Skip to main content

Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1017 Accesses

Abstract

The M-ball is concerned with juggling as an overall performance, managing both the juggling and the desired change in the world. Another way to describe this is as co-managing self and situation. Managing also introduces the idea of change over time, in the situation, the approach and the practitioner – of adapting one’s performance. A range of perspectives on managing are introduced and explored. The reflections on a 25 year career of a systems practitioner, primarily immersed in the practice lineage of practising systems dynamics, is provided to exemplify what might be entailed in juggling the M-ball.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I generated this list with my colleague Rosalind Armson in the mid-1990s; I make no claim that this list is definitive or that this is the only way to categorise my list.

  2. 2.

    This is a good example of how, even in my own practice, it is hard to escape the practice of classifying or typologising – though I would claim that I do so with awareness of what I do when I do what I do!

  3. 3.

    This is the same issue taken up by Henry Mintzberg [16].

  4. 4.

    I am aware that my language is not really adequate here – I trust that by now you will have become at least partially aware that because we are human beings, then it follows that my perspective is that the practitioner – situation relationship is best understood as a relational dynamic – they bring forth each other. So whenever I use the word situation I am using a short hand description for a practitioner (observer) – situation relationship that mutually construct each other.

  5. 5.

    These are parallel and potentially synergistic traditions to my own [6, 20].

  6. 6.

    Since the global financial crisis there have been many commentators who argue that what has been lost is ‘trust’. This is a claim that is hard to disagree with, but much harder to think of in terms of how trust is built and sustained. I would argue that trust is an emergent property of the process of relationship building and maintaining. So trust per se cannot be managed; it is about managing the quality of relationships.

  7. 7.

    Both Figs. 8.2 and 8.3 take as their inspiration work done by Mark Winter and reported in his Ph.D. thesis [29].

  8. 8.

    For example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning (accessed 15th August 2009).

  9. 9.

    In this section I am reminded of the book by Scott M. Peck [21]. For me it acts as a metaphor for my concerns and how to think about systems approaches in an evaluative sense. Thus the systemic is the road less travelled – but making the choice takes one to different places. Traditional evaluation approaches do not, in my experience, do justice to the implications of making and pursuing these choices.

  10. 10.

    The same choices face complexity theorists or thinkers. They may choose to see complexity existing in the world or they may see complexity thinking as providing the means to formulate an epistemological device, a way of knowing, that is capable of generating new explanations about the world, as opposed to descriptions of it.

  11. 11.

    I would have said situations rather than problems!

  12. 12.

    He argues that hierarchy becomes hegemonic when everyone accepts that it is normal, that that is how things are!

  13. 13.

    I use this expression though I understand being rational as another form of emotion.

  14. 14.

    For example the introduction of SSM, a systems methodology, into the guidelines for government procurement and implementation of information systems failed because it became a blueprint, in which what could have been a context sensitive methodology became reduced to a technique [11].

  15. 15.

    However, this is not magic and involves a lot of work by many people and excludes as many (such as those without internet access) as it potentially includes.

  16. 16.

    See also Blackmore [1] whose book deals more with multi-stakeholder processes, communities of practice and social learning.

  17. 17.

    But an unintended consequences was that the capability to do SD modelling was lost – those who moved to Treasury soon discovered that SD would never displace the extant modelling approaches already embedded there. Hence all SD practice capacity was soon lost.

  18. 18.

    Tim’s experience is not unique in this regard – within the SD community of practitioners qualitative SD practice, based on conceptual modelling rather than conceptual + quantitative modelling is now a recognised form of SD practice; as with Donella Meadows and other SD practitioners ‘systems’ in this reading are referred to in ways that grant them an ontological status.

References

  1. Blackmore, C.P. ed. (2009) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. Springer: London.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Briggs, L. (2009) Delivering performance and accountability – intersections with ‘wicked problems.’ The International Society for Systems Sciences annual conference, conference paper. Brisbane, Australia, July 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chapman, J. (2002) System Failure. Why governments must learn to think differently. Demos: London.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Checkland, P.B. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology: A 30 Year Retrospective. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Checkland, P. B. and Poulter, J. (2006) Learning for Action: a Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its Use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cooperrider, D.L. (1998) What is appreciative inquiry? In S.A. Hammond and C. Royal (Eds.), Lessons from the Field. Applying Appreciative Inquiry. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fairtlough, G. (2007) The Three Ways of Getting Things Done. Hierarchy, Heterarchy and Responsible Autonomy. Triarchy Press: Axminster.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gittins, R. (2009) Tax inquiry reveals economists at their most clueless. The Age, Monday June 29, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goleman, Daniel (1997) Emotional Intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goleman, D. (2009) Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything. Broadway Books: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Government Centre for Information Systems (GCTA) (1993) Applying Soft Systems Methodology to an SSADM Feasibility Study. CCTA: Millbank.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Haslett, T. (2007) Reflections on SD Practice. Proceedings of the 13th ANZSYS Conference, plenary paper. Auckland, New Zealand, 2–5 December 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ison R.L., Röling, N. and Watson, D. (2007) Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environmental Science & Policy 10 (6) 499–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ison, R.L. (2008) Systems thinking and practice for action research. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice (2nd edn) (pp. 139–158). Sage Publications: London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Ison, R.L. and Russell, D.B. eds (2000) Agricultural Extension and Rural Development: Breaking Out of Traditions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 239p.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mintzberg, H. (2004) Managers Not MBAs. A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Prentice Hall: London.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Morris, R.M., Roggero, P.P. Steyaert, P., van Slobbe, E. and Watson, D. (2004) Ecological constraints and management practices in social learning for integrated catchment management and sustainable use of water. SLIM Thematic Paper 1, (available at http://slim.open.ac.uk).

  18. Mulgan, G. (2001) Systems Thinking and the Practice of Government. Systemist 23, 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Naughton, J. (1998) Internet – It’s Free and it Works. No Wonder Bill Gates Hates it. The Observer, 8 November 1998. Accessible on the website at http://molly.open.ac.uk/personal-pages/pubs/981108.htm

  20. Oliver, C. (2005) Reflexive Inquiry. A framework for consultancy practice. Karnac Books: London.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Peck, M.S. (1978) The Road Less Travelled. Simon and Schuster: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Raymond, E. http://sagan.earthspace.net/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

  23. Robertson, D. (1998) What employers really, really want. Presentation to the Society for Research into Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Seddon, J. (2007) Systems Thinking in the Public Sector: the failure of the reform regime... and a manifesto for a better way. Triarchy Press: Axminster.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shaw, P. (1996) Intervening in the shadow systems of organisations: consulting from a complexity perspective. Complexity and Management Papers No 4, Complexity and Management Centre, University of Hertfordshire.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stacey, R. (1993) Strategy as order emerging from chaos. Long Range Planning 26, 10–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Steyaert, P. and Jiggins, J. (2007) Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and practice. Environmental Science & Policy 10 (6), 575–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vickers, G. (1978) Responsibility – its Sources and Limits. Intersystems Publications: Seaside, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Winter, M.C. (2002) Management, Managing and Managing Projects: Towards an extended soft systems methodology, PhD Thesis, University of Lancaster, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Winter, M.C. and Szczepanek, T. (2009) Images of Projects. Gower: London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ison, R. (2010). Juggling the M-Ball: Managing Overall Performance in a Situation. In: Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-125-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-125-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84996-124-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84996-125-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics