Systemic profiles and duels

During my academic journey of more than 20 years in the UK, I have to confess that I have struggled to navigate the different systems that surround us.  

A pressing issue that seems to represent this struggle is my concern with social media, in particular LinkedIn, a platform that, based on 'intelligent' algorithms, shows us continuously what goes on with other academics, professionals, and institutions.  By doing so, it helps reinforce in people like me (perfectionist) an urge to check and show that I also do things that should be recognised within my institution and elsewhere.  I also fear becoming a target for scrutiny.  

Something that has helped me to better understand the why and how of this anxiety and fear is Hans Moeller and Paul D'Ambrosio (2021)'s notion of profilicity.  This is an identity technology or technologies which, in our societies and alongside other technologies (sincerity, authenticity) influence and are influenced by how we see ourselves and how we interact with others.  

Profilicity operates as systems of communications, or better, as context specific assemblages of communication that require us to continuously invest in curating how we want to be seen as being seen.  At the centre of this requirement is the operation of second order observations (the observer observes what/how other people observe something).  This is something that these authors borrow from the work of Niklas Luhmann and his idea of society composed of self-producing communication systems.   

My view of profilicity (Córdoba-Pachón, 2024, Figure 2.4)

For people like you and me (academics), profilicity seems to be an inevitable technology where alongside our attempts to show and be shown sincerity (performing established and required roles) and authenticity (pursuing and showing our 'true' inner selves), inside or outside the classroom or the research/impact settings where we participate, we are to engage in validating our profiles continuously, using or being used by profiling attempts of our institutions or groups that we are members of. 

Having come across profilicity a few years back, in my latest book on systems thinking and ritual (2024), I proposed the latter as a way of bridging gaps between managing first and second order observations.  I also adopted the above authors recommendations to do my best to remain sane, to genuinely pretend.  I have proposed rediscovering and reflecting on rituals to help us start acknowledging the importance of pretending.  By doing so, I argue that we can have some space for reflection on how best to deal with ambiguities and uncertainties in our conversations with others.  

Sheerwater F.C visiting Knaphill F.C in August 31 2026: A mini-ritual at the local derby. 

Many of my academic colleagues seem to be more savvy than I am in curating their LinkedIn platform profiles.  What seems to be important is, according to Moeller and D'Ambrosio, is not to invest our authentic or sincere selves in our presentations.  Rather, it is to consider that there is a general peer, a public sphere in this and other platforms where we observe how others observe (and this includes our own profiles), and engage with this peer.  Sometimes, we get lucky and this peer observes us back, by for instance forwarding or highlighting our posts to a wider audience.  

Most of the time though, this mutual validation feedbacks are ephemeral.  The platform algorithms try to ensure that other people can still see our profile posts or messages long after they have been posted.  As profilers, our task is to keep a form of presence, so that the algorithms do not forget us.  And to grow our network of 'peers', often relying on their profiles to connect with them.  

Like (non-league) football clubs (Sheerwater and Knaphill included),  many universities in the UK and elsewhere continuously profile themselves in order to attract audiences.  Academics have to be aware of these profiles and often shape their own profiles.  Somehow our own institutions become part of our general peers.  They observe what we do, and in some cases they profile it.  

A social media post from Sheerwater F.C on X, September 15 2026

There is (still) a degree of freedom in deciding what to do about our profiles.  As individuals, we can engage with these profile interactions (individual, organisational).  Let me call such interactions 'duels' (where one can accept a challenge to regain honour after an offense).  I use this term to account for the possibility that duels can be seen as rituals, according to Byung Chul Han (2020)'s description in his book "The dissapearance of rituals".  

In duels, honour and form rather than personal pride or smartness prevail.   Han (2020) also presents other types of rituals like the Japanese tea ceremony.  Similar to duels, form prevails to the expense of individuality.  If that is the case, rituals of profiling could be better seen not as demonstrations of individual or collective authenticity or sincerity from those who profile themselves or their institutions, but of seeking (and maybe obtaining) validation from the general peers, whoever those might be.  A football team might seek validation from followers and fans if not the league where they play.  A university might seek validation from the 'general public' (students, employers, rating agencies etc).  Platforms like LinkedIn become the 'theatres' where validations are sought and obtained, leading to further validations.   

