What do you think?
Rate this book
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT: How Our Blindness to Context Cripples Even the Smartest Organizations
Barry Oshry explains the problem with organizational structures in this dialogue between two consultants about a change initiative. Using the author's pioneering work on Power and Love in organizations, this is a guide to Systems Thinking for team leaders, trainers, HR people, managers and chief execs. In Context Context Context Barry Oshry draws on a lifetime's experience to explain the nature of the problem with our organizational structures... and the ways in which we can dissolve the problem. The book is written in a simple briefing conversation between a recently hired team member (HE) and the Chief Contextual Thinker (SHE) for a Business Consultancy firm. They discuss the change initiative they are running for a key client. The conversational format allows Oshry to introduce all the relevant theory clearly and in sequence and allows him to address questions and misunderstandings as they arise. The result is a guide to Systems Thinking for Organizations that's as short, clever, engaging, bright and helpful as any business book you will ever have picked up. Do read it. Get it into the hands of teams and team leaders, trainers, HR people, senior managers and chief executives. Read it in a day. Transform your understanding of people in organizations for ever.
187 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 3, 2018
10 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 11, 2019
'Context ...' can be read as a sequel or an addendum to 'Seeing Systems' (2007). Oshry continues to build on the ideas that he introduced in the earlier book. Barry Oshry sees every organization (including families and civic associations of all kinds) as consisting of three spheres: Tops, Middles and Bottoms.
These labels refer to different things:
1) 'contexts' (i.e. conditions that elicit certain behaviors),
2) individuals experiencing those contexts, and
3) groups of individuals that share these contexts and fulfil particular functions in organizations (i.e. subsystems).
For instance, 'a Top' is a person that functions in a context of 'topness', i.e. a setting that is characterized by complexity and accountability. As a group, Tops are 'systems shapers': they guide the organization, develop strategies, create opportunities. Similarly, Bottoms are System Workers, and Middles are System Integrators. There is a fourth 'sphere' that does not formally belong to the organization but has a close relationship with it: Customer. Customers are System Validators. They validate the system by giving it feedback.
Typically as a subsystem, these groups are exposed to different sets of forces. Oshry proposes four archetypal forces:
_Individuation: leads units to operate independently from one another;
_Integration: leads parts to function together as interdependent components of a larger whole;
_Differentiation: leads parts of a system to take up specialized functions;
_Homogenization: leads parts to maintain their commonality with one another.
It is not easy to keep these forces apart. Particularly the duplets Individuation and Differentiation (the Power forces), and Integration and Homogenization (the Love forces) seems to be closely related. I think it helps to think about Individuation and Homogenization as forces that operate in the psychological realm (leading to different emotions and behaviours), and Integration and Differentation as drivers that impact on how organizations work (leading to distinct functional processes).
For instance, a highly integrated subsystem that features a low level of individuation may work efficiently but will feel stifling. A highly differentiated system with no homogenization will be active on many different fronts but will not feel like a single entity (as a result, communication between the differentiated units may start to wane which will lead to individuation).
Systems vary in the balance of these processes and the intensity and mindfulness with which they are expressed. Roughly half of the book is devoted to exploring the pathological unbalances that are characteristic for Tops, Middles and Bottoms.
Again, by way of example: the problem with Top systems is that they fall into a pattern in which differentiation and individuation predominate. So too much Power, not enough Love. Tops do this as a natural adaptive response: there is complexity, so they adjust by carving up that complexity. Quite naturally, given time and mind constraints, differentiation leads to individuation. The result is turf warfare. So, Tops need to be particularly mindful of these tendencies and be careful to bring Integration and Homogenization into play to offset this drift to unhelpful territoriality. Oshry suggests that Tops spend time to create powerful shared visions, to become coaches to one another, to spend time walking into each other's shoes.
Similar, but different unbalances manifest themselves in Middle and Bottom subsystems. In short: Middles tend to individuate and isolate themselves (neither Power nor Love). In a Bottom system, Love trumps Power. So certain forces dominate, and others need to be brought mindfully into play to offset these attractors.
