5,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Editora Senac São Paulo
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
In a period of great visibility for Brazil in the world stage, it is important to think systemically the major events and analyze themes of decisive influence on the success or failure related to these attempts. That's what the authors of this book hold , based on the analysis of the main issues for the organization of the World Cup 2014 in areas such as communication, economics , governance , infrastructure and organization of events. Antonio Carlos Valença and Guilherme Gonçalves de Carvalho expose and analyze the results collected in researches (data will be constantly updated in the next editions) with experts from tourism of Sebrae (2009) and participants of Technology Solutions for the World Cup and the Olympics in Brazil Seminar (2011), regarding the conditions of Brazil successfully perform the World Cup 2014. Therefore, new perspectives for specialists of the areas involved in the event are opened, based on theories and systemic reasoning structures, analyzed by a specific software.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 415
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
ANTONIO CARLOS VALENÇA | GUILHERME GONÇALVES DE CARVALHO
2014 WORLD CUP
ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURES WITH SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES
EDITORA SENAC SÃO PAULO – SÃO PAULO – 2017
SUMMARY
EDITORS’ NOTE
PREFACE – Ricardo Fasti
FOREWORD – Maria Cristina d’Arce
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BOOK PURPOSE
HOW TO READ SYSTEMS DIAGRAMS
INFLUENCE DIAGRAMS (ID) AND SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES BY THEMES
AN EXPRESSIVE AMOUNT OF ARCHETYPES WITH THREE COMPLEMENTARY READINGS
THE SYSTEMS THINKING DISCIPLINE
USE OF SYSTEMS ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURES
LANGUAGE AND COLLECTIVE THOUGHT
INQUIRY, SLOWING DOWN, AND POINTING
CONTEXT, EMOTIONAL STATES, AND ACTION
HOW SYSLOGIC DIALOGUES WITH FIVE SYSTEMS THINKING EXPONENTS
FINAL REMARKS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
EDITORS’ NOTE
In times of immense visibility for Brazil in the international scenario, it is essential to think systemically about the key events and analyze themes of decisive influence for the success or failure of these initiatives. That is what the authors have done based on analyzes of core themes for the 2014 World Cup organization, such as communication, economics, governability, infrastructure, event organization, and so on.
Antonio Carlos Valença and Guilherme Gonçalves de Carvalho expose and analyze the results from a relevant research – still subject to updates in future editions. This research collected opinions from Carteira de Turismo of Sebrae (the tourism portfolio at the Brazilian Service for Assistance and Support to Micro and Small Business; data collected in 2009), and from participants in the Seminar of Technological Solutions for the World Cup and Olympic Games in Brazil, held in the end of 2011, about the country’s conditions for a successful performance in the 2014 World Cup. Thus, new perspectives are open for the different experts of areas involved with the event to discuss the theme. This discussion has grounds in system reasoning theories and structures, analyzed by using SysLogic software.
This publication by Senac São Paulo seeks to encourage social development, especially in services, management, business, tourism, and hospitality industry, besides other active areas in the event.
PREFACE
A TIMELY PARTNERSHIP
It was with much honor that I received the invitation, as General Director of Universia Brasil S/A, to write this preface for 2014 World Cup: Argumentative Structures with Systems Archetypes. I am filled with humbleness and care as I write, mainly because it is the work of Antonio Carlos Valença, whose career and contribution to systems thinking is undeniable, especially in our local organizational context. Currently, this context begins to incorporate systems theory and complex systems as existing phenomena requiring a thorough understanding.
To speak of systems theory means breaking away from a positivistic paradigm as episteme for the analysis of human relations in any organizational context and arrangement. Positivistic perspective creates analysis based on breaking down the whole into smaller parts for a later study. Then, based on a comprehension of them, positivistic paradigm seeks to associate the parts in the quest to reconstruct the whole. It is not appropriate to criticize the episteme that served as a basis for development in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, we should acknowledge its inadequacy in social global contexts to which the legal framework and landmarks, transactional relationships, cultures, subcultures, and other possible aspects impart increasing complexity.
Complexity refers to different relationships and possibilities in interactive processes leading to the emergence of new patterns that configure or reconfigure contexts. Thus, it calls for an episteme covering not only the knowledge of the elements, but also how they deeply relate to each other producing their own interrelations or interplays rules. Positivism is not an option since it does not perceive and cover the relationships – the central theme in the systems theory.
Complexity and the emergence of relation patterns or structures became hot topics when talking about the World Cup to occur in Brazil in 2014. Imagine the complexity derived from the number of involved cities, their cultures, urban infrastructure, and heuristics of their decision makers, behaviors, and conduct. Add local and central governments, policies and funding lines, sponsors’ interests, local people and visitors’ expectations. It is not necessary to argue that complexity is present. In order to accomplish the processes and goals, suitable tools and methods must be used to help managers make consistent and adjusted decisions, avoiding paralysis caused by analysis, without the risk of being superficial.
This book’s opportune release, besides necessary, comes in a welcomed circumstance. That is why I am proud to be part of this timely partnership between professor Valença and Universia, the largest university network in Portuguese and Spanish languages, gathering more than 1,200 institutions, and whose essence is complexity itself.
I recommend the reading of this book and hope that the learning coming from it helps Brazil make the World Cup event in a superb and outstanding way. I am sure that none of it would have been possible without the joining of workforce and organized and lucid thought about relevant topics for adequate development.