Moeller and D'Ambrosio (2021) aim to encourage us as individuals to make sure that we do not become the profiles that we show.  To differentiate between branding ourselves and showing ourselves authentically or sincerely.  If we take the idea of duels forward, we might decide not to bring our 'true' selves (whatever this might mean for each of us) to the challenges.  

There is a price to pay if we decide to profile ourselves too much or if our institutions do the same.  We had better consider that our lives are too dynamic to be attached to profiles.  Maybe as academics or individuals, we do not need to aspire to become social media celebrities after all.  Let's try to pretend, genuinely, in such aspirations.  

References

Córdoba-Pachón, J.R. (2024).  Ritual and Systems Thinking:  Managing an Initial Encounter.  London:  Routledge

Moeller, H. G., & D'ambrosio, P. J. (2021). You and your Profile: Identity after authenticity. Columbia University Press.

The systems thinker that was (not) there

By its own nature and origin, the discipline of systems thinking, in its various forms, is inter-disciplinary in the face of volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) situations.  It is best to address such situations with as many different perspectives as possible, so that we can learn from and with other people who come from diverse backgrounds and who might also have different goals to us.  

Systems thinking offers a common language for dialogue.  During the twentieth century and stemming from the work of biologists, philosophers and psychologists, among others, science often arrives at a single and communal idea:  that of a system. A set of inter-related, inter-connected parts whose interaction leads us to consider what emerges, or could emerge, if we decide intervene in situations (although we cannot fully control or determine what is to emerge).  

As discussed before in this blog (see latest post), in practice, this arrival is often accompanied by a similar one:  Acknowledging one's own values in relation to those perceived to be enacted or lived in the system.  The emergence also includes shift in people's identities.  Faced with the complex nature of situations, we and others might not see as experts anymore.  

I have called this dual situation (one as ethical subject, the system or systems in which one is operating) as 'arrivals', many of which could be acknowledged as common by different science or management professionals or practitioners.  In my systems thinking journey as both practitioner and academic, these arrivals include ethical reflection on the type of person I have been and want to become.  Arrivals also include a realisation that am only a part of systems or situations, so any change does not depend entirely on me, even if my perfectionist self would say otherwise (or the institutional metrics require).  A realisation to continue being engaged in situations, now protecting my own sanity and that of loved ones.  

Other systems thinkers like Jean Boulton, adopting ideas from Taoism and Metaphysics, would prefer to call arrivals becomings.  The difference between these two terms could only be epistemological and in relation to how a system thinker places him/herself in relation to what goes on.  Boulter's take seems to be more directed at not distinguishing much the individual, but oriented more towards the fluid and emerging patterns of interaction betwen human and non human elements of a 'system'.  Here the idea of a system seems to be better understood as relational processes (of becoming), which one could also term as processes of organising.  

Systems thinker Mike Jackson (2024), on the other hand, would prefer to first distinguish ingfeatures of systems or situations using systemic perspectives.  These, in my mind, are metaphorical narratives, comparisons that, using our inherited ability to associate or filter things via language devices, can help us identify and appreciate salient features of how things and people 'work' or relate.  All of this under a big realisation that we will never gain a full appreciation of what goes on in a situation.  A big arrival, which can then taken to promote practical improvements in a situation.  

In his latest development (EPIC), Mike Jackson has enriched his set of perspectives with features provided by popular systems methodologies and methods, to be also tackled with their help.  For example, a perspective of interrelationships aims to identify and bring to debate how people and issues, activities and technologies become interrelated so that the action or behaviour of one impacts on others and vice-versa. Also, a methodology or method like systems dynamics could then help us better identity and address such relationships (in terms of stocks and flows for example), if that is deemed to be relevant by stakeholders.  

To this kind of 'procedural' logic of Mike Jackson (many other systems thinkers, including myself, would share it), Jean Boulton would add that it is important to first look at what is becoming, and act as promptly as possible, so that if there is a detrimental pattern of interaction in a situation (system), it can be then avoided in its potential escalation.  It is researchers and practitioners who are to navigate this complexity of becomings (emerging patterns).  To effectively do that, they had better become flexible and bendy.  If needed, they can then promote more beneficial patterns, being helped by systems methodologies or methods.  

In both of the above cases (Boulton, Jackson), either by intervening early or later, with or without systems methodologies or methods, researchers or practitioners (individuals) would need to keep an eye on what goes on, given that through time other issues which would emerge from adopting other perspectives (i.e. mechanistic, cultural/political, social/environmental) require changes in an intervention strategy.  This, inevitably, will also bring us inside the picture, where we would need to reflect on our own preferences and biases, our blindness, influenced by what we think are our own values and those of others.  