Oshry's key point is that insight into these forces contributes to systems literacy, and systems literacy brings awareness, and with awareness comes choice. Oshry believes in the empowering potential of these systems ideas. But he's careful to stress that they don't offer a foolproof roadmap to better performing and more nourishing organizations. Which is good as we can safely assume that these maps do not exist. These are ideas that, in my view, offer a useful set of heuristics to diagnose organizational pathologies. But they need to be complemented with other frameworks (such as Stafford Beer's Viable System Model, for instance) and context-sensitive analysis of the strategic horizon against which the organization is operating (there is enormous complexity embedded in the Customer sphere which Oshry doesn't dwell on).
I should finally add that readers should be forewarned that this book, as others by the same author, is composed in a rather idiosyncratic style which may not suit all readers. Here it takes the form of a dialogue between two 'consultants' (a senior 'she' and a junior 'he') who are discussing a fictitious but illustrative case to showcase these ideas.
These labels refer to different things:
1) 'contexts' (i.e. conditions that elicit certain behaviors),
2) individuals experiencing those contexts, and
3) groups of individuals that share these contexts and fulfil particular functions in organizations (i.e. subsystems).
For instance, 'a Top' is a person that functions in a context of 'topness', i.e. a setting that is characterized by complexity and accountability. As a group, Tops are 'systems shapers': they guide the organization, develop strategies, create opportunities. Similarly, Bottoms are System Workers, and Middles are System Integrators. There is a fourth 'sphere' that does not formally belong to the organization but has a close relationship with it: Customer. Customers are System Validators. They validate the system by giving it feedback.
Typically as a subsystem, these groups are exposed to different sets of forces. Oshry proposes four archetypal forces:
_Individuation: leads units to operate independently from one another;
_Integration: leads parts to function together as interdependent components of a larger whole;
_Differentiation: leads parts of a system to take up specialized functions;
_Homogenization: leads parts to maintain their commonality with one another.
It is not easy to keep these forces apart. Particularly the duplets Individuation and Differentiation (the Power forces), and Integration and Homogenization (the Love forces) seems to be closely related. I think it helps to think about Individuation and Homogenization as forces that operate in the psychological realm (leading to different emotions and behaviours), and Integration and Differentation as drivers that impact on how organizations work (leading to distinct functional processes).
For instance, a highly integrated subsystem that features a low level of individuation may work efficiently but will feel stifling. A highly differentiated system with no homogenization will be active on many different fronts but will not feel like a single entity (as a result, communication between the differentiated units may start to wane which will lead to individuation).
Systems vary in the balance of these processes and the intensity and mindfulness with which they are expressed. Roughly half of the book is devoted to exploring the pathological unbalances that are characteristic for Tops, Middles and Bottoms.
Again, by way of example: the problem with Top systems is that they fall into a pattern in which differentiation and individuation predominate. So too much Power, not enough Love. Tops do this as a natural adaptive response: there is complexity, so they adjust by carving up that complexity. Quite naturally, given time and mind constraints, differentiation leads to individuation. The result is turf warfare. So, Tops need to be particularly mindful of these tendencies and be careful to bring Integration and Homogenization into play to offset this drift to unhelpful territoriality. Oshry suggests that Tops spend time to create powerful shared visions, to become coaches to one another, to spend time walking into each other's shoes.
Similar, but different unbalances manifest themselves in Middle and Bottom subsystems. In short: Middles tend to individuate and isolate themselves (neither Power nor Love). In a Bottom system, Love trumps Power. So certain forces dominate, and others need to be brought mindfully into play to offset these attractors.
