Belbin’s Team Roles

Understanding Team Roles to Improve Performance

© iStockphoto

When a team is performing at its best, you’ll usually find that each team member has clear responsibilities. You’ll also see that every role needed to achieve the team’s goal is being performed fully and well.

But often, despite clear roles and responsibilities, a team will fall short of its full potential.

Perhaps some team members don’t complete the things you expect them to do. Perhaps others are not quite flexible enough, so things “fall between the cracks.” Maybe someone who is valued for her expert input fails to see the wider picture, and so misses out tasks or steps that others would expect. Or perhaps one team member becomes frustrated because he disagrees with the approach of other team members.

Dr Meredith Belbin studied team-work for many years, and he famously observed that people in teams tend to assume different “team roles.” He defined a team role as “a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way” and named nine such team roles that he argued underlie team success.

Creating Balanced Teams

Team leaders and team development practitioners often use the Belbin model to help create more balanced teams.

Teams can become unbalanced if all team members have similar styles of behavior or team roles. If team members have similar weakness, the team as a whole may tend to have that weakness. If team members have similar team-work strengths, they may tend to compete (rather than co-operate) for the team tasks and responsibilities that best suit their natural styles.

Knowing this, you can use the model with your team to help ensure that necessary team roles are covered, and that potential behavioral tensions or weaknesses among the team member are addressed. Also, by understanding your role within a particular team, you can develop your strengths and manage your weaknesses as a team member, and so improve how you contribute to the team.

Tip:
Belbin’s “team roles” are based on observed behavior and interpersonal styles.

Whilst Belbin suggests that people tend to adopt a particular team-role, bear in mind that your behavior and interpersonal style within a team is to some extent dependent on the situation: it relates not only to your own natural working style, but also to your interrelationships with others, and the work being done.

Also, be aware that there are other approaches in use, some of which complement this model, some of which conflict with it. By all means use this approach as a guide – however do not put too much reliance on it, and temper any conclusions with common sense.

Understanding Belbin’s Team Roles Model

Belbin identified nine team roles and he categorized those roles into three groups: Action Oriented, People Oriented, and Thought Oriented. Each team role is associated with typical behavioral and interpersonal strengths.

Belbin also defined characteristic weaknesses that tend to accompany each team role. He called the characteristic weaknesses of team roles the “allowable” weaknesses; as for any behavioral weakness, these are areas to be aware of and potentially improve.

The nine team roles are:

Action Oriented Roles:

Shaper (SH)

Shapers are people who challenge the team to improve. They are dynamic and usually extroverted people who enjoy stimulating others, questioning norms, and finding the best approaches for solving problems. The Shaper is the one who shakes things up to make sure that all possibilities are considered and that the team does not become complacent.

Shapers often see obstacles as exciting challenges and they tend to have the courage to push on when others feel like quitting.

Their potential weaknesses may be that they’re argumentative, and that they may offend people’s feelings.

Implementer (IMP)

Implementers are the people who get things done. They turn the team’s ideas and concepts into practical actions and plans. They are typically conservative, disciplined people who work systematically and efficiently and are very well organized. These are the people who you can count on to get the job done.

On the downside, Implementers may be inflexible and can be somewhat resistant to change.

Completer-Finisher (CF)

Completer-Finishers are the people who see that projects are completed thoroughly. They ensure there have been no errors or omissions and they pay attention to the smallest of details. They are very concerned with deadlines and will push the team to make sure the job is completed on time. They are described as perfectionists who are orderly, conscientious, and anxious.

However, a Completer-Finisher may worry unnecessarily, and may find it hard to delegate.

People Oriented Roles:

Coordinator (CO)

Coordinators are the ones who take on the traditional team-leader role and have also been referred to as the chairmen. They guide the team to what they perceive are the objectives. They are often excellent listeners and they are naturally able to recognize the value that each team members brings to the table. They are calm and good-natured and delegate tasks very effectively.

Their potential weaknesses are that they may delegate away too much personal responsibility, and may tend to be manipulative.