Arrivals in practice

When reviewing and using Boulter and Jackson's ideas in my own practice (that includes teaching systems thinking), I find myself arriving at certain points where reflection and (in)flexibility is required.  An educator or a student that notices something salient in a situation, for example an opportunity to implement a creative idea, or a pressing issue that nobody wants to discuss inside or outside the classroom, arrives at some realisations, emerging from his/her understandings, which s/he can share with others.  It is then when s/he has an opportunity to 'steer' things in certain directions.  Like a football game, the ball falls at his/her feet.  What to do then? What is the next move?  

Doing nothing is one option. Inviting other people, from other backgrounds or disciplines to contribute is another; leaving others to decide another one; or taking action on his/her own another one.  From the perspective of an educator, there is also the tempation to say: "Let the students sort themselves out!".  Myself, I prefer challenging students to go beyond the classroom, and if possible, supporting them, until I realise that my own sanity comes first.  In a future post, I will talk about a recently completed project with my students.  

In any case, we then arrive at a kind of paradox.  The systems thinker, someone who has been somehow leading the observing of a situation (or inviting others to do so),  using the idea of a system and its derived applied methods or methodologies, comes to the foreground to almost inmediately disappear, as if s/he has not been there at all.  

A curious insight.  Hamlet's words "to be or not to be" resonate with me at this point.  And te reader might ask at this point:  How can we then appear and disappear (shortly after presumably)?  

One thing to say about this question is that systems thinkers are not magicians, that is for sure.  But we can make sure that we have some presence in situations.  

Many years ago, a student of mine asked me a similar question: How can we be systems thinkers without being 'punished' by that?  She wanted to use systems thinking in her job, but feared to be sidelined.  She wanted to be and not be there I think.  

My reply then was:  "Do your best.  Work as openly possible with other people's views.  Let them know yours. If possible, focus on learning about a situation, and trust your use of a systems methodology.  And hope that what comes out is beneficial for us all."

Today I can say that my perspective would be very similar.  Only to add that in a situation,  there might be a need to let people know that you are or were there, but not as the main character or leader.    That would be self-defeating.  We are not the system that is trying to promote improvements.  

So if people ask:  What should we do? You can always say:  "I really do not know [I was/am not there!], but if you keep asking, we can always try to find out answers together". 

Systems thinking practice: Mastery or Mystery ?

And now to address this tricky question of systems thinking practice:  Mastery or Mystery?

First I would like to describe why this question came about.  

Having revamped my course on systems thinking (creativity and problem solving, MN2515) in the last year (2025-2026), I was left with many questions about how to improve it.  Some of these questions however I remember from the past, perhaps when I was doing my PhD or writing about engaging in situations with the help of systems ideas and methods.  

One of such questions, which I remember also discussing with Gerald Midgley at the time, was about what elements, and their connections, were  needed to effectively conduct a systemic intervention.  He initially suggested a systems book where the facilitators, the people conducting or orchestrating the intervention, needed to reflect on his own values and expertise, and sentitively act according to what they thought was relevant to do in it.  This need could arise after gaining some practice (academic, professional) in the field of applied systems thinking.  

Later on, Gerald would write his own book on systemic intervention, highlighting the importance of boundary reflections in a process that he called knowledge generation.  In this process agents (individual or collective) would engage in such a generation, with the aim of arriving at and implementing improvements in a situation.  As part of this process, agents would also reflect in their own identities and their use of (systems thinking) methods.  Decisions about both of these elements (as well as what or who were considered relevant in a situation) would necessitate of critique on the boundaries that they privilege.  Critique and action would then be continuously intertwinned. 

In terms of practitioners' identities, these could also be 'shifting', and practitioners could be then use the language of boundaries to reflect on their own values, norms and preferred methods or methodologies.  In my own work and somehow following the ideas of Midgley and also of Mike Jackson and indirectly the work of Norma Romm, I have proposed and validated a number of methodological frameworks that, similar to these authors, aim to facilitate critical reflection in complex situations, employing a variety of systems and non-systems methods.  

This journey, spanning of over 20 years, has taken me to different areas of knowledge:  information systems planning and disciplining, electronic government evaluation, sustainability education, and more recently, the circular economy of food waste in university campuses and community rediscovery.  

