977), More generally, however, we may say that it operates as an enabling mechanism for the paradigmatic group. Since communications are central to the ability of the group to work, language may be seen as a way of enabling a class of paradigmatic explanations to be generated. The framework of thought that develops within the group is cultural and will therefore be reflected in the language used to transmit the ideas produced from that framework. The propositional base of the paradigm that lies at its foundation will determine the language of the group, just as the language itself develops this base in a mutual development. This determines what can legitimately be described and the terms defined in order to enable those descriptions to be made.

3.

The Conflict Modelling Cycle

Most systemic methods of inquiry have been directed at the management of situations in enterprises. The approach we shall consider here defines the three phases: analysis, option synthesis, and choice. It developed from an earlier methodology called the Conflict Modelling Cycle (CMC) (Yolles, 1992; Yolles, 1996), which was intended to be used for inquiry guidance into larger social situations involving conflict. However, it has also been used for enterprise related problems. The phases of CMC are shown in figure 1. Each of the three phases is shown to have its own sub-cycle. 3.1.

Analysis

Analysis represents the conceptual breaking down of a situation into a set of component parts. It assumes that sociological understanding of the situation already exists, so that an appropriate context can be defined. Consideration of analysis, according to CMC, is defined according to phases in the following way:P1.1 Context. Examine the nature and context of the situation in general terms, and the environment in which it operates. This context will initially be tied to the sociocultural dimension of the situation being inquired into. It will also indicate the paradigm within which the situation exists.

Conflict Situation

contextp1.1 formp1.2

selectionp3.1 evaluationp3.2

Analysis

Choice

influencep1.3

outcomep3.3 trajectoryp1.4

stabilityp3..4 Option Synthesis optionsp2.1

pruningp2.3

paradigmp2.2

Figure 1: Conflict Modelling Cycle P1.2 Form. The structure and underlying processes of a situation are defined as a form of the situation. Realise that there may be a plurality of situations, which may result in a multiplicity of forms. P1.3 Influence. Identify the influences on the situation. Establish relationship between entities within the situation and outside it. P1.4 Trajectory. Trajectory analysis is concerned with problem definition and direction. Problem definition: The problem domain is the problem and its set of actors, parameters, variables, and constraints. Clear definition of this

3

can be difficult when there is sufficient complexity. In reducing complexity one might: (a) examine the changes that may have invoked the problem, (b) identify the problem boundaries, parameters, (c) examine problem plurality, and the existence of sub-problems, (d) examine possible problem solving schedules. Trajectory definition: Each participant in a situation involving conflict is an actor with a framework of perception, perspectives on the problem, and decisions and actions taken which constitute a pathway through the domain. The pathway will have a direction which, if intended, represents the aim of the process, and identifies trajectories intended to lead to achievable goals. The difference between an intended and an actual trajectory is an indicator of how dynamically stable the situation is. To undertake analysis, it is essential that actors and their influences are adequately understood. Actors have goals, objectives, strategies, and an external environment with which they interact. They have internal constraints as well as external ones, and variables which include general cultural attributes. This applies to all classes of actor, whether they are individuals, or group actors operating as organisations. Iteration through this sub-cycle can occur to enable for example a developing explanation of a situation, and comparison between old and new situations during change, thus for example, enabling different purposes or paradigms to be distinguished. 3.2

Option Synthesis

By synthesis is meant selecting, inventing, or developing options which in themselves are models. The paradigm of these options must be commensurable (Yolles, 1995) with that of the situation. That is the paradigms must be structurally and qualitatively similar. Synthesis includes the following elements:P2.1 Options. Generate a range of options. This involves the modelling of interactive player relationships as definitive scenario possibilities. The models should represent holistic forms that represent solutions to conflictual problems as identified in analysis. P2.2 Paradigm. Thus, define the propositions upon which will form the basis of the solution options for the problem. and this should be taken together with the experience of exemplars and use of the correct language to describe and communicate the options. P2.3 Pruning. The purpose of pruning is to seek paradigm commensurablity with the situation, and represents the reduction of the alternatives to a core set of options (CSO). Since options represent solutions to the set of problems, these should be sociologically appropriate so that they satisfy the cultural and social attributes identified in the situation. It is essential that the paradigm associated with the synthesised options is commensurable with that of the problem situation, otherwise they will either be rejected, or they will not work. Iteration through this sub-cycle will enable: (a) additional options to be sought, which may themselves be evaluated, (b) greater detail for the CSO. 3.3

