Cybernetic Perspective - Revision history

Flc at 02:29, 16 September 2025

2025-09-16T02:29:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:29, 16 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Performance_Cybernetic.png\|right\|~~600px~~]]		[[File:Performance_Cybernetic.png\|right\|450px]]
	=Introduction=		=Introduction=
	While traditional management systems rely on a top-down, command-and-control hierarchy, cybernetic models view an organization as a self-regulating system that uses feedback to maintain its goals. Performance measurement is seen as an important component of cybernetic models that include goal setting and predictive models to facilitate decisions of alternative actions.		While traditional management systems rely on a top-down, command-and-control hierarchy, cybernetic models view an organization as a self-regulating system that uses feedback to maintain its goals. Performance measurement is seen as an important component of cybernetic models that include goal setting and predictive models to facilitate decisions of alternative actions.

Flc: /* Human Limiting Factor */

2025-09-15T19:54:46Z

Human Limiting Factor

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 15 September 2025
Line 49:		Line 49:
	The cybernetic model can be seen as a better version of the traditional model, which supports top-down hierarchical decisions and the command-and-control model. It gives more space to individual communication, adaptation, feedback, and autonomy.		The cybernetic model can be seen as a better version of the traditional model, which supports top-down hierarchical decisions and the command-and-control model. It gives more space to individual communication, adaptation, feedback, and autonomy.

	Similarly to the control and command system and as we evidence with GRI's measures, forcing a system that’s fundamentally Low 2, High 4<ref>[[Adaptive_Profile \|\| This terminology that relates to GRI profiles is introduced in this article]]</ref>, on people who are not and exhibit opposite profiles, will create frustration, result in disengagement over time, and actions ~~which~~ will be counterproductive for the organization. The same limitations came with the competency models that emerged at about the same period as cybernetics and failed to differentiate competencies from aspects of behaviors or mindsets that cannot be developed at will or through traditional technical training.		Similarly to the control and command system and as we evidence with GRI's measures, forcing a system that’s fundamentally Low 2, High 4<ref>[[Adaptive_Profile \|\| This terminology that relates to GRI profiles is introduced in this article]]</ref>, on people who are not and exhibit opposite profiles, will create frustration, result in disengagement over time, and actions that will be counterproductive for the organization. The same limitations came with the competency models that emerged at about the same period as cybernetics and failed to differentiate competencies from aspects of behaviors or mindsets that cannot be developed at will or through traditional technical training.

	Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations—think about sales or client service versus accounting—and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.		Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations—think about sales or client service versus accounting—and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.

Flc: /* Human Limiting Factor */

2025-09-14T17:01:09Z

Human Limiting Factor

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 14 September 2025
Line 53:		Line 53:
	Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations—think about sales or client service versus accounting—and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.		Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations—think about sales or client service versus accounting—and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.

	Over time, profiles that we measure at GRI with a high 1 or low 4, who can bring and lead radical innovation, will sooner or later feel constrained and leave the organization. Very and extremely High 2s, if misunderstood, will similarly prefer to bring their social skills outside the organization. Low 2s immersed in high 2 ~~role~~ will disengage over time, etc. The cases are varied and numerous that cannot be envisioned, accounted for, or managed with the cybernetic models, and can easily create inefficiency and underperformance.		Over time, profiles that we measure at GRI with a high 1 or low 4, who can bring and lead radical innovation, will sooner or later feel constrained and leave the organization. Very and extremely High 2s, if misunderstood, will similarly prefer to bring their social skills outside the organization. Low 2s immersed in high 2 roles will disengage over time, etc. The cases are varied and numerous that cannot be envisioned, accounted for, or managed with the cybernetic models, and can easily create inefficiency and underperformance.

	=References=		=References=

Flc: /* Critics of the Cybernetic Model */

2025-09-14T05:09:18Z

Critics of the Cybernetic Model

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:09, 14 September 2025
Line 15:		Line 15:

	=Critics of the Cybernetic Model=		=Critics of the Cybernetic Model=
	Although ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems have considerably eased the way data is collected and analyzed, particularly in large organizations, one of the challenges of the cybernetic model remains its difficulty in comparing performance data to quantifiable and unambiguous standards, in a context that’s constantly changing. Cybernetic systems will potentially miss crucial information, with no capacity to think and act on something already in someone’s mind, but that the systems cannot know ~~about~~ yet.		Although ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems have considerably eased the way data is collected and analyzed, particularly in large organizations, one of the challenges of the cybernetic model remains its difficulty in comparing performance data to quantifiable and unambiguous standards, in a context that’s constantly changing. Cybernetic systems will potentially miss crucial information, with no capacity to think and act on something already in someone’s mind, but that the systems cannot know yet.