Universia commits itself to promoting the spreading of this concept and to follow the journey along with Valença, assured that systems thinking is the necessary knowledge basis to better understand the world in all its nuances and shades.
I congratulate Valença and thank him for the invitation extended to Universia. I wish him success. To the reader, let this be a rich and enlightening experience.
FOREWORD
“WE MUST HELP HUMAN BEINGS THINK WELL. WE MUST HELP PEOPLE ACT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL."
The quote above, by Antônio Carlos Valença, invites us to step through this book into universes little visited and little explored by all of us. The universe of wellthinking and of acting wisely, which (centered in close observation of how parts and wholes interrelate) may result in more balanced, equitable decisions, with lasting positive systems effects for the well-being of human society.
The event of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil is the complex topic that Valença & Associados, together with Holon Systemic Solutions, chose to challenge, instil, and educate our well-thinking and well-doing. As the authors suggest, “although it is a world event seemingly like every other every four years, the 2014 World Cup is not similar to any other.”
The referential analysis focuses on ten topics of decisive influence on the potential success or failure of this World Cup in Brazil: communication, economy, governance, infrastructure, organization of events, public policies and laws, health, safety, services, and traffic. Quoting the authors, these are issues that
[…] due to its relevance, urgency, severity, and widespread ecological impact deserve attention and care by the event strategic leaders when dealing with and developing it. Otherwise, there is a risk of social collapse, with high probability of a devastating effect on the Brazilian image before the worldwide public opinion.
Topics of visceral importance for the country’s present and future are subsets of these themes analyzed here. This study analyzes corporate investment actions, economic growth and employment level, implementation of the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC)1, quality of social inclusion policies, quality of environmental management policies, embezzlement, deficiency in the integration and coordination of various investments, effective policing on the streets, security of side events, chronic deficiency of tourism services, quality of roads linking cities, interstate and intercity flow of people during the event, moving 2,000 tourists per team-game-city, integrating airports with roads and railways, and many others.
This comprehensive analysis of the key benefits and barriers of Brazil hosting the 2014 World Cup utilizes the assistance of SysLogic software (Systemic Logic Crafter). This software is a specialist tool, a system able to operate a set of logical, linguistic or heuristics rules. Thus, it gives “intelligent” answers according to the pre-established criteria.
Responses inserted into SysLogic were based on the question “what are the benefits and losses of having the 2014 World Cup in Brazil?”. The responses were provided initially by forty interlocutors from Tourism Portfolio of Sebrae and then supplemented by responses of 47 technicians and experts participating in the Seminar of Technological Solutions for the World Cup and Olympics Games in Brazil, held in Sorocaba, São Paulo, in October 2011.
More than 4.5 billion systems archetypes have been generated through the analysis of the most present variables in the archetypes identified by SysLogic software. Based on that, influence diagrams (ID) and systems archetypes have been created for the previously mentioned top ten relevant themes.
As Peter Senge asserts, “the purpose of the system archetype is to recondition our perceptions, so as to be more able to see the leverage in those structures.” (Senge, 1990). In this sense, they quickly clarify the perceptions, and when dealing with systems, they offer an intelligible way of communication, even with people who do not have any training in systems thinking. This is the purpose of the book. It can be of a great use for those who feel uncomfortable with the directions and consequences of an event having huge proportions such as the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.
There is also a delightful gift in this book. Besides a comprehensive academic support by action theory experts as Gregory Bateson, Chris Argyris, and Donald Schön among others, the authors offer a “dialogue“ between SysLogic and the systems principles proposed by five exponents of systems thinking, Peter Senge, Daniel Kim, Edgar Morin, Ken Wilber, and Humberto Maturana.
The quality, sobriety, and accuracy in details and nuances in a systems analysis like this one, related to an issue of vital importance for the country, is an invitation to see and overcome the mechanical aspect of linear thinking which limits us and does not show recurring patterns, causalities, and responsibilities. It is an invitation for us to detect and work on the necessary transformations of mental models that generate dysfunctional structures and patterns, and non-systemic actions. Above all, it is a call that teaches and provides us with a high dose of hope to choose and access more efficient, collective, and integrated ways of planning and working of Brazilian society.
It is clear that this book has no intention of being a conclusive and final oracle about what is going to happen before, during, and after the event discussed here. Time is a variable of considerable influence in the systems processes, and events’ dynamic complexity is limitless. In the authors’ words:
This text does not represent, replace, exhaust, envelop, or predict all dimensions of the complex “universe” or “social system” that the 2014 World Cup is and will be. [...] This collective discourse of crossed statements may shed some light over what should either be lucidity or “blindness” in the perception (cultural, collective) of the 2014 World Cup.
I feel honored for the invitation to present this book. Systems thinking is a fascinating discipline that can be applied to all aspects of life – from the most individual to the most collective ones. Thus, it always helps us be more efficient, honest, and cooperative.
Sol Brasil holds the systems thinking dissemination as one of the most influential focuses of work. Institutions, groups, or individuals who participate in our community have benefited enormously from the theoretical framework learning and from the practical application of this discipline. This book, without a doubt, enriches, amplifies, and deepens much of that framework.
Finally, still reinforcing the essence of acting for the common good – and the purpose of how parts and the whole interrelate – Senge et al. (2007) make a timely mention to the hologram phenomenon and the mystery of the parts containing the whole. As physicist Henry Bortoft said, “a part is a place for the presencing of the whole.” (Scharmer, 1999).