Choice

This phase distinguishes the ability of each option model to represent the situation and the constraints under which it operates. Validation of an option only occurs if an evaluation has been successful. The phase includes:P3.1 Selection. Provide the choice of selecting options. Identify option demands, constraints, perspectives, and implications explicitly, and criteria of selection. Identify commensurability between the modelling paradigm and the paradigm believed to be associated with the real world situation - that is convergence with P2.2. This step might also include identifying methods of prediction, or perhaps more realistically for complex situations, anticipation based on cognitive belief. P3.2 Activation. This enables the option evaluation. The tools for this should be defined, as should be the assumptions on which they are based. The propositional base of a tool should be commensurable with that of an option. Thus, in a soft modelling environment, a tool might be group discussion or groupthink, or a game. In a hard modelling environment it might involve testing against simulations whose propositions will also have to be examined (e.g. Gaussian distribution models which assume randomness). Options may be activated either for implementation, or by analogue simulations or games etc.

4

P3.3 Outcome. Comparison of option outcomes or expected outcomes will validate options selections. This occurs by examining the results of activated options by identifying their consequences in comparison to events identified in the situation. In soft situations, the approach might be to determine through feedback from the actors the utility of the model as a way of thinking about the situation (an analytic tool). In hard models, a match between model outputs and perceived real world events might indicate how “good” the option is. P3.4 Stability. Investigate dynamic and structural stability of the synthesised system. In a soft approach this might mean evaluating options against their intended or expected purposes. This could occur through a report back from a groupthink or game. In hard situations prediction could indicate whether predefined goals were achievable. This phase could be iterated. For example a first iteration might confirm that selections where satisfactory, and a second iteration might enable implementation of an option. 3.4

Iteration and Recursion

It has been explained that each sub-cycle may require to be repeated as an iteration prior to moving on to the next phase. In the same way the cycle of phrases can also be iterated through to confirm the relationship between the situation, the options, and the means of evaluating the options. When a situation can be seen to be made up of a set of other situations contained within it, then it may be inappropriate to pursue the methodological approach of inquiry as a single iterative cycle, even noting the possibility of the involvement of feedback. It may be necessary to instead interrupt the cycle in order to explore some of the individual sub-situations that have been identified. These sub-situations may themselves be examined in terms of iterative inquiry, when the cycle is started afresh in relation to each sub-situation. When this occurs, then the iteration is said to be recursive. Even recursive iterations may have to be subject to recursion themselves. At the end of a series of recursive iterations, it may be appropriate to once more resume the overall cycle in order to bring out an integrated interpretation of the explanations that have developed for each sub-situation. Recursion is seen to be able to enrich the inquiry process when applied to seemingly simple cyclic methodologies. 4. 4.1