	From the cybernetic perspective, performance measurement is essentially associated with controlling the achievement of organizational objectives and the implementation of the strategy. Performance measures are implicitly linked to the notion of diagnostic and control systems<ref>Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.</ref>, or formal feedback systems used to control what the organization produces and to correct deviations from a predefined performance standard<ref>Ibid, Hofstede, 1978</ref>.		From the cybernetic perspective, performance measurement is essentially associated with controlling the achievement of organizational objectives and the implementation of the strategy. Performance measures are implicitly linked to the notion of diagnostic and control systems<ref>Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.</ref>, or formal feedback systems used to control what the organization produces and to correct deviations from a predefined performance standard<ref>Ibid, Hofstede, 1978</ref>.

Flc: /* Critics of the Cybernetic Model */

2025-09-14T05:08:05Z

Critics of the Cybernetic Model

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:08, 14 September 2025
Line 15:		Line 15:

	=Critics of the Cybernetic Model=		=Critics of the Cybernetic Model=
	Although ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems have considerably eased the way data is collected and analyzed, particularly in large organizations, one of the challenges of the cybernetic model remains its difficulty in comparing performance data to quantifiable and unambiguous standards, in a context that’s constantly ~~evolving~~. Cybernetic systems will potentially miss crucial information, with no capacity to think and act on something ~~they don’t~~ know about yet.		Although ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems have considerably eased the way data is collected and analyzed, particularly in large organizations, one of the challenges of the cybernetic model remains its difficulty in comparing performance data to quantifiable and unambiguous standards, in a context that’s constantly changing. Cybernetic systems will potentially miss crucial information, with no capacity to think and act on something already in someone’s mind, but that the systems cannot know about yet.

	From the cybernetic perspective, performance measurement is essentially associated with controlling the achievement of organizational objectives and the implementation of the strategy. Performance measures are implicitly linked to the notion of diagnostic and control systems<ref>Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.</ref>, or formal feedback systems used to control what the organization produces and to correct deviations from a predefined performance standard<ref>Ibid, Hofstede, 1978</ref>.		From the cybernetic perspective, performance measurement is essentially associated with controlling the achievement of organizational objectives and the implementation of the strategy. Performance measures are implicitly linked to the notion of diagnostic and control systems<ref>Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.</ref>, or formal feedback systems used to control what the organization produces and to correct deviations from a predefined performance standard<ref>Ibid, Hofstede, 1978</ref>.

Flc: /* Human Limiting Factor */

2025-09-14T04:31:38Z

Human Limiting Factor

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 14 September 2025
Line 49:		Line 49:
	The cybernetic model can be seen as a better version of the traditional model, which supports top-down hierarchical decisions and the command-and-control model. It gives more space to individual communication, adaptation, feedback, and autonomy.		The cybernetic model can be seen as a better version of the traditional model, which supports top-down hierarchical decisions and the command-and-control model. It gives more space to individual communication, adaptation, feedback, and autonomy.

	Similarly to the control and command system and as we evidence with GRI's measures, forcing a system that’s fundamentally Low 2, High 4<ref>[[~~Performance_at_Heart~~ \|\| This terminology that relates to GRI profiles is introduced in this article]]</ref>, on people who are not and exhibit opposite profiles, will create frustration, result in disengagement over time, and actions which will be counterproductive for the organization. The same limitations came with the competency models that emerged at about the same period as cybernetics and failed to differentiate competencies from aspects of behaviors or mindsets that cannot be developed at will or through traditional technical training.		Similarly to the control and command system and as we evidence with GRI's measures, forcing a system that’s fundamentally Low 2, High 4<ref>[[Adaptive_Profile \|\| This terminology that relates to GRI profiles is introduced in this article]]</ref>, on people who are not and exhibit opposite profiles, will create frustration, result in disengagement over time, and actions which will be counterproductive for the organization. The same limitations came with the competency models that emerged at about the same period as cybernetics and failed to differentiate competencies from aspects of behaviors or mindsets that cannot be developed at will or through traditional technical training.

	Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations—think about sales or client service versus accounting—and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.		Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations—think about sales or client service versus accounting—and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.