Team Worker (TW)

Team Workers are the people who provide support and make sure that people within the team are working together effectively. These people fill the role of negotiators within the team and they are flexible, diplomatic, and perceptive. These tend to be popular people who are very capable in their own right, but who prioritize team cohesion and helping people getting along.

Their weaknesses may be a tendency to be indecisive, and to maintain uncommitted positions during discussions and decision-making.

Resource Investigator (RI)

Resource Investigators are innovative and curious. They explore available options, develop contacts, and negotiate for resources on behalf of the team. They are enthusiastic team members, who identify and work with external stakeholders to help the team accomplish its objective. They are outgoing and are often extroverted, meaning that others are often receptive to them and their ideas.

On the downside, they may lose enthusiasm quickly, and are often overly optimistic.

Thought Oriented Roles:

Plant (PL)

The Plant is the creative innovator who comes up with new ideas and approaches. They thrive on praise but criticism is especially hard for them to deal with. Plants are often introverted and prefer to work apart from the team. Because their ideas are so novel, they can be impractical at times. They may also be poor communicators and can tend to ignore given parameters and constraints.

Monitor-Evaluator (ME)

Monitor-Evaluators are best at analyzing and evaluating ideas that other people (often Plants) come up with. These people are shrewd and objective and they carefully weigh the pros and cons of all the options before coming to a decision.

Monitor-Evaluators are critical thinkers and very strategic in their approach. They are often perceived as detached or unemotional. Sometimes they are poor motivators who react to events rather than instigating them

Specialist (SP)

Specialists are people who have specialized knowledge that is needed to get the job done. They pride themselves on their skills and abilities, and they work to maintain their professional status. Their job within the team is to be an expert in the area, and they commit themselves fully to their field of expertise.

This may limit their contribution, and lead to a preoccupation with technicalities at the expense of the bigger picture.

Figure 1: Belbin’s Team Roles

Action Oriented Roles	Shaper	Challenges the team to improve.
	Implementer	Puts ideas into action.
	Completer Finisher	Ensures thorough, timely completion.
People Oriented Roles	Coordinator	Acts as a chairperson.
	Team Worker	Encourages cooperation.
	Resource Investigator	Explores outside opportunities.
Thought Oriented Roles	Plant	Presents new ideas and approaches.
	Monitor-Evaluator	Analyzes the options.
	Specialist	Provides specialized skills.

 

Note:
To find out which team roles you naturally fulfil, or to profile your team, visit www.belbin.com.

How to Use the Tool:

The Belbin Team Roles Model can be used in several ways – you can use it to think about team balance before a project starts, you can use it to highlight and so manage interpersonal differences within an existing team, and you can use it to develop yourself as a team player.

The tool below helps you analyze team membership, using the Belbin team roles as checks for potential strengths and weakness within your team.

Use Belbin’s model to analyze your team, and as a guide as you develop your team’s strengths, and manage its weaknesses:

1. Over a period of time, observe the individual members of your team, and see how they behave, contribute and behave within the team.
2. Now list the members of the team, and for each person write down the key strengths and characteristics you have observed. (You may also want to note down any observed weaknesses.)who
3. Compare each person’s listed strengths and weakness with the Belbin’s descriptions of team roles, and note the role that most accurately describes that person.
4. Once you have done this for each team member, consider the following questions:
   • Which team roles are missing from your team? And from this, ask yourself which strengths are likely to be missing from the team overall?
   • Is there are prevalent team role that many of the team members share?

Tip:
Among teams of people that do the same job, a small number of team roles may prevail. For example, within a research department, the team roles of Specialist and Plant may be filled by several people. A team of business consultants may mainly comprise Team Workers and Shapers. Such teams may be unbalanced, in that they may be missing key approaches and outlooks.

If the team is unbalanced, first identify any team weakness that is not naturally covered by any of the team members. Then identify any potential areas of conflict. For example, too many Shapers can weaken a team if each Shaper wants to pull the team in a different direction.

