David's Blog

Engineer or Gardener? David Hurst on AI, the Ecocycle and the Rigidity Trap

Mark Blackwell, Arkaro

Senior leaders in mature businesses may know something is wrong. Their organisation is efficient, profitable and increasingly unable to move. What they lack is a language for what to do about it.

David Hurst has spent fifty years developing that language. In this episode of Arkaro Insights, the author of The New Ecology of Leadership and Crisis & Renewal joins Mark Blackwell to revisit his ecocycle framework in the age of AI. The result is a rare kind of conversation: theoretically deep, practically usable and honest about what generative AI can and cannot do for a mature organisation.

Executive summary

  • The ecocycle is a two-loop model of organisational life. A front loop of birth, growth, maturity and conservation, followed by a back loop of crisis, release and renewal.
  • Large language model AI belongs on the front loop, where patterns are stable and calculable. Natural human intelligence belongs on the back loop, where the map runs out and only a compass will do.
  • Many mature organisations sit in what Hurst calls the rigidity trap at the top of the front loop, brilliant at yesterday’s logic and vulnerable to today’s change.
  • Senior leaders must toggle between two postures: the engineer who optimises a known system and the gardener who creates conditions for an unknown future to emerge.
  • Odysseus in the Straits of Messina is the picture of adaptive space, steering between the rock of stability and the whirlpool of change, where you get torn apart.
  • The 4:30am steel delivery ride-along is a concrete instance of ecological rationality, a workable technique for any senior leader who wants to see what head office cannot.

 

Why the ecocycle matters now

Many leader see the same underlying problem. Their business was designed for one world, and the world has changed. Geopolitics, regulation, technology, climate, all move faster than the organisation can respond. The instinct is to look for a new operating model, a new tool, a new strategy document. Hurst suggests something different: begin by understanding the shape of the trajectory your organisation is on.

The ecocycle came out of his own experience of running a Canadian industrial distributor through the wreckage of a 1979 leveraged buyout, and out of his subsequent reading of the Canadian ecologist Buzz Holling on the adaptive cycle. Holling had studied forests, estuaries and other ecosystems, and had shown that they all follow a two-loop trajectory: a long front loop of birth, growth and maturation, and a shorter, faster back loop of release, reorganisation and renewal.

Applied to organisations, the front loop is the story of Western business as most of our audience knows it. Entrepreneurship, growth, scaling, structure, optimisation. The back loop is the story of what happens when that structure runs into a world it was not designed for, and either finds a way to renew itself or does not. It is, in Hurst’s phrase, a Daoist framework of two processes, each of which contains within it the seeds of the other.

Article content

Nothing lasts unless it is incessantly renewed – David Hurst

The two loops: front and back

The front loop begins with a small community of practice and trust, held together by shared passion. It is a place of improvisation, of what Henry Mintzberg calls bricolage: make a little, sell a little, make a little more. Steve Blank calls this a temporary organisation searching for a repeatable, scalable business model. The vast majority of ventures fail here. Those that succeed graduate into deliberate strategy, adopt Michael Porter’s value chain, scale up, and enter conservation.

At the top of the front loop sits the mature organisation. It is efficient, profitable, structured. It is also designed not to change, because its whole reason for existing is to preserve success. That is a rational design when tomorrow looks like today. It becomes brittle the moment the world begins to move.

The back loop begins with crisis. Hurst borrows his metaphors from the Hebrew Testament: wilderness, mountain, promised land. Wilderness is a place of confusion where it is easy to get lost and where many organisations spend years. Hurst notes wryly that General Motors spent forty years wandering in the wilderness before it went bankrupt in 2009. To get out of the wilderness, leaders must climb the mountain, which is the process of adaptive leadership: finding a view of what could come next, and building a shared sense of purpose that lets people act. Mission and purpose, in his experience, emerge from struggle and setback, not from external supply by a leader.