May this book be an inspiring source, so that individuals and institutions representing the different stakeholders in the 2014 World Cup can bring light to their decisions, seeking to consider the whole, the collective, the longterm, and the common goal. For the good of all of us Brazilians, we cheer not only for the soccer team, but also for an always better Brazil.
DEDICATION
This book pays tribute to all the anonymous volunteers serving in the 2014 World Cup.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Every second I thank for the privilege of consciousness that makes me contemplate and be co-creator in the mystery of life. I recognize every memory that binds me, but I trust in liberating flights of the spirit. I am grateful for gifts and for all opportunities that helped me make consulting an art. Primarily, I thank the clients who trusted me for these four decades and welcomed me as a partner in their reflexive journey. My joy, my greatest joy, is to sit in a circle and have a serious talk so as to reflect, make sense, and open the windows of the possible learning. Words are also sacred and cannot be wasted in vain.
I thank my family, who though grudgingly, observed that in life I accidently gave more priority to work than to family life. Only when I turned 45 years old did I learn that this dynamics is described by an archetype named “success for the successful.” Nevertheless, earlier in the soul’s pain, I already knew about the unbalance and the undesired and cruel consequences of this choice.
I am grateful to my friend, business partner, and former master’s degree student, Guilherme Carvalho, who shares this book with me. Guilherme, among other virtues, is curious, objective, methodical, steady, focused and devoted to the praxis of excellence. Above all, he is upright. Guilherme is usually concise, speaking only the necessary; he does not criticize others or does self-reference. He is a distinct person whom I truly admire. I am happy and honored by his co-authoring acceptance.
I am especially grateful to my friends Lucila Mara Sbrana Sciotti and Jeane Passos Santana, editorial advisors at Editora Senac São Paulo. Their confidence and invitation to coordinate this book made me feel honored, glad, and proud. If in the previous book, Aprendizagem Organizacional – Aplicação de 123 Arquétipos (the English title would be Organizational Learning –Application of 123 Systems Archetypes, published in 2011), the generosity of Lucila and care of her words moved me, it would not be different this time: renewed appreciation and feelings. I hope this collaboration may continue with new challenges.
I am grateful to my friend Cristina D’Arce for the generous foreword of this book. Since the 1980’s, Cris is a pioneer and protector of Organizational Learning in Brazil. She is the president of Society for Organizational Learning-Brasil, an institution founded by her friend Peter Senge. Our friendship goes back to the early 1990s and it has always been marked by the respect, care, reciprocal good will for as long as we have known each other. She is a supportive friend whose help I never stop demanding.
I thank my friends who did a preliminary reading and helped a lot with their impressions about some chapters, Afonso Celso Vanderlei, Alan Dubner, André Felipe Santana, Lucila Mara Sbrana Sciotti, and Vânia Bueno. The invaluable feedback they gave me, I believe and thank, prevented me from falling into more chasms than I unfortunately have. I thank also my business partner Hector Paulo de Oliveira, who supervised the graphic production of all graphs and archetypes in the book, exporting them from SysLogic – Systemic Logic Crafter – to Corel Draw. The art and accuracy in the diagrams were responsibilities of my former coworker, designer Rhayanna Queiroz.
A special acknowledgement: I highlight the delight I had with my friend Haidée Camelo Fonseca, professor at Pontifical Catholic University of Pernambuco during the text proofreading experience. I do not call myself a writer. I am an artist of consulting. When my academic colleagues read me, they say I do not make science. Meanwhile, my clients say that my texts are too “scientific.” At this limbo, I again met this superb friend, an admirable artist, delicate, elegant, and able to prevent my orthography, syntax, and semantics from becoming blunders. Haidée did the best to make my text clearer and closer to what I meant. I am grateful, my friend, for your near co-authorship and the good moments while you reviewed the text and we evaluated the risks of the ideas defended in this work and laughed about them.
Finally, I thank beforehand the readers. They probably are people unknown at this moment. When taking the initiative to read this book, they are showing signs of curiosity and confidence. I wish you all – from my heart and with intensity – health, happiness, fulfillment, and delight in the reading. Moreover, peace, lots of peace.
In praise of all saints and enlightened ones.
Antonio Carlos Valença
INTRODUCTION AND BOOK PURPOSE
ANTONIO CARLOS VALENÇA
“I POPULARIZE WHAT I DO IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER.”2 Michel Crozon, L’élémentaire et le complexe
I recognize that this new book, introducing system diagnosis for the 2014 World Cup, may be subject to high visibility. I am happy and motivated. I have to say that I work with other recurring topics in my professional daily routine. Those are topics also considered with significant relevance to the action theory and organizational learning: productive conversation; methods and means of slowing reasoning down; action theory in leadership; co-inspiration and democratization in the workplace; expansion, attention, and concentration of mind as the basis for competence; the capture and effects of mental models; focus on the criteria of efficiency, competence; and fairness in decisions, among others.
The magnitude, the impact and the inevitable cross-correlation of opportunities versus economic, political, and sociocultural risks in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil have striking dimensions, becoming urgent and worthy of responsible reflection. Some studies show this event has projected investments of R$15 to 20 billion. Moreover, according to the booklet from the I Seminar of Technological Solutions for the World Cup and Olympic Games in Brazil, held in Sorocaba, on October 5th, 2011, there is an expected television audience of more than 1.5 billion people worldwide. All descriptive and normative hypotheses or theses about this event must be analyzed under the perspective of the size and impact, with detailed calculation of the different scenarios and of their multiple risks, to predict and warn about unforeseen or uncontrollable consequences, which could lead to a general disorder.