 

1. Once you have identified potential weakness, areas of conflict and missing strengths, think about the options you have to improve and change this. Consider:
   • Whether an existing team member could compensate by purposefully adopting different a team role. With awareness and intention, this is sometimes possible.
   • Whether one or more team members could improve how they work together and with others to avoid potential conflict of their natural styles.
   • Whether new skills need to brought onto the team to cover weaknesses.

Tip:
Remember not to depend too heavily on this idea when structuring your team – this is only one of many, many factors that are important in getting a team to perform at its best.

That said, just knowing about the Belbin Team Roles model can bring more harmony to your team, as team members learn that there are different approaches that are important in different circumstances and that no one approach is best all of the time.

Key Points

Belbin’s Team Roles is based on nine team roles, categorized into three groups: Action Oriented, People Oriented, and Thought Oriented.

You can use the model with your team to help ensure that necessary team roles are covered, and that you address potential behavioral tensions or weaknesses among team members. This will help you to create a more-balanced team.

You can also use it to understand your role within a particular team, so that you can develop your strengths and manage your weaknesses as a team member

Hartnett’s Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making Model

Making decision collectively

You’ve just brought your team together to kick-off a new project. However, you quickly run into problems agreeing the right way forward.

Juan, the most dominant member of your team, immediately makes a suggestion and starts talking about its benefits. Katherine begins arguing with him, claiming that her idea is more efficient. Kerry, who often has brilliant ideas, is too overwhelmed by Juan and Katherine to speak up. You’re soon ready to abandon the meeting!

If you work in a team, then this scenario may sound familiar. It can be difficult to get a group of people to reach consensus on a decision, especially when personalities, viewpoints, and attitudes clash.

In some situations, you can cut through these problems with decisive leadership (our article on the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model helps you think about when this is appropriate). In other situations, you need to find another way forward.

This is where Hartnett’s Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making (CODM) model is useful. In this article, we’ll look at the CODM model, and we’ll examine how you can apply it when you need to make a good group decision

About the Model

The CODM model was developed by psychologist, Dr. Tim Hartnett, and it was published his 2010 book “Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making.”

The model uses a seven-step process. The steps are:

1. Framing the problem.
2. Having an open discussion.
3. Identifying underlying concerns.
4. Developing proposals.
5. Choosing a direction.
6. Developing a preferred solution.
7. Closing.

By using the model, you can get everyone in the group involved in developing a solution, so that each person feels ownership of the final decision. This helps you build a more productive, committed team.

The model also encourages people to come up with creative ideas without fear of being judged. This helps the group develop better solutions and make better decisions.

The model is most useful for complex projects and problems, where you need to decide on the best way forward, and where the solution to your problem isn’t clear. However, you can tailor it to a variety of other situations as well.

Tip:
It’s important to remember that consensus means general agreement, not total agreement. Although this model allows everyone to participate in developing solutions, not everyone will always agree with the final decision.

How to Apply the CODM Model

We’ll now look at the seven steps in greater detail, and explore how you can apply the model with a group.

Tip:
Don’t feel that you have to work through these steps all at once – sometimes it will take several meetings to complete the process, depending on the complexity of the decision that you need to make.

Step 1: Framing the Problem

In this first step, you need to ensure that you have the right people involved in the process, and that everyone has the information, tools, and resources needed to come up with good ideas.

As part of this, identify and define the problem that you need to address, if necessary using tools such as Cause and Effect Analysis and Root Cause Analysis.

You also need to decide how your group will choose between options in later stages (Hartnett calls this the “decision rule”). For instance, do you want everyone in the group to agree on the final decision unanimously, or will a simple majority suffice? (Our article on Organizing Team Decision-Making looks at several techniques that you can use to make group decisions, and our article on facilitation teaches the skills needed to lead the discussion.)

Step 2: Having an Open Discussion

Next, meet with the group, present the problem again, and encourage an open discussion. Your goal here is to generate as many initial ideas or solutions to the problem as possible.