Change Socioculural Change

Consistent with ideas advanced within CST, in the consideration of change to social environments we should be aware of the cultural, social, and political dimensions before attempting to analyse a situation, synthesise options that represent solutions to perceived problems through intervention., and make a choice concerning the intervention to be selected. Consider culture first. We can identify three categories of culture (Nicholson, 1993): (a) surface features like values, rituals, customs, and forms of expression, (b) preconscious factors such as symbols, ideology, and norms, (c) deep structures such as basic assumptions, world views (weltanschauung), and cognitive/logical systems (including paradigms). Cultural forms evolve and are transmitted as adaptive ways of making sense of shared existence. Culture changes through the importing elements of a surrounding culture, and by internal innovations to meet new circumstances. Social change can have two classes of impact (Bottomore, 1956): (a) the substructure defining the mode of production including the technology of production and the social relations that generated it; (b) the superstructure to which all other aspects such as institutional, political, religious and familial relate. Moore (1963) explains that rapid change occurs continually in sequential chains. The normal occurrence of social change affects both individual experience and functional aspects of organisations. Political sociology is also an important part of an understanding of the dynamics of change. It is embedded within the ideas of social change. It concentrates on attention to elites and their membership, on the manifestation and regulation of conflict, on interest groups and political pressure groups, and on the formation of political opinion.

5

Political sociology can also be related to sociocultural attributes through the concept of political ideology. This can be instrumental in defining (Holsti, 1967, p163): (a) an intellectual framework (paradigm) through which policy makers observe and interpret reality, (b) a politically correct ethical and moral orientation, (c) an image of the future that enables action through strategic policy, (d) stages of historical development in respect of interaction with the external environment. Political ideology can be described as a doctrine when, in particular it: (a) becomes a body of instruction about a specific set of beliefs which intends to explain reality, (b) which usually prescribes goals for political action. 4.2

Radical, Dramatic and Catastrophic Change

The primary stimulus for radical change in organisations are the forces from the external environment (Benjamin and Maybey, 1993). They affect the purposes of the organisation, and cause the actors to examine it and its related objectives. In human organisations, the transformation of objectives and practices of working to meet new purposes is therefore a direct consequence of radical change. Radical change is far reaching for both organisations and individuals, not only within the context of its primary purpose, but also its core cultural values. Preconscious cultural factors contribute to a basis of the sociopolitical aspects of an organisation, and these may also be affected by radical change. Dramatic change is discontinuous change that shifts the paradigm that enables the situation to be described. As this occurs changes in form, or metamorphosis happen. Examples of dramatic change occur during revolutions, coup d’etat, or take-overs. Metamorphosis has been seen in the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CCEE) which experienced two dramatic changes, one when communist rule transformed the market economy into a state owned one, and another when this regime suddenly collapsed and organisations became directed to the market economy. A much milder form of such change occurred in the UK, with nationalisation, and now privatisation. Thus, a publicly owned organisation that has propositions which enables its members to talk of qualitative purposes for the organisation, would, after privatisation, have propositions which will instead enable talk about quantitative accountability. The two paradigms are clearly incommensurable, since talk of quantitative accountability in the early form of the organisation would be totally meaningless. This also suggests that situations that arise in connection with this organisation will have paradigms that are harder than those associated with the previous organisation. However, this is not always the case interestingly (Stowell, 1995). “Quality” is often a soft process responding to the paradigmatic need for total commitment from all employees to company philosophy and targets. Therefore, while the ultimate goal might be defined in terms of a hard paradigm, the means can be defined in terms of a soft one. Hence, the critique of Total Quality Management (and also Soft Systems Methodology) as instrumental and conservative: as soft becomes subordinate to hard (and hard goals are rarely defined in a soft manner). Since the propositions and consequently the expression of the purposes of the two forms of organisation are different, it will be appropriate to see them as separate organisations, in the same way as one might examine a caterpillar and a butterfly which have the same identify, but are a different form of animal. No confusion should therefore occur about the two organisations being the same thing, even though they might have the same identity. In human systems, change impacts on not only the form of an organisation, but also on its culture (Nicholson, 1993). This operates through the internal innovations of an organisation which develop in order to meet new circumstances. So distinct are the organisations before and after the change, that in human systems two sociocultural orientations can develop which relate respectively to the two different propositional frameworks. These sociocultural orientations determine the social and cultural values that are held by the segment of people who align themselves with that orientation. The two sociocultural orientations may coexist in the same organisational space after the change, rather as in the case of two subcultural groups living together. Analogous to magnetic fields, it may be possible to postulate that socioculture can be viewed as a field encompassing the organisational environment that directs the way in which events are conducted. After dramatic change the new organisation has two sociolultural fields originating from