Flc: /* The People Challenge */

2025-09-14T04:30:29Z

The People Challenge

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:30, 14 September 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:
	* Gives inappropriate guidance for assessing intangible values		* Gives inappropriate guidance for assessing intangible values

	=~~The People Challenge~~=		=Human Limiting Factor=
	The cybernetic model can be seen as a better version of the command and control model, with more space given to individual communication, adaptation, and autonomy. It, however, lacks the mechanisms needed in organizations made of educated employees, brought by the holistic model. Additionally, it ignores how people cope differently with norms, stress, autonomy, authority, reporting, decision making, communication, and more, all aspects that relate to psychology, and people's preferences and personality.

	As we evidence with GRI's measures, ~~enforcing~~ a system that’s fundamentally Low 2, High 4<ref>[[Performance_at_Heart \|\| This terminology that relates to GRI profiles is introduced in this article]]</ref>, on people who are not and exhibit opposite profiles, will create frustration ~~and~~ result in disengagement over time. The same limitations came with the competency models that emerged at about the same period as cybernetics. Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on ~~situations (think~~ about sales or client service versus ~~accounting) and~~ call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.		The cybernetic model can be seen as a better version of the traditional model, which supports top-down hierarchical decisions and the command-and-control model. It gives more space to individual communication, adaptation, feedback, and autonomy.

			Similarly to the control and command system and as we evidence with GRI's measures, forcing a system that’s fundamentally Low 2, High 4<ref>[[Performance_at_Heart \|\| This terminology that relates to GRI profiles is introduced in this article]]</ref>, on people who are not and exhibit opposite profiles, will create frustration, result in disengagement over time, and actions which will be counterproductive for the organization. The same limitations came with the competency models that emerged at about the same period as cybernetics and failed to differentiate competencies from aspects of behaviors or mindsets that cannot be developed at will or through traditional technical training.

			Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations—think about sales or client service versus accounting—and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.

	Over time, high 1 or low 4 ~~profiles~~, who can bring and lead radical innovation, will sooner or later feel constrained and leave the organization. Very and extremely High 2s, if misunderstood, will similarly prefer to bring their social skills outside the organization.		Over time, profiles that we measure at GRI with a high 1 or low 4, who can bring and lead radical innovation, will sooner or later feel constrained and leave the organization. Very and extremely High 2s, if misunderstood, will similarly prefer to bring their social skills outside the organization. Low 2s immersed in high 2 role will disengage over time, etc. The cases are varied and numerous that cannot be envisioned, accounted for, or managed with the cybernetic models, and can easily create inefficiency and underperformance.

	=References=		=References=

Flc: /* The People Challenge */

2025-09-14T03:57:34Z

The People Challenge

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:57, 14 September 2025
Line 46:		Line 46:

	=The People Challenge=		=The People Challenge=
	The cybernetic model can be seen as a better version of the command and control model, with more space given to individual communication, adaptation, and autonomy. It, however, lacks the mechanisms needed in organizations made of educated employees, brought by the ~~cybernetic~~ model. Additionally, it ignores how people cope differently with norms, stress, autonomy, authority, reporting, decision making, communication, and more, all aspects that relate to psychology, and people's preferences and personality.		The cybernetic model can be seen as a better version of the command and control model, with more space given to individual communication, adaptation, and autonomy. It, however, lacks the mechanisms needed in organizations made of educated employees, brought by the holistic model. Additionally, it ignores how people cope differently with norms, stress, autonomy, authority, reporting, decision making, communication, and more, all aspects that relate to psychology, and people's preferences and personality.

	As we evidence with GRI's measures, enforcing a system that’s fundamentally Low 2, High 4<ref>[[Performance_at_Heart \|\| This terminology that relates to GRI profiles is introduced in this article]]</ref>, on people who are not and exhibit opposite profiles, will create frustration and result in disengagement over time. The same limitations came with the competency models that emerged at about the same period as cybernetics. Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations (think about sales or client service versus accounting) and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.		As we evidence with GRI's measures, enforcing a system that’s fundamentally Low 2, High 4<ref>[[Performance_at_Heart \|\| This terminology that relates to GRI profiles is introduced in this article]]</ref>, on people who are not and exhibit opposite profiles, will create frustration and result in disengagement over time. The same limitations came with the competency models that emerged at about the same period as cybernetics. Additionally, roles, including leadership roles, may considerably vary depending on situations (think about sales or client service versus accounting) and call for adaptations that, over time, may be beyond someone’s comfort zone and unique capabilities to perform.