In this journey, and when defining or discussing possible improvements with people, or when thinking about creative solutions to problems identified, perhaps also due to my personality, I find a recurrent theme:  That of ethical identities.  The theme resurfaces when deciding what is the right thing to do, not only about the situation under study, but also for myself as an ethical subject.  

Practice (including writing about my own systemic interventions) has, one way or another, led me to this theme.  More recently the theme resurfaced when I was proposing to run an event with a community (Sheerwater).  Previous to this, we had been discussing some ideas to help the residents rediscover a sense of hope.  One of the ideas was, and still is, that of revamping the community newsletter.  This idea seemed to be the right thing to do.  

The practice of preparing, running and event, and aiming to continue helping Sheerwater has brought to the surface my own values.  At the event, I wanted to include groups of people which I considered difficult to include.  To continue discussions, I thought that we could organise a follow up at a 'neutral' place to take community residents out of their comfort zone (locality), and help them experience what I thought was a more creative environment.  We could then engage in 'free' thinking about the new newsletter, in a nice, surrounding environment, which to me had been bringing a sense of peace (and hope).  

When proposing this idea, place and method to those who helped me run the previous event last year (2025), I encountered a divergence of opinions.  Mainly, they wanted to organise the event at the community centre, with people who would not travel outside Sheerwater.  At first, I felt comfortable with adopting this idea and engagement method (which also included having lunch by a known caterer). But then, after a pillow talk I decided not to pursue the event further.  And so I let potential partners know.  They understood.  

This taughtme that what I considered my own values seemed to have clashed with other people's.  I was in for creativity, a form of inclusion, and a method (facilitation by myself).  We initially coincided that discussing a newsletter revamping for the community was and still is much needed.  But there were differences in how to execute this idea.  

Since this has happened, I have been able to reflect (again!) on why and how the ethics of systems thinking practice resurfaces in my own work.  Throughout the years, I have learned (slowly) that it is OK to have this sort of ethical differences.  It is important to discuss them, and try to find ways to iron them out, and as Gerald suggest, to see if there is a new boundary that could contain those that give rise to conflict.  

In some cases, compromises have been achieved.  In this situation, I could have given in, or find a new 'place', with new 'audiences' (including those we were thinking about).  But I decided to stop, wait and see.  The decision was perhaps, motivated by my experience with the previous event, where I could notice that we did marginalise some of the community members whilst including others.  We gained in terms of creativity, as historical research helped nurture discussions about possibilities (i.e. revamping the newsletter).  We needed, in my view, to include other people in such discussions.  

Systems thinking practice seems to keep me interested and confused.  Yes, I have gained what I consider a degree of mastery in engaging with people in situations: raising issues, inviting to dialogue, facilitating discussions, writing about what happens.  But no, I have not found the silver bullet to deal with ethical conflicts when they arise.  I keep relying on what I consider are my ethical values, at the time.  

The mystery of what arises, and how to deal with it is what also drives me to try to find out such a silver bullet.  In my readings and abstractings of ethics, I find an important dilemma:  Should I reflect and live my own values, or should I go with the flow of what is being considered the right thing to do, being also critical of what is considered the right thing to do, so that I find a right moment to declare my values?  

My current answer to this dilemma, is that it is always better to try to find a middle way with  compromises.  However, there is is no need to 'give in' fully, if you as a systems thinker feels strongly about something.  Standing for what one believes (values) is often, despite sounding contary to being systemic, more important than simply striving for collaborations.  This standing however does not permanent or rigid, it could be temporary, serious when it has to be, and full of humour about the futility of our attempts to decide what/who is right or wrong.  The reader can see other posts where I have talked about Zhuangzi, and how at the end of the day, we are only a grain of sand in the vast beach of the universe.  

So it is in this finding of and reflecting on dilemmas in situations like the above that systems thinking practice, and its appeal to me, lies.  To know that despite striving for Mastery, or relying on it, we will never know what really and fully goes on in situations, and with ourselves.  We only have what we think happens.  We also have methods, ideas and values, to deal with what happens. We could try to avoid unnecessary discussions whilst aiming to be inclusive and critical.

  

Maybe in a few years' time, all of these things will change, so why do we excessively cling to them?  I think this is where the mystery of systems thinking practice, the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this post, and life in general, lies too.