Oshry's key point is that insight into these forces contributes to systems literacy, and systems literacy brings awareness, and with awareness comes choice. Oshry believes in the empowering potential of these systems ideas. But he's careful to stress that they don't offer a foolproof roadmap to better performing and more nourishing organizations. Which is good as we can safely assume that these maps do not exist. These are ideas that, in my view, offer a useful set of heuristics to diagnose organizational pathologies. But they need to be complemented with other frameworks (such as Stafford Beer's Viable System Model, for instance) and context-sensitive analysis of the strategic horizon against which the organization is operating (there is enormous complexity embedded in the Customer sphere which Oshry doesn't dwell on).
I should finally add that readers should be forewarned that this book, as others by the same author, is composed in a rather idiosyncratic style which may not suit all readers. Here it takes the form of a dialogue between two 'consultants' (a senior 'she' and a junior 'he') who are discussing a fictitious but illustrative case to showcase these ideas.
December 13, 2018
Systems thinking for organizations. All whole organic systems individuate, integrate, differentiate, and homogenize. Systems vary in the balance of these processes and the intensity and mindfulness with which they are expressed. Robust systems are systems whose energy comes from the zestful expression of all four processes. Systems express their Power potential by mindfully and zestfully individuating and differentiating. Systems express their Love potential by mindfully and zestfully integrating and homogenizing. And most importantly: All systems – Top, Middle, Bottom – have the potential for being Robust systems, systems of Power and Love. Wait... what?
The book gives quite interesting theory on the dynamics of three levels of organization (shapers, integrators and contributors) and the role of its customer. How each level falls into a series of negative feedback loops, what can bring out from such stage is awareness and optimal choice in context of the system as a whole and maximizing the overall positive impact. The suggested solutions made sense but were not presented in a very interesting/engaging way in my opinion...
TOP's are dealing with complexity and uncertainty and get overwhelmed by the complexity. The more complex their world, the more they suck it up, which increases complexity and creates a downward spiral. Tops in their differentiated/individuated territories tend to create territorial silos throughout the system resulting in the build-up of redundant and costly resources, conflicting and confusing messages being sent through the system, system members torn by conflicting loyalties, important information getting lost in the cracks, loss of potential cross-system synergies, and the Top territoriality reinforcing the dis-integration of the middle of the organization.
TOP's have to create responsibility in others instead. Tops become coaches to one another. Top meetings should become settings for mutual coaching, a structured process in which Tops take turns laying out where they are on the projects they’re dealing with, what they’re attempting to accomplish, and the issues they’re facing. Then they get focused coaching from the other Tops. The purpose of the coaching is to move one another ahead. Through mutual coaching, Tops gain a deep understanding of and appreciation for one another’s worlds. They gain expert input from other Tops, they experience connectedness and mutual support, and they’re strengthened in their own work while becoming committed to the success of other Tops.
WORKERS will fall into the Top/Bottom Dance of Blind Reflex, where they reflexively hold higher-ups responsible for their condition and for the condition of the system. They say “It’s their responsibility, not ours, to fix these problems.” This reinforces the tendency of TOP's to already take more ownership and responsibility. Workers should take ownership of their condition and the condition of the system.
MIDDLES will be torn between tops and workers and distance themselves from each other without any agenda on their own (cease to be integrators). Since middles see the entire system they should maintain their independence and cooperate with other middles to integrate the system.
That robust Integration – sharing information, diagnosing system issues, sharing best practices – all of that strengthens Individuation, so when Middles move back out, they are more informed, better connected, they have a better sense of the whole system, and they may have better solutions to problems they face. They are simply more secure and more capable of providing whatever services they should be providing.
CUSTOMER tends to fall into blaming the supplier and holding them responsible for all issues. Instead customer should work in partnership with the supplier, to share responsibility for delivery and stay connected to the delivery process to help it work for him.
The book gives quite interesting theory on the dynamics of three levels of organization (shapers, integrators and contributors) and the role of its customer. How each level falls into a series of negative feedback loops, what can bring out from such stage is awareness and optimal choice in context of the system as a whole and maximizing the overall positive impact. The suggested solutions made sense but were not presented in a very interesting/engaging way in my opinion...