Use tools such as Round-Robin Brainstorming, Crawford’s Slip Writing Method, or the Stepladder Technique to get everyone involved in the discussion.

If the discussion seems to be in a rut or your team is generating only “safe” ideas, use creative thinking techniques to encourage people to come up with fresh ideas.

Remember that your objective is to get people to think creatively and encourage all ideas, even if these seem impractical at this stage.

As you work through this step, note down all ideas, removing any duplicates. You’ll return to this list in step 4.

Tip:
An alternative approach is to ask people to submit their initial ideas and solutions anonymously, before you meet face-to-face.

Step 3: Identifying Underlying Concerns

The next step is to identify what Hartnett calls “underlying concerns” – these are the constraints that you need to meet, and the problems that you want to solve, once you’ve made a decision. You’ll then use this analysis to come up with and improve solutions in the next step of the process.

Start by exploring what these concerns are with your group.

Then, identify key stakeholders (including people outside your organization) who are affected by the decision. (Depending on your situation, you can do this by simply brainstorming stakeholders, or you can conduct a formal stakeholder analysis.)

Talk to these stakeholders, or brainstorm and list possible underlying concerns for each of them, again ensuring that everyone in the group participates in the discussion.

Tip:
Don’t confuse underlying concerns with solutions in this step. For example, if the problem you’re trying to solve is to increase the quality of a product, a solution might be to use better components. However, underlying concerns might be to keep costs to a minimum (for shareholders), or to be able to use the product for longer (for customers).

Step 4: Developing Proposals

Now, using the initial ideas that you came up with in step 2, your group can come up with proposals that address the underlying concerns identified in the previous step.

To do this, go through each idea in turn, and encourage everyone in the group to contribute to developing it into a possible solution.

Again, it’s important that everyone is open-minded about the discussion, that everyone focuses on one idea at a time, and that people don’t criticize any ideas.

By the end of this step, you will have developed initial ideas into more-detailed proposals that you can take forward. Don’t dismiss any proposals yet.

Step 5: Choosing a Direction

You now need to decide on the best proposal to take forward.

Begin by going through each proposal in turn, asking group members to highlight what they think are the pros and cons of each one. Again, make sure that everyone is involved in the discussion.

Finally, decide on the best proposal to take forward, using the “decision rule” that you agreed on in step 1.

Tip:
See our articles on Grid Analysis, Multi-Voting and Nominal Group Technique for some great ways of choosing between proposals.

Step 6: Developing a Preferred Solution

The aim of this step it to look for ways to improve the final proposal further.

As part of this, look back at the underlying concerns that you identified in step 3. If there are any concerns that you haven’t addressed, look for ways in which you can improve the proposal.

Again, encourage group members to raise any further issues, and amend the final proposal to address these.

Tip 1:
If you’re developing a solution for a complex project, it may take a while to refine and amend your proposal and project documents.

Tip 2:
Depending on the type of decision, it may still not be worth going ahead with the best proposal. See our article on Go/No-Go Decision-Making for more on this.

Step 7: Closing

By now, you should have a solution that most people in the group are happy with. To confirm this, use the “decision rule” that you identified in step 1 to ensure that there is still consensus to move forward with your decision.

Depending on your situation, you can also use this step as an opportunity to ask for everyone’s cooperation in implementing the final decision. This cooperation can be anything from simply supporting others as they implement the solution, through to providing resources and expertise.

Tip 1:
Be flexible in how you apply each step of the process. As we highlighted earlier, in some situations it may not be necessary to work through each step in detail. You also need to be prepared to move back to previous steps, if you cannot decide on an appropriate solution.

Tip 2:
While seeking consensus within a group is important, be aware that people may use consensus as a way to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions or decisions. Don’t allow this to happen.

Key Points

The CODM model was developed by psychologist, Dr. Tim Hartnett, and was published in his 2010 book “Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making.” You can use it to make better group decisions by involving everyone in developing a solution.

