What are the major characteristics of a Syntegration®?
An optimal combination of structure and self-organization; the best possible utilization of individual strengths of each person; equality of all participants in their cooperation. an optimized flow of information., and finally, a common understanding and commitment towards the implementation of the actions defined by the participants.
Why has Stafford Beer chosen the Icosahedron as a structural model for the Syntegration®?
Beer has used the insights of the natural sciences, Bionics and Architecture. He came to the conclusion, that the principle of rectangular triangles, equalizing the existing forces, could also be transferred to the interaction of people. According to Beer, about thirty people have enough combined knowledge to work on a complex issue and to come to concrete solutions. Twelve topics on the other hand allow to split up an opening question into individual topics, which are neither to small nor too large so that each participant can follow all topics in their development during the Syntegration and to directly influence all topics. An icosahedron has twelve edges and thirty struts – a perfect structural model for this process.
Will I be in any case a team member in those topics which I prefer the most?
No. The algorithm applied for the allocation of topics and participants will chose from among a large number of options the best possible one for allocating the participants within the structure of the icosahedron. If more than five people prefer the same topic it is possible, however, that someone will be allocated to a topic, which he or she has marked with a three, four or five as a preference. This indeed is an advantage for the interdisciplinary composition of the group.
Should the specialists for a specific topic be participants in that group?
No. There is a better chance for new ideas if people are in a group who usually do not deal with the topic. The topic can be approached from different perspectives. As Stafford Beer noted, he wanted to avoid explicitly that only the specialists of an organization are working in "their" topic. As there are many possibilities for every participant to influence all the twelve topics, the specialists' knowledge is automatically integrated into the discussion.
Is there a risk that participants decide on actions not supported by management?
No. A Syntegration is a process free of hierarchy, but at the same time not a democratic process. Without considering the usual hierarchic structure of an organization participants can share their knowledge, voice their perspectives, interests and fears
These different perspectives are integrated into a consolidated action plan that is developed by the participants until the end of the Syntegration. The actions are usually formulated as suggestions to the management. The people responsible in the organization will then decide upon the implementation of those actions. Usually, approximately 80% of the proposed actions are implemented after a Syntegration.
What happens if certain participants are very dominant?
Dominant people can influence the topic selection, discussions and outcome of a Syntegration in the same way and with the same rights and opportunities as everybody else. This is being assured through the protocol of the Syntegration: topics are only considered, if all participants agree to them and if they are relevant in regard to the opening question. If statements, remarks and information generated in a Syntegration is relevant, then those statements will be kept alive throughout the entire process- not depending on dominant individuals. Additionally, each participant has different roles as team member, critic and observer, where one's influence is limited through the process.
What happens with "lobbies"?
It is possible, that lobbies will try to coordinate their statements and thus have a higher impact on the discussion than a single participant. But the protocol of a Syntegration is rather tight and does not give much space to potential lobbies. Thus there is only a minor risk of lobbyism in a Syntegration. Each participant has the same rights and possibilities. Additionally, the participants are being allocated to the topics through an algorithm which greatly reduces the risk of lobbies and alliances within the twelve groups.
Can the critics change their groups?
No, they have to stay with "their" groups and follow the discussions throughout the Syntegration, so they can give a constructive feedback in all three iterations.
Is there a potential risk that information is understood incorrectly and passed through groups wrongly?
No. Information is usually transferred from one group to the other by more than one person. Thus there is always somebody available to clear misunderstandings.
Do the teams always have sufficient matters to discuss?
Yes. Between the iterations, a vast amount of information is being generated in the groups, which automatically flows into all the other groups. Additionally, each meeting usually has a different focus for the discussion in each iteration. Thus the team could define its topic in the first meeting, develop an ideal situation in the second meeting and define concrete actions in the last meeting.
What is the purpose of the "visual applause"?
The visual applause represents the feedback from the entire infoset to an individual group to verify if the group is heading in the right direction.
Why are there presentations and the market place during the Syntegration, not after the Syntegration?
To create an even better knowledge dispersion and a critical reflexion of the Iteration results. |