TOP's are dealing with complexity and uncertainty and get overwhelmed by the complexity. The more complex their world, the more they suck it up, which increases complexity and creates a downward spiral. Tops in their differentiated/individuated territories tend to create territorial silos throughout the system resulting in the build-up of redundant and costly resources, conflicting and confusing messages being sent through the system, system members torn by conflicting loyalties, important information getting lost in the cracks, loss of potential cross-system synergies, and the Top territoriality reinforcing the dis-integration of the middle of the organization.
TOP's have to create responsibility in others instead. Tops become coaches to one another. Top meetings should become settings for mutual coaching, a structured process in which Tops take turns laying out where they are on the projects they’re dealing with, what they’re attempting to accomplish, and the issues they’re facing. Then they get focused coaching from the other Tops. The purpose of the coaching is to move one another ahead. Through mutual coaching, Tops gain a deep understanding of and appreciation for one another’s worlds. They gain expert input from other Tops, they experience connectedness and mutual support, and they’re strengthened in their own work while becoming committed to the success of other Tops.
WORKERS will fall into the Top/Bottom Dance of Blind Reflex, where they reflexively hold higher-ups responsible for their condition and for the condition of the system. They say “It’s their responsibility, not ours, to fix these problems.” This reinforces the tendency of TOP's to already take more ownership and responsibility. Workers should take ownership of their condition and the condition of the system.
MIDDLES will be torn between tops and workers and distance themselves from each other without any agenda on their own (cease to be integrators). Since middles see the entire system they should maintain their independence and cooperate with other middles to integrate the system.
That robust Integration – sharing information, diagnosing system issues, sharing best practices – all of that strengthens Individuation, so when Middles move back out, they are more informed, better connected, they have a better sense of the whole system, and they may have better solutions to problems they face. They are simply more secure and more capable of providing whatever services they should be providing.
CUSTOMER tends to fall into blaming the supplier and holding them responsible for all issues. Instead customer should work in partnership with the supplier, to share responsibility for delivery and stay connected to the delivery process to help it work for him.
September 10, 2024
If anyone is interested in this book I recommend reading some of the other reviews here which provide a thorough summary of the book's arguments and premise. I'm not sure I am going to do that here and more reflect on my observations on the book, the model and where my thoughts were taking me. It's a book with thought provoking ideas, but after reading I didn't find it transformative and rather felt it didn't appropriately address complexity and power as much as it thinks it does.
The book is written as a conversation between a consultant and a new hire outlining how organisations are structured, what problems present themselves and ways to raise awareness as to what is happening. It makes it a quick read, and sometimes tricky concepts are presented quite well. I really liked how images were used also. What made me smile was reading this I felt I didn't 'like' the two people in conversation, almost as if I detected a smugness about them. It's funny what we notice? And I guess this leads me to my key observation - that when observing any system one has to look at the mental models of the observer too. Quite often I felt Oshry's mental models were presented and I had to balance them against my own - that created some tensions from me as a reader, observer and reflector.
Oshry suggests that every system (and remember a system is whatever we can draw a boundary around) composes of three parts - a Top, Middle or Bottom and these parts form the whole and the way they integrate is what impacts the effectiveness of the system. It's important to note that that Oshry is keen to state that these roles are not necessarily hierarchical (although his naming conventions explicitly suggest this). Furthermore he recognises that in certain contexts one can be a Top, Middle or Bottom in different systems (and again this is dependent on where one draws their boundary of a system - this book is aimed at organisations, but within large organisations there could be boundaries around team or service level).
It's clear Oshry is influenced by Stafford Beer and when he uses his 'system' language the model makes more sense - Tops being System Shapers, Middles being Integrators and Bottoms being Producers. It's hard for me not to adapt Beer here and think in terms of Brain and visioning, co-ordinating activity and delivery of purpose or activity. Where this helps me is that I can envision this model as functions, whereas Oshry attaches them to people in hierarchical language.
(this led to significant challenge to me because I read much of the book as 'try and understand the tops and middles and feel sorry for them and bottoms just need to pick themselves up when the tops and middles do bad things to them!)