6

different sources, the old and the new. Two fields in a common area can, we hypothesise, create sociocultural perturbations or rifts that can interfere with the way in which the organisation operates, enabling conflict and confusion to arise. Dramatic change represents a qualitative discrete shift in a paradigm. Sometimes, the reason for a dramatic change can be explained in a continuous way, thus helping us to address the sociocultural perturbation. The theory of this is imbedded in what we may call the new paradigm of general systems thinking, as represented for instance by the work of Prigogine (1984) in dissipative structures, and Stacy (1992). The expression of the work is based on physics, in which Hamilton was a major contributor. It deals with the energies of a system, and connects with the ideas associated with entropy. Fundamentally, situations which are in a steady state can be thought of as being energetically (or Hamiltonian) conservative. One mathematical theory concerned with conservative systems of particular interest is that of Catastrophe theory (Thom, 1975). It is shown that under conservative conditions when if a structure is unstable, then small changes in parameters that can describe a situation can lead to qualitative changes in form. The conservative condition, or at least one which has perturbations that may be regarded at insignificant, is usually seen as a normal condition in social environments, even though it may often be interrupted by periods of change that derive from destabalising influences. Conservativeness relates to the energy of a situation, and it can be argued that this does in fact relate to power (Yolles, 1985). If this is the case, then if changes in power over time in social organisations do not change in any way, then the situation may be considered to be conservative. These actually represent significant assumptions, and it is therefore more appropriate to talk not of catastrophic but dramatic change which requires no assumptions, only agreement about whether or not a particular paradigm has shifted or not. However, this may not itself be simple. Talking about dramatic or catastrophic change has different consequences. Dramatic change enables one to realise a situation is changing through a paradigm shift, and there will be consequences with respect to the definition of its purposes and form. Catastrophic change is also a dramatic change. It provides explanations that show that qualitative shifts are a consequence of continuous processes. It also enables the view to be taken that situations are structurally unstable, and during continued instability other changes may occur, each triggered by different small changes. It may therefore be possible to look for signs of possible catastrophic change. 5.

Dramatic Change in Europe

It is important to understand that if it is possible to show that the space of a situation within which dramatic change occurs is conservative (not politically Conservative), then the change can conceivably be explained through Thom’s theory relating to structural stability. We are, however, unable to show that Europe is conservative. If it can be argued that a situation is passing through a structural instability, then this is an indication that the situation we are considering might be conservative. It is interesting that there is at least one theory that explains how we are passing through a structural unstable period of culture which we shall indicate below. 5.1

The Sociocultural Context

Sorokin (1937) produced an empirical work which attempted to show how cultures change over the millennia because of their internal dynamics. These operate through the theoretical idea that societies have two opposing cultural forces at work, the Sensate (i.e. through the senses, consistent with utilitarian or materialistic), and the Ideational (consistent with the ideal or spiritual). These forces are in opposition, and as their balance within a culture shifts, so does the nature of the culture. So, a period which was highly indicative of an Ideational period began during the Christian era almost two thousand years ago, an insight supported by the examination of various cultural attributes like architecture, the arts, and science. At the turn of the 20th century, Western culture would seem to have shifted its orientation to a Sensate condition, epitomised for instance by mechanistic thinking, or a (delayed) shift to utilitarian archtechture. Cultural oscillations may continue throughout the existence of the culture. Some authors suggest that Western culture is in a condition of sociocultural decline (Kemp and Yolles, 1992), having moved from a Sensate state that reached its height at the turn of the century, towards a more Ideational condition. When this occurs, the society becomes culturally unstable (or more properly culturally critical) so

7

that its social and cultural values loose integration. The Western world is said to have taken two thousand years to complete this cycle, since the fall of the Roman empire. In the event that the West is in a condition of cultural criticality as the theory suggests, then it may be possible to demonstrate that catastrophic changes can occur. This would require that culture can be considered conservative (and non-evolutionary), and critical so that small changes (which may for instance be associated with a recession) may have an impact on our culture and our values far out of proportion to their true significance. The impact on our institutions could be a consequence, and in particular on our infrastructural organisation. Dramatic change in say one of our infrastructural institutions could thus be a representation of such a situation. In the event that this conceptualisation has no validity, then we must simply talk of dramatic and not catastrophic change. 6.

