Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Complexity of Negotiation and Negotiation of Complexity Getting to trust

Qeis Kamran, BA, MBA-GM, MBA-PPM


Kamran Management GmbH Pfraundorfer Weg 33 83026 Rosenheim, Germany Phone: +49-17666814739 email: qeiskamran@aol.com, qkamranmba@googlemail.com Ph.D Scholar University of Latvia and University of Applied Sciences Kufstein Ausrtia

Abstract
Negotiation is back and forth communication. [1, p. 279]. Communication is ubiquitous, we communicate even if we do not want to or do not intend to communicate. Thus communication is unavoidable, so why not communicate successfully and achieve the managerial objective. We negotiate not only with other individuals on daily basis, but we negotiate with ourselves as well, should I?, or should I not? How will it benefit me? Should I eat that ice cream? Hmm, only if I promise to run 10 minutes longer tomorrow., Should I ask her for date? What if she says no.? What do I have to loose, if she says no, I will be still at the same position as I am today But negotiation is more complex than that. We can also observe negotiation as managing complexity. However, complexity is more than the buzzword understanding and usage of it in our common language and observation. To reduce the complexity of complexity, the author suggests the following description and hypothesis: Complexity is an adoptive-, self-organizing-, emergent-, unpredictable (and complex system (s)s or) agent (s)s number of possible states, parts, behaviours, interactions, variables, varieties, and choices, which need to be attenuated, absorbed and observed for the system to be under control or for the objective to be of mutual satisfactory result between the agent agents interaction, agent machines interaction or agent and environments interaction. In negotiation, information is critical. Agents (managers) often have information they do not need and want; they get information that they do not need, but above all information they want is information they do not need. The challenge is to obtain information that an agent actually needs and they are more than he wants to pay for or the situation he will be in, if he tries to obtain them, thus obtaining information is giving information. [2. p. 229] Interaction of any form is communication; only through communication control1 is maintained, executed and possible. Knowing The Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) [3. p. 97] of one selfs and/ or an opposed agents may reduce a vast amount of variety2 for the negotiation system, thus it requires precise assumptions, which also must have the capacity to be questioned as assumptions for computing the best alternative possible. However, negotiation is about a win-win game and agents are better served if their interaction is about increasing their number of choices mutually for better agreements and results.
1 2

Used as a cybernetic term, means; navigating and steering an organization Used as a cybernetic term, means; number of possible states for a system to be under control.

Purpose- The purpose of the author is to underpin and substantiate the claim that in order to navigate organizations for success and survival, we must negotiate since we manage and control through communication and communication requires negotiation. Findings- Negotiation is a complex but necessary task. Agents, mangers, politicians and mediators must negotiate for survival and control. There are some essential, critical and necessary steps and information, which bring agents in a situation of absorbed complexity. These steps are trust, computing and relaying on environmental regularity and all agents BATNA. The author would apply these methods to test them in one of his managerial tasks as an entrepreneur, how these findings can be put as a best practice for managers. Originality/value- There is almost no Ivey League University in the Western world, which does not offer a program for successful negotiation. This research from a cybernetic and systemic lens is among the very dynamic and fresh approach to negotiation Key terms- Complexity, negotiation, cybernetics, agents and trust Science has explored the microcosmos and the macrocosmos; we have a good sense of the lay of the land. The great unexplored frontier is complexity. Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason

Introduction The title of the paper in itself establishes the link that managerial objectives are complex issues and must be negotiated and bargained via complex steps and alternatives. Many authors and institutes have applied behavioural, psychological, diplomatical, militarilial (threat) and legal insights and sciences to achieve the best possible outcome in a negotiation. However, as the complexity and conflicts of the current era increase additional sciences and insights need to be introduced to the field of professional negotiation to give the manager of today and tomorrow a viable and applicable method and understanding to succeed. This highly effective and much promising but forgotten science is called; the science of cybernetics. Cybernetics or the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine (Wiener, 1948) was introduced and coined by its founder Norbert Wiener one of the most influential MIT mathematician. In contrary to the reductionist trained view of our world the science of cybernetics is holistic. In managing business affaires marketers vary between four to eight Ps3 of marketing to position and to push their products, administrators of business have their four Ms to get their task accomplished. These Ms are: Men Materials Machinery Money5

The world of business administration4 has been busy with easy calculable phenomenon.