The model is most useful where you need to decide on the best way forward with complex projects and problems, and where the solution to your problem isn’t clear.

There are seven steps that you can follow to use the model:

1. Framing the issue.
2. Having an open discussion.
3. Identifying underlying concerns.
4. Developing proposals.
5. Choosing a direction.
6. Developing a preferred solution.
7. Closing.

Be flexible in how you apply the model – it won’t always be necessary to work through each step in detail.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/codm.htm 

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model

Deciding how to decide

How you go about making a decision can involve as many choices as the decision itself. Sometimes you have to take charge and decide what to do on your own. Other times it’s better to make a decision using group consensus. How do you decide which approach to use?

Making good decisions is one of the main leadership tasks. Part of doing this is determining the most efficient and effective means of reaching the decision.

You don’t want to make autocratic decisions when team acceptance is crucial for a successful outcome. Nor do you want be involving your team in every decision you make, because that is an ineffective use of time and resources. What this means is you have to adapt your leadership style to the situation and decision you are facing. Autocratic styles work some of the time, highly participative styles work at other times, and various combinations of the two work best in the times in between.

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model provides a useful framework for identifying the best leadership style to adopt for the situation you’re in.

Note:
This model was originally described by Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton in their 1973 book titled Leadership and Decision Making. Later in 1988, Vroom and Arthur Jago, replaced the decision tree system of the original model with an expert system based on mathematics. Hence you will see the model called Vroom-Yetton, Vroom-Jago, and Vroom-Yetton-Jago. The model here is based on the Vroom-Jago version of the model.

Understanding the Model:

When you sit down to make a decision, your style, and the degree of participation you need to get from your team, are affected by three main factors:

• Decision Quality – how important is it to come up with the “right” solution? The higher the quality of the decision needed, the more you should involve other people in the decision.
• Subordinate Commitment - how important is it that your team and others buy into the decision? When teammates need to embrace the decision you should increase the participation levels.
• Time Constraints – How much time do you have to make the decision? The more time you have, the more you have the luxury of including others, and of using the decision as an opportunity for teambuilding.

Specific Leadership Styles

The way that these factors impact on you helps you determine the best leadership and decision-making style to use. Vroom-Jago distinguishes three styles of leadership, and five different processes of decision-making that you can consider using:

Style:	Autocratic – you make the decision and inform others of it. There are two separate processes for decision making in an autocratic style:
Process:	Autocratic 1(A1) – you use the information you already have and make the decision
	Autocratic 2 (A2) – you ask team members for specific information and once you have it, you make the decision. Here you don’t necessarily tell them what the information is needed for.
Style:	Consultative – you gather information from the team and other and then make the decision.
Process:	Consultative 1 (C1) – you inform team members of what you doing and may individually ask opinions, however, the group is not brought together for discussion. You make the decision.
	Consultative 2 (C2) – you are responsible for making the decision, however, you get together as a group to discuss the situation, hear other perspectives, and solicit suggestions.
Style:	Collaborative – you and your team work together to reach a consensus.
Process:	Group (G2) – The team makes a decision together. Your role is mostly facilitative and you help the team come to a final decision that everyone agrees on.

 

Tip:
This is a useful model, but it’s quite complex and long-winded. Use it in new situations, or in ones which have unusual characteristics: Using it, you’ll quickly get a feel for the right approach to use in more usual circumstances.

To determine which of these styles and processes is most appropriate, there is a series of yes & no questions that you ask yourself about the situation, and building a decision tree based on the responses. There are seven questions in total. These are:

1. Is the technical quality of the decision very important? Meaning, are the consequences of failure significant?
2. Does a successful outcome depend on your team members’ commitment to the decision? Must there be buy-in for the solution to work?
3. Do you have sufficient information to be able to make the decision on your own?
4. Is the problem well-structured so that you can easily understand what needs to be addressed and what defines a good solution?
5. Are you reasonably sure that your team will accept your decision even if you make it yourself?
6. Are the goals of the team consistent with the goals the organization has set to define a successful solution?
7. Will there likely be conflict among the team as to which solution is best?

