This creates lots of spaces for attractors to lure people in tactical roles/functions away from effective learning. In such systems we can often perceive a MadStakeholder and HeadlessBody interacting together. Where the amount of energy spent on irrelevant behavior outweighs the amount of energy spent on actually operating, the system has a break point. Such systems can literally starve to death in the midst of abundance.
When investigating further, none of the found attractors are likely to be "resistance" of "change opposing parties", or "unwillingness", but rather an effect of lack of information or perhaps a non-aligned reward system placing its own incentives in people.
Assuming and trusting that the natural drivers for convergence to reality are somehow embedded into our human modeling processes, we can move into uncharted territories with awareness of both types of feedback being required for each involved stakeholder and each stakeholder requiring different information and ways of communication within the concept of needing both types.
-- NynkeEtkFokma, 2002
Answer: Middle management.
If we were to name that function "middle management", it would be easy to blame others, and we would not be taking responsibility for how our own function and behavior cocreates what we perceive and know? I'm aiming at a more isomorphic distinction here. All beings, be they individuals or a collective, seem to have tactical functions as well as strategical functions.
By ignoring strategical functions when having a more tactical role, we're likely to end up as HeadlessBody. And when ignoring tactical functions in a more strategical role, we might create our very own homunculus type MadStakeholder.
Even problems are cocreated.
What if a field can be cocreated to balance a whole system, with enough individuated, whole, balanced beings, distributed over the diversity of roles existing in a system?
NynkeEtkFokma, August 9. 2005