This, to some extend very world of calculable metaphors, compartmentalization and the so called resources allocation on which the system of business administration and its productivity relies has only functioned through the lenses of reductionism6 or the dismantlement of the worlds systems, organizations and organisms to understand and manage them due to us being blessed with the times of continuity and operating in environment of calculability and predictability. Above all our basic definition of organizational success has been defined based
3

The Ps in marketing are: Products, Price policy, place, promotion, positioning, packaging, planning and people 4 Business Administration and management are not the same (see also Malik, (Management), 2007, p. 22) 5 Beer, (Heart),1979-1994, p.31 6 Reductionism according to (Carnap, 1928/1967, p. 6) is; An object (or concept) is said to be reducible to one or more objects if all statements about it can be transformed into statements about these other objects.

on reductionistic short-sightedness, quick outcome and gain, and false doctrine and business model called the shareholder value [4, p.9]. The spectrum of a Multinational Corporations (MNC) success, the prominence of the monetarist manager [5, p.2] and fitness as large as a business even countrys economy is defined in quarterly compartments backwards. Our whole financial economy is based on unethical (Dianu, Vranceanu, 2005, false (Beattie, 2009), exploitation (Frieden, Lake, 2000), easy made money (Norberg, 2009) and unreal economy (Zalloum, 199) instead of real productivity. Reductionism began with Descartes, Galileo, Newton, and Laplace and has continued its 353 year reign. Although reductionistic physics is responsible for us understanding the world with its riches it still leaves us with limitations of having meaningless facts without values [6, p. 2). The paradigm the whole of science has had for the last 200 years has been based on reductionism. [7, p. 2] However, real problems (Beer, 2002), challenges, changes, turbulences (Ramirez, et al, 2008), wars, conflicts, and disruptions (Anthony, 2009) do not respect the disciplines and chunkization of academia, the departmentalization of fields in business schools and the separatistic character and nature of Galilean and Newtonian view of scientific declarations and methods. According to the latter, a manager dealing with managerial problems, an organization based in a turbulent environment, two or more parties (countries) negotiating to avoid a war and two couples in love are merely particles in space, time and motion. An economic system, a society, country and nation, our eco- system, the financial markets, a language, culture, an ideology and business enterprise can not be understood and managed by us reducing them to lower level entities and parts, since here we would need to dismantle a system, a living being (organism) or an organization. Biologists observe that, most of the human body 65-90% is made up of water (H2O). We therefore understand that most of a human body's mass consists of oxygen. In addition carbon is the basic unit for organic molecules, which comes in as number two. That 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six basic elements as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus is surprising.7 Knowing these elements via the notion and argumentation of reductio ad absurdum still does not explain the human behavior, action, consciousness, cognition, communication, coordination, and cooperation of its parts with each other for a common and larger goal and how they are managed and controlled. Reductio ad absurdum is a way of arguing to establish a notion by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be indefensible. It is a style of reasoning that has been applied throughout the history in mathematics, physics and philosophy up until today. The author therefore proposes that we take a different approach to solve our complex problems. These approach as emphasized is via the lens of cybernetics and bionical cybernetics. Bionics or biomimicry is the art, to solve technical and holistic problems of communication via insights from natural systems. The author observes that cybernetics and bionics have not yet been applied in pursuit of achieving precisely negotiatinal objectives. But these sciences are highly powerful and may transform the future of negotiation. Negotiation is a human activity. Agreements and precisely prerequisites that can bring forth agreement and satisfaction on which both agents and parties become what they need to be successful can be designed and mobilized. This task is complex therefore we need tools and models that reduce complexities, so we can achieve our objectives.

According to (Harper, Rodwell, Mayes 1977) the human body is made of Oxygen (65%), Carbon (18%), Hydrogen (10%), Nitrogen (3%), Calcium (1.5%), Phosphorus (1.0%), Potassium (0.35%), Sulfur (0.25%), Sodium (0.15%), Magnesium (0.05%), Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%), Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)