Indeed, the perspective on the 'Workers' or 'Bottoms' I felt quite insulting. If one follows his logic through it suggests that a limiting factor for organisations is collectivisation and unionisation, that the 'producers' (aka the lowest paid and those without hierarchical power) are disadvantaged by their collectivisation. He makes a valid argument that the ability for Bottoms to diversify, learn, train etc. is essential, but fails to address the power dynamic that in large organisations this kind of behaviour is stamped out. Progressive organisations are moving away from this, but in Oshry's analysis, whilst he diagnoses a solution he doesn't really address where in systems this can change, where the levers are.
I couldn't help but read this in the language of the 'self help' industry and 'when bad shit happens to you, it's your response that matters' - telling the powerless and those without privilege and resources that they're the problem. In my notes reading this I wrote 'victim blaming'. I'm sure another read and reflection may lessen my thoughts but nevertheless I needed more here.
I do like the concepts of Individuation (doing your own thing independently), Differentiation (doing things differently, diversifying and specialising), Homogenisation (coming together, standardising, becoming whole) and Integration (collaborating and working together). As concepts they work well when looking at things through a systems lens. It's something I reflect on often - where do you create space for creativity and independence and autonomy and where is doing things 'this way' the best option. I did think his analysis of 'tops' and how they create silo's and how instead of working together they create empires particularly astute, and I did like the exploration of 'Middles'. I'm of the view that organisations no longer need hierarchical tops, middles and bottoms - but instead of management we need co-ordination structures. I'm also aware that the functions of strategy, co-ordination and activity can all exist in networked, non-hierarchical structures and no longer need people paid more to do the thinking.
The concepts of 'Power and Love' in here are good concepts drawing on the work of Adam Kahane. I think I want to read more here. It ties in to some of my thoughts about justice in how work / organisations / worthwhile activity is designed. I loved the notions of where we need more Power and where we need more Love. Oshry's position is broadly the Tops use to much Power and not enough Love, the Bottoms use to much Love and not enough Power and the Middles do not use enough of either.
It's a short read, and although I have pushed back on some elements I think that is because of where my thinking is at. Many of the concepts are useful here. The book doesn't tell you what to do, but it certainly makes you think. In my own role I can think of a project where there are elements of Top, Middle and Bottoms at play and I am thinking about how I can influence and leverage these dynamics into a more effective future whilst mitigating the harm the behaviour of (mostly Tops) causes.
The book is written as a conversation between a consultant and a new hire outlining how organisations are structured, what problems present themselves and ways to raise awareness as to what is happening. It makes it a quick read, and sometimes tricky concepts are presented quite well. I really liked how images were used also. What made me smile was reading this I felt I didn't 'like' the two people in conversation, almost as if I detected a smugness about them. It's funny what we notice? And I guess this leads me to my key observation - that when observing any system one has to look at the mental models of the observer too. Quite often I felt Oshry's mental models were presented and I had to balance them against my own - that created some tensions from me as a reader, observer and reflector.
Oshry suggests that every system (and remember a system is whatever we can draw a boundary around) composes of three parts - a Top, Middle or Bottom and these parts form the whole and the way they integrate is what impacts the effectiveness of the system. It's important to note that that Oshry is keen to state that these roles are not necessarily hierarchical (although his naming conventions explicitly suggest this). Furthermore he recognises that in certain contexts one can be a Top, Middle or Bottom in different systems (and again this is dependent on where one draws their boundary of a system - this book is aimed at organisations, but within large organisations there could be boundaries around team or service level).
It's clear Oshry is influenced by Stafford Beer and when he uses his 'system' language the model makes more sense - Tops being System Shapers, Middles being Integrators and Bottoms being Producers. It's hard for me not to adapt Beer here and think in terms of Brain and visioning, co-ordinating activity and delivery of purpose or activity. Where this helps me is that I can envision this model as functions, whereas Oshry attaches them to people in hierarchical language.
