Reply to comment

I agreed to take notes on the brainstorming that occured when Liz invited us to look @ images of flocks and pyramids. What might Bryn Mawr culture look like, if it were to sponsor risk-taking? How might we connect individual actions, values and behaviors, to create an institutional culture of risk-making? What is the scaleability of risk-taking? How does one move from the individual to the institutional level?

These were the attributes and behaviors that the images of pyramids evoked for us:
stolidity
labor
top down, hierarchical (but this depends on perspective/how you look @ it)
unchanging, static
supported
multi-facted/multi-sided
preserving histories
self-actualization: reaching the top/setting a goal
stubbornness
team work
reliance on the backbreaking labor of others
made of inorganic, non-living stuff
a quilt
distinct, well bounded
identical individual units, not distinguishable
impenetrable
spectacular
monumental
an achievement
a lot of work went into making the pyramids,
but we only see the product, not the process
the pyramids were built to celebrate a life, not the lives of workers
the uniqueness of the creators are not visible
static
unmoveable

What are the connections between the individual and institutional levels in this model?
they are less visible
the institution exists as an assembly of individuals
the structure is only (nothing more, nothing different from)
an ordered assembly of individuals:
the attributes of the structure emerge from the grouping of the individuals,
but the structure is not a copy of the individuals; it is a distinct shape
attributes are tied only to the assembly, not to the individual units,
which are all the same
there are hierarchical distinctions among the parts, but all are needed

there may be lots of flaws among the individuals; none are perfect
if a few blocks were removed? we would call this deferred maintenance

this structure has a formalistic quality
instructions led to the construction of the pyramid:
it had a model, a formal organized intention
it was a priori, a "dictator" model
there is an inherent limit to the plan; it has boundaries,
beyond which it cannot be built

individual self-definitions are highly shaped by where they are in the pyramid
there would be protection of individual positions in the structure
individuality comes from a sense of location, and
those locations are not interchangeable
we don't want the blocks innovating
the shape of the pyramid is not inevitable,
but it would be a monumental task to get everyone to change
one couldn't make every block buy into change, but could make every block make a change

These were the attributes and behaviors that the flocks of starlings evoked for us:
how get emergent behavior from a collective system like this one?
this is an active area of research now:
it doesn't happen just by responding to one's nearest neighbor;
there are long range interactions and sharp boundaries

the attributes and behaviors are
unpredictable and mysterious
the purpose is not apparent; it's puzzling

organic, dynamic, living, changing, responsive
integration of labor and product: no hidden factors
corporate, interdependent
space
no clear hierarchy, no leader (?)
diffuse, bounded, not symmetrical
controlled randomness
variable density

the structure is not symbolic: its coming about it what it is
it is built of a collection of individuals;
like the pyramid, it is only an ordered assembly
the individual is not distinct, as it is in the pyramid;
the loss of individuality is not as evident

it is innovative (?): every moment it takes a different shape
it is a reaction to exterior environment
it's not clear why the direction changes
it can change size without adding or subtracting individuals
what causes the majority of the birds to clump? where are the rebels?

What are the implications of our observations?
What have been our experiences of leadership in each model at BMC?
we might think of this as "steering vs. rowing," a contrast between a leader w/ an a priori plan, who tells others what to do ("form comes first") and an emergent process, responsive to internal motions and external threats (is a leader needed?)

do the different models serve different purposes and roles?
are we describing behaviors (actions, reactions), not people?

the shared point here is simple: all behaviors could occur without design, in the absence of difference among individuals, and without the individuals having conscious objectives

an interactive organization acquires form and behaves "purposefully"
no bird has a sense of collective action
collective behavior is not instantiated in individuals
there is no personified leader, but individual actions lead to group activity
there is a leadership process, without an objective

is there an evolutionary purpose to flocking (defending, feeding)?
do the birds have agency? is this about instinct or free will?
there are consequences for the birds that break formation
all elements are capable of moving, but doing so will increase their vulnerability
there are advantages to being in formation, but the birds, who possess the "agency of belonging," don't have a perception of this
they are not computer cubits: this is an advantage and a disadvantage
the analogy is to individuals who have a stake in the collective outcome
they have freedom, yet there is a collective agreement to respond to danger
compare this structure to BMC's attitude of defense

But there is freedom in being part of the pyramid!
when everything stays as it is,
individuals can rely on the institution to stay in shape
the starlings have to be constantly aware:
this is a burden, not liberation!

individual and institutional innovation are not the same thing
there are advantages in safe spaces
but classrooms are in the service of institution,
which is in competition w/ other institutions
we have to think about our role in the larger structure

Members of the BMC community can't flock, or respond this flexibly to danger
our structure is incredibly flat, not hierarchical, more like an obelisk

a germane question is what accepted practices @ BMC
inhibit individual variation and innovation
there is a predator/prey relation between falcons and birds
the models of pyramids and flocks are the inverse of each other


Liz doesn't have a prefered model;
perhaps attributes from each can be combined
she offered them as comparisons to illustrate how complex it is to
say we "need something different"; somethings need to be preserved

do we prefer distributed leadership?
what about other models?
(an onion? a coach and team? a feedback network?)