Complexity This very world of us and its problems are and work systemic [7, p. 2] they are not solved and resolved if we do not understand this fact. Trying to explain Holism and Systemism in terms of reductionism is impossible and if we are trying to discuss Holism and begin to describe it by looking at it from just two sides, that is insufficient and meaningless [7, p. 2]. There are systems and subsystems, systems and other systems, which combined give a larger whole in our world. As sufficiently described above after we have understood that the worlds problems are holistic, we have to understand that not only understanding the whole spectrum of a separate entity, a viable system [8, p. 157] or a problem is essential but moreover its relation(s) and interrelation(s) is (are) essential and vital as well. It is precisely through these relations, cooperation and coordination that our world actually works. Therefore, its high time that we understand and apply these insights to our problems and challenges for a better communication and results. Variety and Ashbys law of requisite variety Variety is the number and possible states of system. Fig. 1 describes the interrelationship of an agent (manager) with its environment. This relationship can only exist and be maintained if the variety of the environment, in which the business is embedded is creating and forwarding via disturbance to the agent is less or equal to the variety that the agents system is capable of absorbing or coping with. To better understand this very law of management cybernetics, we need to understand Ashbys law of requisite variety. In the mid 50s Ashby emphasized that the fundamental processes of regulation and control in biology (Ashby, 1956) has revealed the importance of a certain quantitative relation called the law of requisite variety [9, p.1]. The law of requisite variety; variety can destroy variety, [10, p. 207] as explained below is: the amount of appropriate selection that can be performed is limited by the amount of information available. for appropriate regulation the variety in the regulator must be equal to or greater than the variety in the system being regulated. Or, the greater the variety within a system, the greater its ability to reduce variety in its environment through regulation. Only variety (in the regulator) can destroy variety (in the system being regulated). [11, pespmc1.vub.ac.be]

After this relation was discovered, it was related to a theorem in a world far ignorant from the biological that of Shannon on the quantity of noise or error that could be removed through a correction-channel (9, p.1). Shannons theorem # 10 describes: If the correction channel has a capacity equal to H y (x) it is possible to so encode the correction data as to send it over this channel and correct all but an arbitrarily small fraction of errors. This is not possible if the channel capacity is less than H y (x) [12, p.68]. Fig. 1 shows the relationship between the two theorems, and to indicate something of their implications for regulation, in a cybernetic sense, when the system to be regulated is extremely complex. Since the law of requisite variety uses concepts more primitive than those used by entropy.

Fig. 1 Difference of varieties between an agent and its environment and agent and environment relation via Ashbys law of requisite variety. Source: (Schwaninger, 2000)

Fig.2 How organizations and their managements cope with complexity. Manager as amplifier of environmental complexity. Source: (Schwaninger, 2000)

The main objective and challenge of the manager is to balance the varieties of the interacting systems through both attenuation and amplification (see Fig. 1). Beer (1979) coined the term Variety-engineering in this context [13, p. 211] Beers Viable System Model (VSM) The VSM is a management model and organizational theory developed by Stafford Beer, the founder of Management Cybernetics (Beer, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1989). But before we understand the whole spectrum of this powerful organizational theory (Schwaninger, 2006), the author finds it necessary that some terms of cybernetics origin be precisely defined and explained they are more than the notion of words. These terms are Viability, which is the feature and characteristic of a system or a being, able to maintain a separate existence. A Being is an organism (organization and a system) with the ability of identity transformation and preservation. Living systems are able of self-repair, autopoises (self-reproduction) in a changing complex world. The fundamental feature that characterizes living- and viable, systems and beings are autonomy [14 p. 149]. Speaking of VSM as a theory, it is distinctive in several respects, in particular in view of the claim it makes (Schwaninger, 2006). This theoretical claim is as follows: A viable social system is viable if its structure fulfils a number of requirements,

which the theory specifies in five managerial sub-systems (Schwaninger, 2006). These systems are: (1) System 1. Management of a basic subsystem or operations (2) System 2. Coordination of subsystems, attenuation of oscillations between them (Schwaniniger, 2006) (3) System 3. Operative general management of a collective of subsystems (4) System 3*. Auditing and monitoring channel (5) System 4. Management for the long term organizational perspective, relationships and coping with the overall environment (6) System 5. Normative management, meta- management and corporate ethos 8 Any deficit in this structure will inevitably limit and endanger the viability of the organization.