In order to build a collective speech and systems diagnosis on a world event as the 2014 World Cup, we have to call, without a doubt, upon the systems thinking and complexity theories (the same theories we use daily with clients at work). This book will probably make our preference and contribution for the theory of human action visible, when it describes the functions of SysLogic software – Systemic Logic Crafter – and exposes our working method. The plan is nothing but to share the findings of relevant research and open new perspectives for experts to discuss the subject based on systemic structures of reasoning.
Despite the fascination it raises, the 2014 World Cup is not a common theme in our company routine. No member in our team considers him or herself an expert on this subject. However, we have already applied the theory in other works of comprehensive social scope equally foreign to our regular work, such as “Systems Analysis of Public Security in Recife,” in partnership with the Jornal do Commercio; “Systems Analysis of the Retail Sector and Advertising,” in collaboration with Rede Globo Nordeste; “Systems Analysis of the Brazilian Cinema,” in partnership with the city of Recife. Furthermore, it is a pleasure to accept a new challenge.
In future opportunities, I hope also to cover other topics related to action theory – such as perception and illusion, the misconception of the heroic self-control myth, the importance of meditation to mastery and effectiveness of the action, the levels of complexity in the appreciative attitudes, the pitfalls of mental models, the urgency of democratic decision-making processes, the difficulty of dialogue in the workplace, the aesthetic appreciation of life, and, certainly, the service vocation of reflexive consultants and educators. I hope to develop all these themes from the lucid intervention theory of master Chris Argyris. After turning 65 years old, I can let myself fulfill the personal project of reflecting on my long experience as a consultant with younger colleagues. This book is part of that project. Hence, here is my gratitude to Editora Senac São Paulo for the generous invitation.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Maria Cristina Machado Maia, from the Tourism Support of Sebrae, invited me to give a lecture on September 10th, 2009, in São Paulo, at the Centro de Exposições Imigrantes, for the Brazilian Meeting of Ecotourism and Adventure Tourism – Abeta Summit. The invitation reached me about two weeks before the event. The lecture would be on “Trends and the relevant importance of Systems Thinking for the 2014 World Cup.” Well, a title with such a degree of generality would risk a lot of wandering about the theory and the participants would be unable to contextualize the information. As I confessed to Maria Cristina, I would feel more comfortable if I could ask technicians from the Tourism Portfolio of Sebrae about their favorable and unfavorable opinions on Brazilian conditions to successfuly host the 2014 World Cup. I argued that if I had such information, I could speak more appropriately to that audience, obviously building and using some examples of systems logic.
I know that, in any situation, there is and always will be something to say about theories of systems thinking, complexity, argumentative semantics, and, in particular, about the action theory. However, it is always more valid and friendly to speak about it in a context with proven or useful information drawn from specialized audiences. At that occasion, approaching people with relevant information originating from their specialized knowledge and judgment would make learning more interesting and practical for both parties. The 2014 World Cup would be the background to raise more involvement and curiosity about systems thinking and action science. Thus, two windows were open, allowing for a more promising relationship, due to a bilateral or collaborative production in order to create a more productive dialogue; and, certainly, a more convincing technical solution, given my limitations.
I received permission to contact those experts beforehand. I obtained about eighty e-mail addresses from experts all over Brazil. Next, I sent two questions inquiring their opinion on the key benefits and serious risks for Brazil in hosting the 2014 World Cup. We would record the first three answers to each question. I directly received forty responses. I proposed 72 hours as the respondents’ deadline to turn in their evaluations. After this period, I had three more days to extract the exclusive variables from their responses, import them into SysLogic software, and generate influence diagrams (ID) or causal diagrams, then promptly extract the archetypes to analyze and comment upon them. Next, of course, I had to pack to travel and meet those colleagues. That is how we began.
The consulted technicians’ gesture was extremely considerate and elegant: Even though time was short, more than 50% of them answered the questions, a rate considered high for optional online interviews. Their readiness and willingness, in clear demonstrations of cordiality and trust, were key factors to prepare my speech in a common interest area. However, I pledged not to identify any of the respondents. We had a remarkable and extensive material, which allowed for dentifying 132 variables, almost mutually exclusive, divided into ten thematic areas. A systems analysis of each of these areas or themes was performed. Then finally, a systems analysis of the essential sixteen statements that caused overdetermination on each theme and on them as a group, since they were present in over 60% of the archetypes.
ANOTHER INVITATION, ANOTHER EVENT, AND THE SAME CONSTRUCTS
When the book was written and about to be sent to proofreading, José Edson dos Santos and Caio Mendes generously invited us to participate in the I Seminar of Technological Solutions for the World Cup and Olympics Games in Brazil, in Sorocaba, São Paulo, on October 5th, 2011. On the lecture day, at the first morning break, we proposed to apply a short questionnaire to the participants that would contain the same two questions as in the first collection.
After the approval of the idea, we hastily printed the questionnaire and handled it to everyone after lunch, before our speech. Of these 58 colleagues, 47 responded to both questions with the chance to give two answers to each. From that collection, 72 constructs were incorporated and “accommodated,” as much as possible, to the comprehensive list of the 132 responses from the original project, as well as linked to the different influence diagrams (ID) and to the systems archetypes set. We found 21 new variables (nearly exclusive ones), which became part of those previously extracted influence diagrams and archetypes.