Dramatic Change in Central and Eastern Europe

In the examination of this situation, it is appropriate to identify the nature of the paradigm shift within analysis. As a result, two iterations will be undertaken, one for the pre-change situation, and the other through a second iteration to define the nature of the shift. The shape of the change may have some impact on the synthesis stage. There is no space here to do more than a cursory examination of the change through these two iterations. Synthesis would follow on by looking at solutions to the change and examining the relationship between the two paradigms, and the perceived needs of the different groups (government, enterprise, individual) that should be met. Iteration 1 Context In Europe, it has been said that Governments operate oligarchically (a country run by the State), rather than democratically (Government by the people directly or by representation). This is supported by the idea that Governments make decisions about social issues in general without reference to the populations it rules, and is only called to account periodically after a number of years. In this sense, the difference between Governments of the old communist States of Europe and the West can be seen as a distinction in respect of factors like the degree of coercion (and terrorism (Ionescu, 1975, p210)) within its instruments of rule. Despite this, the two spheres of ideology represent a similar form of society in that they represent different “species” of the same genus (ibid, p14). The European recession has led to the search for economic stability by the voting public. As a result voting behaviour has sought what may appear to be stability through the success of parties operating in such a way that they appear to know. This situation is exacerbated by the consideration that both the then communist and noncommunist Europe faced the same problem: the incompatibility of their respective degrees of centralism with post-industrial society (Ionescu, 1975, p16). In the implementation of policies governing CCEE countries, various instruments were used which satisfied Soviet ideology. One was based on the proposition that individual interest was seen as secondary to the social interest, which was itself seen to be representative of the individual interest. The economy was planned, and organisations knew what was expected of them, even if they found difficulty in satisfying those expectations. Thus, one of these instruments concerned the use of labour. In theory, individuals owned their own force of labour, and could use it according to their wishes. However, under communist party policy implementation, the State, using a variety of legal and other procedures, was able to limit the way in which that right was exercised. Consequently, processes of employment became centrally controlled. To many observers, communist regimes in CCEE were essentially not prone to inflation or industrial unrest, primarily because the population tended to be under less freedom of expression than in other forms of European political regime. In CCEE, a centralist dependency occurred during communist rule towards the Soviet Union, as also occurred for instance for Iceland, Finland, Egypt, and Afghanistan (Holsti, 1967). The Soviet paradigm includes consideration of its cultural attributes, and its propositions. Its ideology relates to its cultural attributes, and its mode of operations concerning “strong” centralised government define its paradigm. The propositions will include responsibility for labour (including its state management, and assuring