Fig. 3 Stafford Beers The Viable System Model, an overview Source: (Schwaninger, 2000)

Negotiation Negotiation is the act of communication, giving and receiving information and benefits that meet and maintain the larger objective of an agents (s) system (s) to be under control (acceptable and viable reach). Disputes and conflicts can and will only arouse, if the description above is not respected and maintained or not actively sought. Countries, organizations and agents do not generally seek negotiation, when there BATNA promises better results or when their overall grand- strategy wants to achieve a larger or other objective. To understand why conflicts arouse we can examine the following case. The former US president George W. Bush did not want to negotiate with the Taliban, because negotiating with them did not met the larger objective (see, fig.5. meta-system) of the US foreign policy at that time. The Taliban and the civilized world asked for evidence, which the world is still awaiting, but nothing was delivered. Noam Chomsky of MIT the nester among public intellectuals and scholars told Press TV: "The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Talibanthey requested evidenceand the Bush administration refused to provide any. We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."[15, http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com]. Prof. Chomsky also stated that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later. To understand the problem we should understand the Talibans and their beliefs beyond their ultra religious
8

Ethos mean organizational Identiy

identity. Speaking of the larger objective, the Taliban have mainly a Pashtun origin, which constitute 50% population of Afghans [16, p.621] and their identity. Knowledge about the important factors in play when indigenous populations are making decisions regarding their support for government-sponsored counterinsurgency efforts, for example, can lead to better strategies for communication and decision framing on the part of the counterinsurgents to improve the relative attractiveness of the propositions they present to indigenous members in environments where counterinsurgent forces wish to expand their influence.[17. p. v] For instance, the Pashtun Code and doctrine encompasses the generous hospitality to guests and one must revenge and thus to fight to the death for a person who has taken refuge with a Pashtun no matter what his lineage [18, p. 40]). Would the knowing of this fact by the Bush administration have not made the world a safer and better place than it is today? If this $ 4 Trillion spending on military means in the last decade would have been spend on seeing the problem from a holstic lens, making peace, ensuring security to the world and real justice to the terrorist, a much more successful Afghanistan, Iraq, US and Western world would have been the result. But as we clearly can observe the objective of Bush and the NewCons, it was not to make peace or to bring justice; it was the grand strategy of total domination of the worlds Eurasia and Middle East and its resource and to achieve the opposite of a negotiation. Lets examine another case: Two organizations want to negotiate, they want to have gains by mutual agreement through negotiation. Organization A wants to be the leader in the joint project, but B wants the same. B Both are convinced that they can make a better job as the other one.
A Fig. 4 Two agents (VSMs) in negotiation

What would be the best approach in dealing with the problem? To analyze the situation precisely, we should first define the primarily objective of the joint-venture. Mostly its either to enter a foreign market, get- in into a market niche mainly reserved for the locals (for instance in China some line of products are restricted and cannot be entered by foreigners), or get a competitive advantage. Now what the objective of each agent or party is, may defer but the certain point is that coming together is of mutual benefit for both of the parties. Disputing over who should run the show as long as the determined objectives at reach, is not only counterproductive but will not bring the desired out come into place. Therefore it is necessary to go beyond the dominating the competitor and concentrate on the objective. Whatever the main interests are should be also pursuit. Interests are commonly referred to as basic needs, wants, goals, and objectives. [1, p.280] Interests and positions defer from each other. A position seeks the objective to be resolved in a certain manner. Interests only seek the achievement of what is essential and/ or at stake. To apply cybernetics here it would give the situation a much more stability and promise of mutual satisfaction. In cybernetics as stated not only the agent, with whom we are negotiating, is essential but knowing the agents objectives are essential as well. But we can go a bit further and find out not only what his interests are but what drives this agent, what are the larger objectives, in which environment is he embedded, who are his main competitors and what is the general bottleneck to his or his firms objectives. And above all what are and could be the main constrains to our mutual agreement. As natural system is designed of many parts to function for a larger whole cybernetics can design many systems to serve a larger whole. A pilot and a plane are one system as are a car and his driver. The same is with a company and its manager. They all give one larger system and can only function together to fly, to drive and to produce goods and services. In designing the man-machine system the law Ashbys law must be ubiquitously applied. If the variety of the plane is higher than what the pilot can handle his systems would be in crises and would bring a crush as a result. The same is