Use Figure 1 below to follow your answers through on the decision tree and identify the best decision process for your circumstances. Not that in some scenarios, you don’t need to answer all of the questions.

 

 

In general, a consultative or collaborative style is most appropriate when:

• You need information from others to solve a problem.
• The problem definition isn’t clear.
• Team members’ buy-in to the decision is important.
• You have enough time to manage a group decision.

An autocratic style is most efficient when:

• You have more expertise on the subject than others.
• You are confident about acting alone.
• The team will accept your decision.
• There is little time available.

Key points:

The underlying assumption of the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Models is that no one leadership style or decision making process fits all situations.

By analyzing the situation and evaluating the problem based on time, team buy-in, and decision quality, a conclusion about which style best fits the situation can be made. The model defines a very logical approach to which style to adopt and is useful for managers and leaders who are trying to balance the benefits of participative management with the need to make decisions effectively.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_91.htm

rifondare le regole prima delle elezioni

Noi cittadini mediocri, distratti, furbi, benpensanti, lavoratori, evasori, poveri, ricchi, abbiamo accettato, favorito, combattuto (poco) il degrado collettivo. La politica che abbiamo accettato, voluto, combattuto (sempre poco) e’ affetta della malattia di cui soffre l’intero paese, con l’aggravante di giocare sistematicamente sopra le regole,  di cambiare le regole ogni volta che lo trova comodo.

Questa politica e’ troppo malata per curarsi da sola, troppo depravata per poter introdurre equita’, democrazia e rigore, troppo preoccupata di vincere le prossime elezioni per pensare al paese del futuro e ai suoi cittadini.

Il presidente della repubblica, dopo avere commissariato il parlamento, ora dovrebbe aprire un tavolo costituente per rifondare le regole secondo le quali i partiti dovranno esprimere il loro compito e secondo le quali i cittadini dovranno esercitare il loro dovere civico.  Un tavolo tecnico,  spirito laico e civile…ci sarà qualcuno che ce la può fare!

legge elettorale, funzionamento dei partiti, regolamenti  delle commissioni, retribuzioni e benefici, responsabilità davanti alla legge, finanziamenti ai partiti,  numero dei rappresentanti in parlamento,  norme sui referendum e riprogettazione delle condizioni per l’esercizio della democrazia distribuita attraverso il digitale (internet, TV, smartphone….accessibile per tutti)

La casta di oggi e domani non c’è la può fare: arriviamo fino al parossismo e da li ricominciamo. Presto, prima delle  prossime elezioni o non ci sarà più speranza.

Stuart Brown: Play is more than fun – from TED

http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html

Gardner’s MI

Intelligence is a ‘‘biopsychological potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture’’ . Yes, dear CPS fans (creative problem solving) it sounds familiar!

However psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several intelligences seems to be lacking in literature. Cognitive neuroscience, too strongly critiques Gardner, in particular when he claims that the intelligences are innate potentialities related to a general content area.” (From Waterhouse, 2006a, p. 213).  Please read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

However, back to Gardner’s, all humans have different strengths and ranges of intelligences, that is different cognitive potentials that can become an ability in a given setting. Whether the various intelligences work separately or are in some ways codependent has not been determined. However, Gardner has found that individuals can be generalists or specialists, characteristics that allow persons to be “lasers” and “searchlights.”

People who are lasers generally use one or possibly two intelligences almost to the exclusion of the others. Examples of famous lasers are Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, William Shakespeare, and Mario Andretti. Searchlights have strengths in several intelligences but do not have a single, very strong intelligence. Searchlights are good at keeping track of many different details, multitasking, and monitoring. Politicians; business executives; presidents of universities, corporations, and countries; and athletic coaches are examples of people who are searchlights.