Flc: /* Limiting Factors */

2025-09-13T17:30:51Z

Limiting Factors

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 13 September 2025
Line 28:		Line 28:

	=Limiting Factors=		=Limiting Factors=
	The cybernetic models ~~worked~~ well for the industrial age, but they ~~look~~ out of step with the talents, skills~~, and engagement in the job~~ that companies are trying to develop<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard -Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-79.</ref>. Several factors have been summarized that show the limit of the cybernetic process to respond to change<ref>Hage, J. (1980). Theories of transformation: form, process and transformation. New York, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</ref>:		The cybernetic models work well for the industrial age, but they are out of step by reducing human behavior to a mechanistic input-output loop, and with the talents and skills of knowledge workers that companies are trying to develop<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard -Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-79.</ref>. Several factors have been summarized that show the limit of the cybernetic process to respond to change<ref>Hage, J. (1980). Theories of transformation: form, process and transformation. New York, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</ref>:
	* Lack of resources to obtain information in quantity and quality		* Lack of resources to obtain information in quantity and quality
	* Institutionalization of past successes, which inhibits the perception of necessary transformations		* Institutionalization of past successes, which inhibits the perception of necessary transformations

Flc: /* Critics of the Cybernetic Model */

2025-09-13T17:28:44Z

Critics of the Cybernetic Model

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 13 September 2025
Line 15:		Line 15:

	=Critics of the Cybernetic Model=		=Critics of the Cybernetic Model=
	Although ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems have considerably eased the way data is collected and analyzed, particularly in large organizations, one of the challenges of the cybernetic model remains its difficulty in comparing performance data to quantifiable and unambiguous standards.~~<ref>Ibid~~, ~~Hofstede, 1978</ref>~~ From the cybernetic perspective, performance measurement is essentially associated with controlling the achievement of organizational objectives and the implementation of the strategy. Performance measures are implicitly linked to the notion of diagnostic and control systems<ref>Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, Harvard Business ~~Schol~~ Press.</ref>, or formal feedback systems used to control what the organization produces and to correct deviations from a predefined performance standard.		Although ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems have considerably eased the way data is collected and analyzed, particularly in large organizations, one of the challenges of the cybernetic model remains its difficulty in comparing performance data to quantifiable and unambiguous standards, in a context that’s constantly evolving. Cybernetic systems will potentially miss crucial information, with no capacity to think and act on something they don’t know about yet.

			From the cybernetic perspective, performance measurement is essentially associated with controlling the achievement of organizational objectives and the implementation of the strategy. Performance measures are implicitly linked to the notion of diagnostic and control systems<ref>Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.</ref>, or formal feedback systems used to control what the organization produces and to correct deviations from a predefined performance standard<ref>Ibid, Hofstede, 1978</ref>.

	Financial information is associated with traditional planning and control cycles<ref>Nanni, A; J., Dixon, R., Vollmann, T. E. (1992). Integrated performance measurement: management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 4, pp. 1-19.</ref>. In traditional management control systems, resources are totally focused on the management of accounting information<ref>Johnson, H. T., Kaplan, R. (1987). Relevance lost: The rise and fall of management accounting. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.</ref>. Financial measures express the results of decisions in a comparable unit of measurement. They summarize the arbitration cost between resources as well as the cost of unused capacities<ref>Epstein, M. J., Manzoni, J.-F. (1997). The balanced scorecard and tableau de bord: translating strategy into action. Management Accounting, August, pp. 28-36.</ref>. Additionally, they are the measure for contractual relations and financial markets<ref>Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., Wells, R. B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 25-37.</ref>.		Financial information is associated with traditional planning and control cycles<ref>Nanni, A; J., Dixon, R., Vollmann, T. E. (1992). Integrated performance measurement: management accounting to support the new manufacturing realities. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 4, pp. 1-19.</ref>. In traditional management control systems, resources are totally focused on the management of accounting information<ref>Johnson, H. T., Kaplan, R. (1987). Relevance lost: The rise and fall of management accounting. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.</ref>. Financial measures express the results of decisions in a comparable unit of measurement. They summarize the arbitration cost between resources as well as the cost of unused capacities<ref>Epstein, M. J., Manzoni, J.-F. (1997). The balanced scorecard and tableau de bord: translating strategy into action. Management Accounting, August, pp. 28-36.</ref>. Additionally, they are the measure for contractual relations and financial markets<ref>Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., Wells, R. B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 25-37.</ref>.