with the driver and the car, since he would not be able to handle the car. If the manager lacks the training his firms system would fail eventually, since the variety, which needs to be absorbed by the manager is higher than he can handle. The same would happen, if the variety of the environment with its disturbances, in which the firm is embedded, is higher than the managerfirm system can handle. To apply bionics to the problem, we need to understand what the secrets of the interrelation of mans body are, and how the different parts are communicating with each other. The body is a combination of different parts working in unison to give a larger whole, which is the human being. The secret of the man being able to move his hands and legs are via a flawless communication. A patient visiting his doctor in a neurological clinic can move his legs or arms, but he suffers from a severe disability, he walks with a peculiar uncertain gait with eyes down downcast on the ground and on his legs and starts each step with a kick, throwing each leg in succession in front of him [19, p. 95]. What is the matter with him and if we blind fold the man he might not even be able to walk one step? Another patient if you give him a glass of water he is not able to drink, his hand will swing and will empty the glass, before he has drunk one single sip. The problem is known as ataxia [19, p. 95]. The patients muscles, arms and legs are healthy but can not organize their action to achieve the objective. Here the way and line of communication is disturbed. The brains stimulus for the body to move the arms and legs has a disturbance in communication. In order for the arms and legs to function the prerequisite is communication and trust. The brain will never question as long as the communication is maintained that the arms would do something else or question the brains stimuli, nor will do other parts of the body which are under an active control of the brain (legitimacy). Two people as a system of negotiation not bringing the prerequisites of proper communication and trust may achieve something, but it will be far less than what they can bargain for. They will achieve what they author would like to coin as ataxia of negotiation. Professional negotiators can apply cybernetics and design the act and process of negotiation in a way that brings the outmost outcome to the parties. The prerequisites are: 1) interests (the larger whole), 2) legitimacy, 3) trust (relationship), 4) communication, 5) commitments, and 6) options.

Fig.5. the Meta system of a VSM Source: (Schwaninger, 2006, p. 964)

The Meta system of a VSM as fig. 5 describes is responsible for the internal stability of the system, the future, and the preservation of the systems ethos. Professional mediators before bringing the parties together to negotiate, applies the six described prerequisites to achieve the objectives. He/she asks: what are the real objective of each individual and party and what are not the objectives? He/she than seeks to find a common ground of legitimacy for both party, where respect and saving the face of the parties are maintained. Since both accepted the legitimacy of each other and know the mediator they can start to trust each other. By creating trust and maintaining it, superb communication is possible and so can other options be applied,

which will bring more benefits to the both parties. Understanding how the Meta-system fig. 5. works gives the negotiating partner additional tools of professionalism at hand. If in negotiation the objectives, which benefit the internal system of the party (system 3), the future benefits (system 4), and identity preserving (system 5) are understood and respected, these facts will pave the way for much better understanding and better gains for both parties. No system will ever knowingly act contrary to the requirements of the viable meta-system.

Conclusion
Negotiation as described through the paper is communication, giving and receiving information, one of the basic forms of interaction (Patton, 2005) and it is ubiquitous and unavoidable. But for everything what we want or our organization wants, we must negotiate. Being a good and solid negotiator enhances the possibilities of success for all agents and managers. Therefore, much less energy drain is the result and vital organizational resources as time, partnership, money, cooperation, growth and coordination can be saved and preserved. The author suggests a holistic approach to negotiation and to make use of all possible resources, steps and parts with harmony to each other, which in cybernetics also has been described as recursion for a better and successful outcome. Trust and superb communication are the keys to negotiation. They are vital and cannot be excluded if one wants to preserve relations and to create larger partnership- systems. This fact will be of use to mangers of today but moreover to the managers of tomorrow. As the globalized world increases and out-sourcing, out- tasking and JVs or foreign market entries are necessary to survive the world needs able and professional negotiators. In the future the ability to negotiate would be an essential competitive advantage of a firm, but moreover it can be handled as a commodity and as firms assets. The main obstacle to any organizational communication is the lack of trust. As described through out the paper before we can negotiate we must insure that: 1) a flawless communication between parties is ubiquitously possible; 2) trust as the fundamental part of a negotiation is ensured; 3) and, the grand objective (ethos) of the negotiation as a system is maintained. This means the whole negotiation system must follow a constructive rule of creating the ideal situation for all parties. Before we go any further the author needs to explain how negotiators can achieve these three states. 1) Communication: can be achieved if language barriers, cultural differences, personal issues as ego or need to display ones power, etc are resolved. 2) Trust can be insured if an experienced, just, candid and unbiased mediator or observer that both parties can accept as the negotiation systems conscious, is designed.9 3) The larger objectives are only maintained if honesty, humanity and high moral order is a part of the negotiation system. As an example we can take the case of Israel and Palestine. Using public relations10, force, economical resources, pressuring global politicians, violations of human rights and international laws as a substitute to the authors mentioned three points will never solve the crises. Additionally having a mediator, who is loosing its creditability of honesty, non-partisanship and fair-mindedness, will certainly endanger the achievement of the overall objective, create other crises and the conscious system is dismantled. Thus, the main objective is getting lost and the conflict will never be resolved. What are the real objectives? 1) Securing the state of Israel in a hostile environment; and 2) Creating a viable and self-determining Palestinian state. We can apply Stafford Beers celebrated dictum (Beer, 1979): The purpose of a system is what it does, therefore before designing this negotiation system, the purpose of the whole system must be the objective of achievement of the system. To apply Ashbys law both parties must be given sufficient variety, this will ensure that the designed negotiation system is stable and can cope with the large amount of complexity that the larger objective requires to cope with. This means
9