Multiple intelligences theory can be useful in the workplace. Most people gravitate to jobs that they enjoy doing and have an aptitude for, which is usually the result of their having intellectual strengths in those areas. However, using multiple intelligences profiles of individuals who will be making up a team can help determine if the intelligences will constrain or hinder the group’s work, if one person’s intelligences will compensate for others’ weaknesses, and if the individuals will catalyze each other to produce better work than any of them could do alone. Knowing whether individuals are lasers or searchlights can help determine the best positions for them; for example, lasers would be better suited for occupations such as proofreaders or production inspectors, while searchlights make good division managers and even chief executive officers.

This last paragraph is taken from

http://salempress.com/store/samples/psychology/psychology_multiple.htm 

and I really wonder if the examples offered for lasers are representative…

 For Buffalo’s mamacitas –> see the use of Mi and card sorting proposed by Puccio

Dont’ put all your eggs in one basket

The law of requisite variety (R. Dilts)

In order to successfully adapt, achieve or survive, a member of a system requires a minimum amount of flexibility. That amount of flexibility has to be proportional to the variety that member must content with the rest of the system.

How to deal with  VARIETY:      

1 attenuate it (reduce) 2 absorbe it (regulate)   Ex. A shoe store opens and becomes successfull, too successfull…and the owner has to decide 1- specialize, thus reducing the cutomers’ variety 2- increase salespeople, thus absorbing customers’ variety

-Variety increase equals growth and growth means more costs…
-Variety decrease equals reduction of customers and of potential sales…

Downsizing and requisite variety

Requisite variety is the limiting condition of downsizing…the degree of variety necessary to perfom all the functions and handle the conditions that are necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

Optimum use of resources (present) + fitness for the future (remember the Irish famine and the optimization of short-term results – growing only most productive potatos)

System variety and Regulatory variety (internal) need to keep pace

 ex. cancer  kills us not because its cells are stronger, but because we lack the requisite variability needed to regulate it. Cancer has a degree of variation and adaptability our cells are incapable of  “absorbing” . Thus therapy might be more effective if worked  on increase of regulatory variety instead than strength of treatment (which might simply kill our good cells) —> we often attack the problem, rather than encourage the natural predators

Implication of the Law of Requisite Variety:  increase the number of options  

If you want to consistently get to a particular goal state, you have to increase the number of options available for reaching that goal in proportion to potential variability of the system –> explore new possibilities and don’t stick to what you have always done. Corollary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   corollary: if you keep doing what you have always done you will not always get whay you have always  got because everybody is affected by a system changes

Aligning flexibility and consistency: heading towards a paradox?

Systems require stability and homeostasis to survive, and consistency is an important property of all successfull organisms.

How can we both flexible and consistent at the same time?  The answer has to do with where we require the flexibility in a system: not  every interaction in a system occurs on the same level.

Where you need to be flexible is determined by where you are committed to be inflexible –> if the goal is consistent (unchanged) you need to change your behaviour (the how must be flexible) to achieve your output.

Requisite variety is also needed to resist change (es cells and cancer)

Social diversity

The more diversity is included, the more regulatory variety is required to achive positive outcomes. The more different opionions and backgrounds that the memebr of a team bring to the group, the more skills, vision, creativity, flexibility will be required from the team leader–>  to stay vital and maintain a sense of identity, social and cultural richness need to be offset by regulatory richness and stability.

Social variety can never be attenuated (ex totalitarisms); attenuating pushes variety somewhere else or causes it to remain latent in the population.

Freedom and power

The law of requisite variety is linked to the truisms that “having the choice is always better than not having it”

Freedom relates to system variety, while Power relates to regulatory variety. The most powerful organization or the freest individual is the one who has the more alternative responses and the intelligence and wisdom to utilize those choices.

Collateral energy

In many dynamic systems all of the parts carry their own source of energy. This makes the system much more complex because energy doesn’t flow thru the system in a fixed mechanical way- (Bateson) If you kick a ball you can predict with a fair degree of accuracy where it will end up. If you kick a dog, any other characteristics being unchanged, it will be much more difficult because of its collateral energy