8

full employment), responsibility for the economy (for instance no inflation), and ways of ensuring these like the use of coercion. Form The form of the CCEE countries under Soviet domination relates to the nature of its structures, and the way in which the underlying processes occurred which supported these structures. Thus the history of the rise of communism resulted in an autocratic ideology which demanded rigid structures with role and departmental processes that where highly defined. In effect the structure was totally incapable of adaptability to new environmental pressures. Influences While there was committed trade between the communist block countries and the USSR, there was still an interdependency with the West, for example in the need to purchase high technology products and grain. Having a controlled economy did not therefore insulate the CCEE from the effects of a major recession in the West. Trajectory The problems associated with the CCEE related to a stationary political regime and economy, and neither were flexible enough to deal with the impact of recessionary influences on them. Iteration 2 Context The dramatic change in CCEE occurred because of the socioeconomic pressures that arose, in a similar way to the change that occurred in the UK. It is possible to debate whether the ensuing political change was inevitable, but this is not a purpose of this paper. If the ideas of Sorokin are valid and correctly applied to Europe, and if they represent a situation of structural instability, then appropriate relatively small changes in the CCEE social fabric could have had an affect on its whole sociopolitical structure. The international recession has had an impact on the CCEE as can be seen in the changes in policy that have occurred in CCEE countries during the last two decades, and this culminated in the shift to a market economy. This change and its anticipated individual freedom was a spring of joy for the populations of the countries of CCEE that were loosened from the USSR. Visions of a market economy, freedom of choice and action, and prosperity abounded. In due course, the realities of a market economy would come to be a socioeconomic shock. The new market economy paradigm was centred around principles of competition, which applies not only to sales of products, but also to payments to the labour force. In Germany, for instance, this resulted in structural violence (damage caused to the potential of individuals because of the social structures set up around them) to the East Germans who saw that they were getting paid significantly less than their West German coworkers in the same company. There were also problems in defining and achieving production, now that quotas were no longer defined. Social problems arose, for instance in Russia and Poland, as the expectations of the market economy were not shown to hold the promise expected. Not only were there difficulties at the governmental and the individual levels, but also at the company level. One of these is Vitcovice, with about 20,000 employees operating from Ostrava in the Czech Republic. It is involved in the manufacture of many types of steel, rubber and associated engineering products. The company was committed to producing quotas for the USSR, and financially supported to do this by the Czech State instruments under encouragement by the USSR itself. It was the major employer in its region. Vitcovice like many other companies in its position, found itself in a social dilemma. It could no longer sell its products to the bankrupt Soviets, nor with ease in the West that was experiencing its own problems of recession. The company had absolutely no marketing expertise, nor an understanding of the market economy in anything more than a theoretical way. More importantly, there were significant implications of changes in business for these companies, especially for management unused to the dynamics of a market economy. With losses of significant markets in the east, the company was going through a period of retrenchment. Management training was an essential requirement. Senior posts were filled by staff whose background was in science or engineering. There

9

were very small budgets for management training and these tended to be spent on update courses when needs were pressing rather than on widespread management development programmes. University curricula had in the past provided a good grounding, whether in economic or technological disciplines, though not in market economy principles. The retrenchment meant, however, that graduate recruitment was likely to be stalled. One solution was to change the management who are able to operate under the market economy paradigm. However, this required that suitable management staff were available in the market, and early on in the change this was not the case. This situation has now changed, and many of the staff have been replaced. Form Typically the CCEE is undergoing change, two centres of powers existed, the central government and the popular movement. The two centres had to accommodate each other. Their interplay generated anomalies, however. For example, in Romania after December 1989, a variety of measures were initiated by Government representation, and through the popularist movement of change. The number of working hours was officially reduced to 6 hours, though in fact it remained between 8 to 10 hours. Influences The international community provided a small amount of funding to the CCEE countries in order to assist them in developing the market economy organisation. Much of this, however, was fed through existing organisations in the West that had their own commercial interests to cater for. They brought their own paradigms with them that influenced the view of their partners. However, this influence was a two way process as companies learned what could and could not be done, or a language or mode of operations that enabled the implementation of activities. Trajectory The propositional base of the market economy was different from that expected or understood by government, individual, or industry. A clear theoretical knowledge of the principles was clearly had, but there was little practical experience except by a few individuals who had been exposed previously. Without an ability to match expectation with practical matters, there was bound to be some social unrest. New social problems would also be met as the new paradigm would impact society. Difficulties in Russia with a new power class represented by the Russian Mafia was one more graphic example. 9.