Designed is used as a cybernetic term means: creating of a subsystem to support the objectives of a larger whole or system. 10 Public relation was coined by Edward Bernays the author of the book Propaganda as a respectable substitute for it.

in addition cutting both parties BATNAs, since any violation will proactively make one party not want to negotiate. In business the authors recommendations and method can be practiced first in larger organization for cost reasons, objectives importance, organizational challenges, etc. and lack of empirical data to this method. Having observed negotiation as complexity and giving it a systemic structure from a holistic lens, where we can apply additional sciences to solve the conflict is a major step forward. It will pave the way to see conflicts via a different lens and perspective. In a holistic world problems are only truly solved by a holistic lens. Complexity is a vital part of our life. We are complex beings; we live in work in complex organizations and every act of what we do from writing a book to driving a car is done by managing complexity. Negotiation is one additional complexity we need to master; this skill will bestow us having highly effective organizations and in international affaires, having security for our next generations and enhance the chances of peace. Moreover we will give them a tool to proactively dissolve conflicts. In the words of the legendary Stafford Beer: Rather than solving a problem, its better to dissolve it. Amen to that Literature[1] B. Patton, Negotiation, The handbook of dispute resolution, San Francisco, Edited by, Michael L. Moffitt an Robert C. Bordone , A publication of the program on negotiation at Harvard Law School, Jossey Bass, A Wiley Imprint, 2005 [2] F. Malik, Strategie des Managements Komplexer Systeme. Ein Beitrag zur Management Kybernetik, Bern, Haupt Berne, 1984 [3] R. Fisher, W. Ury, Getting to yes, New York, Penguin Books, 1981-1991 4] F. Malik, Effective top management, Frankfurt am Main, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH& Co KGaA, 2006 [5] Q. Kamran, Management by deception, The need for designing a viable organization, Riga, University of Latvia, Current issues in Management of Business and Society, 2011 [6] S. Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred, New York, Basic Books, 2008 [7] S. Beer, In conversation with Prof. Dr. Stafford Beer, www.managementkybernetik.com 2002 [8] B. Stafford, The brain of the firm, Chichester, The Penguin Press, 1972 [9] R.W. Ashby, Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems, Cybernetica 1:2, p. 83-99. (available at http://pcp.vub.ac.be/Books/AshbyReqVar.pdf, republished on the web by F. HeylighenPrincipia Cybernetica Project), 1958 [10] W. Ross Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, London, Chapman & Hall, 1956. Internet http://pcp.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf, 1999 [11] http://pespmc1.vub.a, c.be/REQVAR.html [URL: 12.09.2011; 12:48 pm] [12] C. E. Shannon, W. Weaver, The mathematical theory of communication, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1949 [13] M. Schwaninger, Managing Complexity - The Path Toward Intelligent Organizations, New York, Systemic Practice and Action Research (2/13), Plenum Press, ISSN 1094-429X, Page(s) 207-241, Review Double-Blind Review, 2000 [14] H. Maturana, The organization of the living: A theory of the living organization, Santiago, Chile, Academic Press (1999), www.ideallibrary.com, 1974 [15] http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/11/chomsky-no-evidence-that-al-qaeda.html [URL: 12.09.2011; 13:16pm] [16] A. Ahady, The decline of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, California, University of California Press, 1995 [17] J. W. Holton, The Pashtun behaviour economy: An analysis of decision making in tribal societies, http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2011/June/11Jun_Holton.pdf, 2011 [18] J. Oberson, Political Alignment, Leadership and the State in Pashtun Society, Berne, Institute for Ethnology, University of Berne, 2002

10

You might also like