Under the pressure of a tight deadline, we did not remake the influence relations matrices, with at that time 153 mutually exclusive variables. Nevertheless, it does not seem that significant argumentative divergence occurred after including and accommodating the variables of the second collection. In any case, we did not want to miss such an opportunity. Two years after the first collection, other experts see the World Cup apparently with the same concerns. The article and lecture by Professor José Roberto Gnecco received special attention because of its inevitable, and somehow understandable, ideological content: At that time, he was the adviser to the then Minister of Sports Orlando Silva.
ACTION SCIENCE: ITS NORMATIVE VOCATION
Indeed, I dislike working with speculation and generalities. I work within four walls, from eight to eleven hours a day, with confidentiality, focused attention, and artistic performance, asking clients, based solely on what they experience:
what did they plan or still intend to achieve?what do they know and have achieved in practice?what do they know, how do they know it, what can be done about what they know and what they don’t know, in order to achieve what they plan?To this last question, there are three possibilities: Do they want a variation of something that already exists? Do they want something different, but which goes in the same direction of what happened before? Do they desire experiencing a transformation of values inspiring their action?
Human action has been my favorite subject of study since, at the age of 14, we reflected on the works of J. L. Lebret (1984) at the Youth. Catholic Students . I work with pragmatic and normative questions, related to practical actions, even though asking and answering them may require sophisticated theories. Every theory I choose to study has grounds in human practice, intentionality, and the subtle argument interplay causing actions and their consequences. In any situation, I try to help the clients better communicate and reflect, demonstrating – supported by influence diagrams (ID) or causal diagrams, and systems archetypes – the deep and unspoken structures of their thoughts and arguments, even when they are not aware of these unspoken dimensions. Often, I also find myself amazed that the systemic arguments software shows what I could not see.
We are a strategic alliance of two companies – Holon Systemic Solutions and Valença & Associados: Aprendizagem Organizacional – whose joint mission is to develop theories, methods, tools, and interactive conversational processes to build and structure environments for organizational learning. We have as the working core the continuous operation of systems thinking. The purpose of our Information Technology (IT) tools (today, six exclusive kinds of software for many system functions), is to support us in working with teams and organizations. Our essential task is to help our clients:
stay alert and focused on what they say;slow their reasoning processes down;expand their awareness and systemic awareness of complex situations;improve or possibly transform their theory-in-use (the theory that inspires concrete action, different from those that only enhance discourses and protect their self-image).The research and work methods in action science are inspired by constructivist and collaborative bases. In addition, it is co-inspired in joint quest with partner-clients for theories, activities, methods, means, and processes that trigger increasingly clear, consistent, effective, appreciative, collaborative, ethical and fair actions. We believe the defense of the intentional human action existence is not an amateur theoretical choice. Rather, it is an imperative, essential condition of the species which, by common sense, should be recognized. We reject readings we find questionable, of an alleged existentialism or supposed reductionist, phenomenological justification that do not consider the intention in human action. I can respect and even share the thesis and assumption that life is mysterious, inscrutable to science and, perhaps, it has no meaning or purpose in itself. However, in my opinion, human action, human language, and human interaction are full of purpose and will. Action is pragmatic; it is subtle, an inter-subjective play of interests, purposes, and not always explicit argumentative agreements. Human action is always dramatic (Vogt, 1989).
Today, action science has a scientific tradition grounded in large research centers with a multidisciplinary approach, with the collaboration from psychology, anthropology, sociology, and linguistics, especially semantics argument. Concerning the perspective of intentionality, I have defended, over the past twenty years, that action science is founded – and is going to be even more strongly in the coming decades – in its sources and basis of discoveries or treatments. Its foundation is on introspective research – the subject itself as an object, searching its own mind which is beyond the ego, the “me” as simultaneously research subject and object. It is surprising how theses of the Taoist and Buddhist philosophy and psychology are close or similar to the modern discoveries, as evidenced by recent discoveries in astrophysics (Gleyser, 2010), psychology (Wallace, 2008), and philosophy (Polanyi, 1967). To some people, it is stunning to find out that, in more than twenty-five centuries of meticulous scrutiny and enviable preciseness, there have been arguments and defenses on the same themes that are now objects of studies. The following might be among the most revealing of all discoveries: the codependent origin of phenomena; the plasticity, malleability, or flexibility of the brain; and perception as illusion – even if it is the basis for the construction of cultural signs and their conventions.
THERE IS NO INTENTION OF TRUTH
This text does not represent, replace, exhaust, envelop, or predict all dimensions of the complex “universe” or “social system” that the 2014 World Cup is and will be. It is a synthetic and systemic text on the perceptions (certainly hypothetical and illusory) and assumptions (entirely legitimate as intentions of argumentative influence) from the interviewed technicians. Consequently, it is a systemic extract of opinions and attributes from forty experts, tourism interlocutors from Sebrae, nationwide who, when consulted, have “judged” the unusual event. It is the synthesis of a qualitative research about perceptions and above all about the unspoken universe of their collective argumentations, of the deep and unknown roots of their knowledge – common or overlapping – of simultaneous sources of their illusions and their professional conventions.