(this led to significant challenge to me because I read much of the book as 'try and understand the tops and middles and feel sorry for them and bottoms just need to pick themselves up when the tops and middles do bad things to them!)
Indeed, the perspective on the 'Workers' or 'Bottoms' I felt quite insulting. If one follows his logic through it suggests that a limiting factor for organisations is collectivisation and unionisation, that the 'producers' (aka the lowest paid and those without hierarchical power) are disadvantaged by their collectivisation. He makes a valid argument that the ability for Bottoms to diversify, learn, train etc. is essential, but fails to address the power dynamic that in large organisations this kind of behaviour is stamped out. Progressive organisations are moving away from this, but in Oshry's analysis, whilst he diagnoses a solution he doesn't really address where in systems this can change, where the levers are.
I couldn't help but read this in the language of the 'self help' industry and 'when bad shit happens to you, it's your response that matters' - telling the powerless and those without privilege and resources that they're the problem. In my notes reading this I wrote 'victim blaming'. I'm sure another read and reflection may lessen my thoughts but nevertheless I needed more here.
I do like the concepts of Individuation (doing your own thing independently), Differentiation (doing things differently, diversifying and specialising), Homogenisation (coming together, standardising, becoming whole) and Integration (collaborating and working together). As concepts they work well when looking at things through a systems lens. It's something I reflect on often - where do you create space for creativity and independence and autonomy and where is doing things 'this way' the best option. I did think his analysis of 'tops' and how they create silo's and how instead of working together they create empires particularly astute, and I did like the exploration of 'Middles'. I'm of the view that organisations no longer need hierarchical tops, middles and bottoms - but instead of management we need co-ordination structures. I'm also aware that the functions of strategy, co-ordination and activity can all exist in networked, non-hierarchical structures and no longer need people paid more to do the thinking.
The concepts of 'Power and Love' in here are good concepts drawing on the work of Adam Kahane. I think I want to read more here. It ties in to some of my thoughts about justice in how work / organisations / worthwhile activity is designed. I loved the notions of where we need more Power and where we need more Love. Oshry's position is broadly the Tops use to much Power and not enough Love, the Bottoms use to much Love and not enough Power and the Middles do not use enough of either.
It's a short read, and although I have pushed back on some elements I think that is because of where my thinking is at. Many of the concepts are useful here. The book doesn't tell you what to do, but it certainly makes you think. In my own role I can think of a project where there are elements of Top, Middle and Bottoms at play and I am thinking about how I can influence and leverage these dynamics into a more effective future whilst mitigating the harm the behaviour of (mostly Tops) causes.
January 2, 2019
Interesting framework pithily explained
A good read for anyone interested in organizational dynamics. I’m a little torn on how accessible the message would be for a wider audience, who might benefit from the framework. Interesting story based approach, but it feels like lots of relevant detail is left out to explain further “the how”
A good read for anyone interested in organizational dynamics. I’m a little torn on how accessible the message would be for a wider audience, who might benefit from the framework. Interesting story based approach, but it feels like lots of relevant detail is left out to explain further “the how”
Want to read
March 15, 20231035- 9
May 24, 2019
Beautifully written, dialogue format, accessible and Thought provoking. I finished this book as I started working with a new system and it helped me see the different worlds and organizational contexts at play.
Oshry integrates Kahane’s work on Power & Love, also a timely read. I highly recommend this book - whether you are an organizational practitioner, designer, or someone who wants to see through system blindness and connect to the context you are in here and now.
Personally, the work of Power & Systems has changed my life - brought me to the tension of awareness, challenging the blind reflexes and reactions we can have in response to the stuff that happens on a daily.
Oshry integrates Kahane’s work on Power & Love, also a timely read. I highly recommend this book - whether you are an organizational practitioner, designer, or someone who wants to see through system blindness and connect to the context you are in here and now.
Personally, the work of Power & Systems has changed my life - brought me to the tension of awareness, challenging the blind reflexes and reactions we can have in response to the stuff that happens on a daily.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews