The Improvisational Music Group—a human system
simulation
Peter Forrester
Forrester Taylor & Associates Pty Ltd
48 Austin St Alphington Victoria Australia 3078
Ph & fax: +63 9489 4357
Email Petfor@bigpond.com
Dr John Bailey
Carlton Consulting Group
Level 2 / 766 Elizabeth St Carlton Victoria Australia 3053
Ph: +63 9347 8777 Fax: +63 9347 8310
Email <ccg @ozemail.com.au>
Abstract
In this paper Peter Forrester and Dr John Bailey will present a useful technique for
studying human organisational systems—the improvisational music group. The
improvisational music group is a challenging simulation of an organisational system that
can be used to directly study system concepts. Peter Forrester and Dr John Bailey have
used this technique to enable managers to experience and observe leadership behaviours
in an organisational system.
The improvisational music group is able to simulate the complexity and interconnected
aspects of a dynamic system. Tools for studying systems such as causal loop diagrams
can be applied in an analysis of the music group experience. Concepts such as “Levels of
Explanation”, “Dialogue” and “Evoking Organisational Fields” can be illustrated using
the music group technique.
“Systems Thinking Basics” (Anderson V. et al 1997, P 19) provides a description of
how the world looks when it is viewed systemically ie. dynamic, complex and
interdependent or put another way, things change all the time, life is messy and
everything is connected.
People improvising music together are a part of a system that is constantly changing,
messy and within which everything is connected. In our work facilitating leadership
and management team development we have found the improvisational music group
to be an excellent tool when used as a simulation of a human organisational system.
As management teams engage in working together to improvise their music, the
unfolding experience reveals information that can be processed to develop
understanding about how a human system operates and how people can work more
effectively within it. The strengths of this simulation include:
¢ the musical instruments, participants and music produced form a complex
human system
* the music quality provides an immediate feedback loop related to group
effectiveness
*no previous musical instrument experience is nec
involvement
* all the people we have worked with have had an innate sense of how to create
and evaluate simple, well formed music
* all necessary data for analysis emerges in the experience
ary for successful
Our purpose both in this paper and in our workshop is to demonstrate the usefulness
of the improvisational music group as a tool for understanding human systems. As
such we present a technique that is excellent for illuminating systems theory and in
providing an opportunity to apply that theory and practise associated skills.
The following is a model based on Peter Forrester’s observations of developmental
stages in an improvisational music group. This model is presented here because the
depth of analysis of the improvisational music experience will depend on the stage the
group reaches in its development. For example it is not possible for an
improvisational group to evoke a “field” if they do not develop to Stage III; that of
Innovating.
I Surviving
At this level participants use formulas to survive individually as musicians
Participants tend to be self focussed, tense and unaware of the whole mus:
experience. The focus is on perfect reproduction of a known or taught musical model.
The music tends to be experienced as pedestrian, mundane or boring. Mistakes are
threatening to the survival of the group. Enjoyment of the experience is generally low.
II Improving
At this level participants commit to improvement and they focus on developing the
processes they are using to produce more interesting music. At this level participants
are more aware of the relationships between each other. They listen to each other and
the music as a whole, as well as discuss and apply a wider range of strategies. The
music tends toward being more spontaneous and authentic. Mistakes at this level are
more acceptable and tolerated; at times they will be successfully incorporated into the
music. The group seems to be safer and better able to survive. The experience is
generally more satisfying than at Level I.
Ii Innovating
This is the level which musicians describe as “being in the groove”. It is a very
creative level; there is a sense of not knowing what will be created musically,
combined with a faith in the group’s ability to produce something significant. There is
a sense of musical dialogue happening between all the players. People are open to
each other. The music becomes an entity in itself providing energy to the group. It is a
generative level; the music is spontaneous and authentic and tends to be well above
the initial expectations of the participants. People talk about this level of playing as
having a spiritual dimension. People talk of losing their self-awareness and of being
at one with the group and the music. People also talk about the music seeming to play
itself and the participants being a channel for the music which is coming from
somewhere else. Mistakes are accepted, if noticed at all, and at this level tend to
become incorporated into the music, creating opportunities for further musical
exploration.
On the following pages we will use a split-page framework to explore various systems
concepts in relation to what can be observed in a music improvisation session.
Systems Concept:
System definition and characteristics.
“A system is a group of interacting,
interrelated or interdependent components
that form a complex and unified whole. A
system’s components can be physical
objects that you can touch, such as the
various parts that make up a car. The
components can also be intangible, such as
the processes; relationships; company
policies; information flows; interpersonal
interactions; and internal states of mind
such as feelings, values and beliefs.
Characteristics of a system:
1. A system’s parts must all be present for
the system to carry out its purpose
optimally.
2. A system’s parts must be arranged in a
specific way for the system to carry out
its purpose.
3. Systems have specific purposes within
larger systems.
4. Systems maintain their stability through
fluctuations and adjustments.
5. Systems have feedback.”
Anderson V et al (1997), p 2-3
Causal loop diagrams.
“A causal loop diagram consists of two or
more variables connected by links, which
usually take the form of arrows. A closed
circle of variables and links makes up a
feedback loop.”
Anderson V et al (1997), p 52
Concepts appliedin an Improvisational
music group experience.
System definition and characteristics.
The improvisational music group is a
system consisting of interacting and
interrelated components forming a complex
and unified whole.
Characteristics of the improvisational
music group:
1. The improvisational music group
requires:
¢ players capable of recognising and
generating music
¢ musical instruments
¢ music production
2. Participants must have instruments and
be in a position to see and hear all the other
participants.
3. Purpose—production of music to meet a
creative need, for enjoyment or
entertainment.
4. Fluctuations in music quality lead to
adjustments in the playing of musical ideas
by the participants.
5. Participants play music, which feeds into
the auditory sensory system; from this
sensory data, judgements are made about
music quality leading to adjustments in the
music production.
1 loop diagrams.
Musical quality
Effectively working together
When the participants are working together
more effectively, music quality improves.
Levels of explanation.
“The systems perspective shows that there
are multiple levels of explanation in any
complex situation, as suggested by the
diagram below. In some sense, all are
equally ‘true.’ But their usefulness is quite
different. Event explanations—‘who did
what to whom’— doom their holders to a
reactive stance. As discussed earlier, event
explanations are the most common in
contemporary culture, and that is exactly
why reactive management prevails.
Systemic Structure (generative)
Pattern of Behaviour(responsive)
Events (reactive)
Patterns of behaviour explanations focus on
seeing longer-term trends and assessing
their implications. Pattern of behaviour
explanations begin to break the grip of
short-term reactiveness. At least they
suggest how, over a longer term, we can
respond to shifting trends.
The third level of explanation, the
‘structural’ explanation, is the least
common and most powerful. It focuses on
answering the question, * What causes the
patterns of behaviour?’ Though rare,
structural explanations , when they are
clear and widely understood, have
considerable impact.
The reason that structural explanations are
so important is that only they address the
underlying causes of behaviour at a level
that patterns of behaviour can be changed.
Structure produces behaviour, and
changing underlying structures can produce
different patterns of behaviour. In this
sense, structural explanations are inherently
generative. Moreover, since structure in
human systems includes the “operating
policies” of the decision makers in the
Levels of explanation.
The three levels of explanation are well
illustrated in the improvisational music
group eg. how musical mistakes are
managed:
An event level of explanation would frame
a musical mistake as threatening to the
survival of the group, experiencing it as
disruptive to the music production—a
reactive frame.
A pattern of behaviour level of explanation
would frame a musical mistake as part of
the ongoing trial and error necessary to
produce interesting music—a responsive
frame
A systemic structure level of explanation
would frame a mistake more as an
interesting shift in musical perspective
from which a whole new area of musical
exploration emerges—a generative frame
system, redesigning our own decision
making redesigns the system structure.”
Senge P. M. (1994) P 52 & 53
Dialogue
David Bohm , was a leading quantum
Physicist, who developed a theory and
method of dialogue, when a group
“becomes open to the flow of a larger
intelligence....The purpose of dialogue is
to go beyond any one individual’s
understanding..... “A new kind of mind
begins to come into being which is based
on the development of a common
meaning. ...People are no longer primarily
in opposition, nor can they said to be
interacting, rather they are participating in
this pool of common meaning, which is
capable of constant development and
change.’ ....People in dialogue also begin
to observe the collective nature of thought.”
“In dialogue,..... people begin to
‘participate in this pool of common
meaning, which is capable of constant
development and change.’ Bohm observed
that our normal processes of thought are
like a ‘coarse net that gathers in only the
coarsest elements of the stream. In
dialogue, a ‘kind of sensitivity’ develops
that goes beyond what we normally
recognise as thinking. This sensitivity is ‘a
fine net’ capable of gathering in the subtle
meanings in the flow of thinking. Bohm
suggested that this sensitivity lies at the
root of real intelligence.
Senge P. ( 1994) Pp 239 -242
Evoking fields
Fields are forces of unseen connection that
directly influence our experience and
behaviour. We are aware of the
consequences of fields (such as
gravity)without necessarily observing any
direct connection between the two bodies.
Dialogue
Interesting music comes out of dialogue
between the participants. When dialogue is
occurring all musical ideas presented in the
playing are respected and given space to be
expressed. Some of these ideas will have a
short life while others will be reflected and
developed by the group creating something
much greater than the original idea
produced by one participant. Each
participant becomes more open to the
others and very aware of the whole group
and its musical ideas. There is a sense of
flow to the music and of the music being an
entity separate to the group. Dialogue is
closely linked to the evoked field described
by musicians as “being in the groove”.
Evoking fields
“Being in the groove” is an advanced level
of development for any improvisational
music group. It appears to be equivalent to
Bohm and Jaworski’s descriptions of an
evoked field.
Organisational fields are also observable in
situations which emerge within
organisations. Forces of unseen connection
between groups of people are capable of
being brought forth (evoked) when
intention is genuine and emotional and
behavioural structures are appropriate.
David Bohm once commented that “we are
all connected through and operate within
living fields of thought and perception”—
what he called “the general fielding of all
mankind.”
Joseph Jaworski (author of
“Synchronicity”) suggests that the role of
the leader is to create conditions in which
organisational fields can emerge.
This level of improvising is a highly
rewarding experience, not achieved by
every group.
The chances of achieving this higher level
of playing is improved by:
¢ all the participants having faith in their
ability to produce significant music and
being committed to the common purpose
* taking time to develop and explore the
musical relationships
* recognising and dropping personal
defensive patterns that interfere with the
development of an effective musical
relationship
* being open to other’s musical ideas
¢ finding ways of complementing other
participant’s musical ideas
¢ valuing the synergy of varying musical
ideas
¢ taking risks with the music
* accepting and utilising musical mistakes
¢ playing with a supportive professional
musician who respects and incorporates
your musical ideas.
Conclusion
When the experience of an improvisational music group is debriefed, participants are
able to identify incidents and times in which particular elements of system concepts
were demonstrated. When a highly energetic field has been evoked with the music, the
debriefing brings forth profound learning and understanding for the participants.
References
1. Anderson V & Johnson L (1997) “Systems Thinking Basics—from concepts to
causal loops.” Pegasus Communications Inc; Cambridge, MA.
2. Ideas explored at a forum on Organisational Fields and Corporate Transformation
conducted in New York in November 1998. The forum was conducted by the
Centre for Generative Leadership, a centre operated by Joseph Jaworski and Peter
Senge
3. Jaworski J (1996) “Synchronicity—the inner Path of Leadership.” Berett-Kochler;
San Francisco.
4. Senge P. M. (1994) “The Fifth Discipline—the art and practice of The Learning
Organisation.” Random House; Australia.