This text “observes” both those experts’ acts of observation and their perceptions about the 2014 World Cup. This means that we offer the reader an observation of a second complexity level – hence, at a second order – that we noted in the causal diagrams which the experts have observed. Therefore, it is a reading of the dynamics performed by those technicians in the act and in the processes (or operations) of perceiving, distinguishing, describing, and providing meanings. In fact, this second-degree observation seeks to know how judgments are organized and structured, especially their argumentations. Of course, the text naturally opens itself to the observation of others, on another level of complexity. The reader observes us.
A SYSTEMIC AND DEMOCRATIC METHOD
Here, we describe a systems composition method of a collective discourse and we strongly believe that, with the help of SysLogic software, we can detect, consider, and ultimately reflect on which differentiations have been used and preferred in the statements. Later, we can perceive how they make sense together when compared one by one in a reciprocal causality. This method is not meant only to observe, describe, and speculate, but also chiefly to build in collectively an emerging social significance. The archetypes that were found point to what it would be, from a technical perspective, to act with strategy and effectiveness. They also point out, openly or implicitly, how to act with equality, respect, reciprocity, and always with ethics and justice. Therefore, in this book, as in other cases, we want to call attention to potential ways, not always clear, to think and act in situations involving differences, paradoxes, dilemmas, conflict of interests in the culture. There is nothing like being in an enormous window showing a gigantic world event!
More than searching for a semantic common sense in the experts’ collective discourse – or even a technical discourse analysis that often depends on the researcher’s mindset –, we want to point out the risks inherent to a culture of convenience and collusion. It is a culture of convenience and collusion before unspoken things, unfortunately, because the silence and the implied things protect or justify the tacit values of the “jeitinho brasileiro” (the Brazilian capacity of improvising and cutting corners to get personal advantages) on such a controversial event. The World Cup may also serve to obscure interests.
With this purpose and based on a primarily technical dimension reading, we point out three other complex potential dimensions embedded or implicit in the assumptions, suppositions, or implied in this first dimension. (a) What can be seen or is allowed to see. (b) What “one cannot or do not want to see.” (c) What the “interests” generating the (a) and (b) strategies are. Here is both a methodological and ideological explanation: This book’s structure does not follow such a format or sequence. However, (a), (b), and (c) reveal themselves along the linking argumentative sequence of this book. The reader will be responsible for other readings or observations on another complexity level. We also believe SysLogic software helps point (a), (b), and (c); or, at least, helps explain the “hidden” dimensions that are latent, tacit, and overlapped in the technical reading. If all relation of causality or influence of all statements has been well outlined – and we believe they have – no relevant discourse, either tacit or evident, gets lost in the range of argumentative possibilities, in the combination of relationships among all the assumptions or offered statements.
These crossed statements in a collective discourse may shed some light over what should either be “lucidity” or “blindness” in the perception (cultural, collective) of the 2014 World Cup. Moreover, we have the desire to point out or report, directly or indirectly, a potential blindness – false, deliberate and concealed. This is called a “blind spot” in the theory of systems observers. It is what, in cases of pure misinformation and naivety, could be genuine and acceptable; or what, in cases of malice and bad faith, could be perverse and manipulative. It matches the Brazilian culture of “accommodation,” “deception,” or the relationships inspired by the Gerson’s Law3. In the latter case, there would not be a “blind spot,” but an “one-eyed spot.” A “despicable eye spot.”
By the method used, we received all statements, all evaluations – generous, though hasty and concise – from forty tourism technical experts, interlocutors from national Sebrae. They issued these opinions in August 2009; thus, now, in early 2012, they might be outdated to some extent. Surely, these opinions deal more with the scope, coverage, and general strategies for the 2014 World Cup and less with the details or minute technical operations. One should expect nothing or little of scrutinized technical guidance from reading this book. Certainly, it will not be a basis for guidelines of operational procedures, or even for models of operative decisions on any issue or dimension.
The method from which this collective discourse was raised, as system diagnosis, covers at least eleven themes. Ten themes are specific while one theme is a synthesis – due to their relevance, urgency, severity, and widespread ecological impact, deserves attention and care by the event’s strategic leaders when dealing and developing it. Otherwise, there is a risk of social collapse, with high probability of a devastating effect on Brazil’s image before the world public opinion. It can be argued – as I do – that these eleven themes have and will continue to have a decisive influence on the success or failure of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. I would also like to refer specifically to sixteen overdetermining variables, among all themes and all statements from technical experts, which the organizers of this monumental event cannot ignore. Whether we like it or not, these systemic issues are part of this complex reality, as well as all the archetypes that compose and surround such reality.
STEPS WITH SYSLOGIC SOFTWARE
SysLogic – Systemic Logic Crafter – explains its concept: to show the artistic possibility of a team with the right tools in hands. The crafter or craftsman is an artisan, a skilled professional who, like a goldsmith, combines attention, expertise, experience and sophistication of art as inspired ingredients of pragmatic knowledge. This should be the relationship trait of any SysLogic software user: to use, manipulate, interact, and care for a tool that should be used with intuition, sensitivity, intelligence, good taste and, above all, research accuracy. A team seeking to make a systems analysis of a situation without using SysLogic software (or any other systems extraction software) may fundamentally be very impoverished. On the other hand, any software left to its own mechanical operations is almost nothing. This is the secret of mastery in any carpentry, crafts, or jewelry. In fact, for any work that requires the proper use of a tool and aims to be at the same time a sensitive, intelligent, attractive, practical, or useful process. We have built this text with art and support from SysLogic – Systemic Logic Crafter – showing systems arguments on complex or ambiguous situations, but always aiming at the well being of everyone.