Conclusion

CCEE have looked towards the West in order to help them develop their market economy. Problems in these countries were appearing at all levels of society. Few systemic modelling instruments were apparently constructed to enable probing into the uncertain waters of a possible future stability. Negative feedback seemed to be the main mechanisms to be used, as the progression into the market economy occurred. The way it has been applied in the case is discursive, but this is needed in order to provide a basis for understanding the approach to the case. It is also because of the limitation of space. If one examines the change as though it represents a paradigm shift, then some of the consequences that have been seen are anticipatable, and policy can be initiated to respond to such anticipation. The idea that the dramatic and apparently discontinuous change can be viewed as catastrophic change is interesting in as far as it offers the idea that more dramatic change is possible, if only we knew the significance of small parametric changes, and indeed, could identify the parameters that we refer to. The use of CMC as one of the many systems methodologies available is appropriate because it is, as far as this author is aware, the only cyclic inquiring methodology that is intended to addresses large scale situations. 10.

References

Bottomore, T.B., 1956, Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. ??? Benjamin, G., Maybee, C., 1993, Facilitating Radical Change, pp.181-186. Ed. Maybee, C., Mayon-White, B., Managing Change. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd., London. Checkland, P., Scholes, J., 1990, Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester.

10

Espejo, R., 1993, Management of Complexity in Problem Solving. In Espejo, R., Schwaninger, M., Organisational Fitness: corporate effectiveness through management cybernetics. Campus/Verlag, Frankfurt/New York. Flood, Jackson, 1991, Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Wiley, Chichester. Giglioli, P.P., 1972, Language and Social Context. Penguin Books. Habermas, J., 1979, Communication and the Evolution of Society. Heinamann, London. Hirschheim, R.A., 1992, Information Systems Epistemology: an historical perspective. pp28,60, Galliers,R., Information Systems Research, Blackwell.

in

Holsti, K.,J., 1967, International Politics: a Framework for Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Ionescu, G., 1975, Centripetal Politics. Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, London. Jackson, M.C., Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. Plenum, New York. Katunaric, V., 1993, The Conflicts in Ex-Yugoslavia/Croatia in the Light of the Ethnic Competitive Model. J. Conflict Processes, 1(2)2-14.

Kemp, G., Yolles, M.I., 1992, Conflict through the rise of European Culturalism. J. Conflict Processes. 1,1,5-15. Kuhn, S.T., 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Mingers, J., 1995, Self-Producing Systems. Plenum, New York. Moore, W.E., 1963, Social Change. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Nicholson, M., 1993, Organisational Change. In Maybey,.C., Mayon-White, B., Managing Change, pp.207-11. Paul Chapman Publishing Co., London Rokeach, M., 1968, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Rosenhead, J., 1990, Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley. Sorokin, P., 1937, Social and Cultural Dynamics. Amer. Book. Co. N.Y. Stowell, F.A., 1995, Private communication to the author. Thom, R., 1975, Structural Stability and Morphogenisis. Benjamin. Wilden, A., 1958, The Idea of Social Science. Tavistock, London. Williams, A., Dobson, P., Walters, M., 1993, Changing Culture, New Organisational Approaches. IPM, London. Yolles, M., 1985, Simulating Conflict Using Weibull Games. pp51-65, in: Ed. Javor, A., Simulation in Research and Development. Elsevevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland).

Yolles, M.I., 1992, The Conflict Modelling Cycle. J. Conflict Processes. 1,1,39-56. Yolles, M.I., 1994, The Generic Metamodel, Systemist, 16,4,269-286 Yolles, M.,I., 1994a, A Generic Metamodel, the Conflict Modelling Cycle, and Decision Support. Proceedings of IAAA conference in Conflict Processes, in USA, 4th August. Yolles, M.I., 1995, Systems, Cybernetics, and Conflict Management. J.Conflict Processes, Forthcoming. Yolles, M.I., 1996, Critical Systems Thinking, Paradigms, and the Modelling space. J. Systems Practice. Forthcoming in 9(5).

Yolles, M.I., 1996a, Organisational Inquiry, Methodology, and Systems Modelling. Pitman Publishing, London. Forthcoming. Notes (1) 1957, Oxford Concise English Dictionary.

11