What are the features and benefits in the composition method of a collective discourse (exposing and profiling mental models) with the help of SysLogic soft- ware? What are the basic steps and procedures in its operation? In short, when we face a complex situation, to systemically diagnose and plan more competent actions, we work with SysLogic software from 6 to 24 hours – depending on the situation’s complexity, number of variables and people involved. Preliminary interviews, research of essential information and negotiating objectives and pragmatic interests between consultants and clients establish the basis or structural conditions of action between parties. In general, the steps or procedures using SysLogic software, made jointly by consultants and clients, are the following:
1. COLLECTION. Statements search and selection (data, information, description, opinion, judgment, and so on) can be made in person or remotely, anonymously or openly, since the investigation encloses dichotomic observation of a reality in analysis (advantages vs. disadvantages, opportunities vs. risks, tangible goods vs. intangible goods, strengths vs. weaknesses, favorable trends vs. unfavorable trends, repetitions vs. innovations, successes vs. failures, and so forth);
2. REDUCING AND NOMINALIZING. Once received, the statements are “decon- structed” in as many, individual statements, simpler and more concise, as possible, in other words, isolating each logic element of every thought. For instance, in the analysis of the statement, “the rush of modern life makes executives anxious” changes into two statements by nominalizing, “modern life rush” and “anxious executives;”
3. WRITING NEUTRAL VARIABLES. When writing simple statements (variables), one should avoid compound sentences as much as possible. The same advice is valid for verbs, adverbs, connectives, or any linguistic markers with some form of composition or complexity. We recommend using a phrase with verb ellipsis that describes an activity, a change, or a condition. As a result, there is sense or essential information in the statement – “anxious executives” would probably mean the same as saying, “the executives are anxious” or even “(there is) a certain level of anxiety in the executives”;
4. MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE VARIABLES. Every selected variable must be exclusive in relation to others;
5. THEMATIC CLASSIFICATION. Once we learn the new, exclusive analytical statements (variables), we define the thematic subsystems as revealed by the statements – and in which such statements should be categorized. Specifically, the statements form the categories and are placed together in them;
6. CROSS-MATRIX OF CAUSALITY OR INFLUENCE. We cross each statement to every other in its thematic subsystem and submit their relations to the conventional logic categories, like determination and condition;
7. CHOICE OF OVERDETERMINATION VARIABLES. SysLogic software indicates overdetermination variables. Namely, those with more causality or influence over others and that receive more causality or influence from others, thus determining the destination and sequence of discourse or collective thought. In the next step, no variable can be isolated from the system. That is, it is possible to indicate variables that, even without casual overdetermination, play the role of avoiding isolation from any variable in the subsystem. In addition, it prioritizes precisely the variables forming systems archetypes. Finally, it is possible to select the judgment criteria;
8. CONSTRUCTION OF INFLUENCE DIAGRAMS (ID) BY SUBSYSTEM. SysLogic software automatically builds causal diagrams or influence diagrams (ID) for each thematic subsystem;
9. EXTRACTION OF SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES BY THEME. SysLogic indicates a powerful combination of systems archetypes (millions or billions of them, but we know that the mind does not operate at the same time more than six variables, neither combines spontaneously a greater number) to be selected by facilitators and clients;
10. SYNTHETIC CAUSALITY MATRIX. Based on all the overdetermining variables chosen in each subsystem, we build a general cross-matrix using the same process for each subsystem: We cross each statement (variable) to other selected overdetermining variables.
11. CONSTRUCTION OF (SYNTHETIC) INFLUENCE DIAGRAMS. SysLogic software automatically builds a general causal diagram of synthesis statement (variables of overdetermination for all thematic subsystem);
12. SYNTHETIC SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES EXTRACTION. SysLogic software indicates a combination of millions or billions of systems archetypes, synthesizing all subsystems themes for facilitators and clients to select them;
13. CHOICE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES. The facilitator team and client-users select the most significant archetypes, using several heuristic rules embedded in SysLogic;
14. IDENTIFICATION OF RED FLAGS. The facilitator team and client-users discuss to understand the reason for the formation of such archetypal structures;
15. IDENTIFICATION OF LEVERAGE POINTS. The facilitator team and client-users discuss how to operate with lower costs (economic, political, psychological, and so on) in order to get results of greater systemic impact when facing such archetypal structures;
16. PREPARATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN AND ACTION PLAN. Based on the items 13, 14 and 15, SysLogic software forwards the key points to sketch the Strategic Plan and the Action Programs.
A TASK EASILY SUBJECT TO INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL VALIDITY TESTS
We use a method and submit it to public testing. In this sense, we open the possibility for receiving feedback from all readers – what would also be a way of learning and self-observation. From this perspective, we entirely detach ourselves from the current synthesis shown in this book in order to accept and live with other possible readings. We believe anyone can alter the current findings. In fact, the intention is to allow a channel for the construction of other causal diagrams on the 2014 World Cup, partly because we do not know about the existence of other causal diagram study for the event placing Brazil on the spot for the entire planet.
A text is not a sum of phrases or a patchwork of independent statements, but it is a relationship network – not only of logical scope, but also in the argumentative horizons. Especially when building up a collective discourse based on systems matrix of relationships and mutual influences of statements, this method causes a “systems emergence.” Namely, it gives birth to a “higher” meaning – a meta-signification hardly noticeable at first sight. This emerging collective meaning no longer obeys a historical sequence of argumentation from each respondent. Rather, it generates logic within logic, hence a meta-argument or an argumentative meta-logic, a meaning beyond the additional discourse of everyone (or of a majority), because the terms, propositions, and statements are crossed one by one to extract a broad logic of influence and causality. The result is the construction of a new thought, emerging, and often more surprising to us – consultants and process facilitators – than even to clients who provide the reasoning. We pass dialectally from the expression and original statements sequences to a systems emergence, a meta-meaning, and an entirely new social signification. There is an emerging structure and with it, a new discourse with new meaning possibilities. It is likely that everything implicit (deliberately or not) could be exposed. Many of them may be disturbing. The test we undergo is here.
We did not create “our” signification, by using technical and interpretative coding and decoding of other people’s discourse under the pretense of being consultants or analysts. We emphasize that we only crossed each respondent’s term or argument to the term or argument of others. The interpretation derived from this process lies in the client’s ability to answer two questions – does “a” cause or influence “b”? Does “b” cause or influence “a”? If yes, two further questions: “does the variable receiving the influence keep the same direction or change it?” and “are the effects immediate or is there a time gap?” This process suspends all original and literal meanings, allowing for the outbreak of a meta-text, a meta-interpretation, for a meta-understanding of a complex reality. In addition, it is in a democratic, logical, cost-effective, quick manner, and without useless debates – without unproductive and unbalanced discussion. Here, we undergo another test.
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE, ALSO UNDER TEST
Let us associate ourselves to authors and scholars advocating the action theory, action science, and in linguistics the argumentative semantics, which claims the existence of a new field – the “macro-syntax of the discourse”. In general, these theories will serve to test respondents assumptions. Thus, we also open ourselves to this new test. Our jobs consisted only in making logical connections between each assumption and statement (what causes or influences what; and if the cause or influence produces expansion or contraction, with or without delay). Then based on this document, it could also easily have its preciseness and validity tested publically. However, the results exceed the semantic combination.
When they see the influence diagrams (ID) or causal diagrams, the readers can test and evaluate the accuracy of this logical articulation task. I made these matrices myself, and then I remade them with Guilherme Carvalho. However, a criterion should be remembered: practically in all consulting contracts, exclusively the clients make the cross relation of causality or influence in a situation of systems diagnosis. They are always “contextualizing” relations. They are always saying and entering into agreement, meaning that, in any given situation, they note the causality and influence. Consequently, they create meaning and signification from its logical elaboration, and certainly, its responsibility. We are not questioning it except when there is an obvious error in logic. Clients give the semantic meaning in each variable and provide a complex matrix of causality and influence. That provides a social signification, something new from logical and argumentative combinations of their perceptions and interpretations of reality. From the organization and deep thoughts (previously disjointed) structure comes a cultural reading and the deduced roots from our own way of being a unique people. In this case, even though it is a world event apparently similar every four years, the 2014 World Cup is not like any other.
THE CLIENTS’ BELIEFS AND CONVICTIONS ARE RESPECTED: WE VALUE WHAT THE CLIENTS THINK
The purpose is not to convince or persuade the readers. What we think of the 2014 World Cup is not even that relevant. As mentioned, we are not experts in this area. Rather, the purpose is to articulate, organize, and structure relevant information – once available only in an unstructured manner – from experts. Each respondent gave his or her opinion and judgment. Some pieces of the resulting information share commonalities; others are identical; many are subject to addition, superposition, juxtaposition, subordination, or coordination. Other pieces are even entirely different. Some are complementary while others utterly diverging, antagonistic. When we remove these strictly individual opinions of judgment categories and place them in a net of possible relations (semantics and/or causality and influence), they result in a diagram of influence on each other. They reinforce some and can be reinforced back. Some opinions reinforce others without receiving the same. Yet, some deny others, and can be denied. Maybe on the contrary, they may also be amplified by those opinions having amplification influence. Yet, they can be influenced (by amplification or negation) by other variables on which the first variables do not have any influence, and so on. In other words, what was a scatter plot of many isolated evaluations and opinions became a large common diagram of influence, causality, and certainly, of consistent, collective discourse, which somehow reveals the respondents’ tacit mental model. When we read the final result, it is as if we were reading a synthesis of what has been said, warned, and required by the world’s experts and not just by the forty interviewees. The second study in the applied technology event held in Sorocaba confirms the main results.
Thus, the production of a “collective and systemic discourse” from technical experts’ perceptions and attributions does not intend to be or to offer an objective, direct, and “final” understanding about the complexity of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. On the contrary, it intends to acknowledge the limitations of that task as method, proposition, and significance. On the other hand, we rely on the quality difference of a synthetic and systemic interpretation of perception and attributions relatively free from rhetoric and subjective interpretation, which in itself is safer than conventional methods of discourse analysis. We try to provide another level of complexity, not just another reading, but to use the help of complexity theory to go precisely beyond the technical differences and reach a reading emerging from selective perceptions and attributions shown by experts. Admitting that we know little, we simply want to publicly ask something more, “given these causal diagrams, which are or would be the new distinctions, re-readings, and multiplicity of critical thinking, embedded in the archetypes, which could result from this synthesis?”