The critical point, and one Hurst returns to throughout the conversation, is that these are not sequential stages of a career. A working manager needs both loops in mind at the same time, and needs to know which loop the specific situation in front of them belongs to.

Article content

Where AI fits, and where it fails: the map and the compass

The single cleanest image from the conversation is the contrast between the map and the compass. The map is the front loop. It is the domain of stable patterns, known routes, calculable probabilities. Large language model AI is fabulously good at maps. It has been trained on a vast collection of yesterdays and can predict, with remarkable fidelity, what a stable pattern is likely to look like tomorrow.

The compass is the back loop. It is what you use when the map runs out, when the terrain is unfamiliar, when the pattern itself is changing. This is the domain of what Hurst calls ecological rationality, the human capacity to read a specific situation and find the affordances (action possibilities) that it offers. The philosopher J.J. Gibson coined the term for the way an animal reads its environment. Hurst applies it to the way an experienced manager reads a particular customer, a particular team, a particular moment.

Hurst is careful about his terminology. He talks about LLM AI, not AI in general. Other forms of AI, notably the active inference work associated with Karl Friston and Andy Clark, are attempting to build systems that work more like the human mind. That work has not yet gained traction, but it is where any serious progress towards genuine artificial general intelligence is likely to come from. Today’s generative tools are not headed there.

It’s forced us to reconsider what it means to be human. And it’s quite obvious that being human is much more than LLM AI can do – David Hurst

The rigidity trap: why mature organisations get stuck

The senior leader in the audience of this podcast is most likely running a business in conservation. Efficient, profitable, structured. Head office is a well-appointed place. When you were an entrepreneur, if you wanted resources you had to find a customer, because customers were the only people who had them. Now, if you want resources, you have to work through internal courtiers who guard access to a prince who allocates them. Your back is to the customer. Your face is to the boss.

That is the rigidity trap. It is not a failure of individual leaders. It is a normal, predictable trajectory that follows from success, exactly the same trajectory that mature forests follow when they become monocultures and can no longer regenerate. Hurst is emphatic that provided tomorrow is just like today, this is a fabulous place to be. And you will do fabulously well, for a while.

The signals that the world has stopped being stable are usually clear enough, if leaders look for them. A change of a customer, a change of a regulator, a change in the climate, a change in the political weather. What tends to be missing is not the signal, but a language for what to do about it. That is what the ecocycle provides.

Scylla and Charybdis: the adaptive space

For the manager caught between preserving success and preparing for renewal, Hurst reaches for Homer. Odysseus, sailing the Straits of Messina, has to navigate between two dangers: Scylla, the rock of stability where everyone gets eaten in restructurings and force reductions, and Charybdis, the whirlpool of change where organisations get torn apart. Steer too close to Scylla and the business dies of consolidation. Steer too close to Charybdis and it dies of chaos. The task is to hold the boat in the adaptive space between them.

This is a picture, not a solution. But it is a picture that senior leaders in mature businesses recognise instantly. It captures the daily judgement call about how much continuity to preserve and how much disruption to encourage, and it does so without collapsing into either the machine metaphor of pure engineering or the utopia metaphor of pure agility. The reference lands harder because of Christopher Nolan’s just-released Odyssey adaptation, which puts the same picture in front of a much wider audience.

From engineer to gardener

The core operating instruction that comes out of the framework is the toggle between two postures. The engineer designs and builds. Given a known problem in a known context, the engineer’s approach is the right one, and LLM AI is a powerful addition to the engineer’s toolkit. The gardener cultivates the conditions for growth without controlling the outcome. Given an unknown problem in an unstable context, the gardener’s approach is the right one, and this is a place where LLM AI cannot help.

Neither posture is better than the other. Neither is more sophisticated. Both are legitimate and both are necessary. The failure mode of mainstream Anglo-American management over the last sixty years, in Hurst’s view, has been to elevate the engineer and disregard the gardener. The result is organisations that are excellent at optimisation and hopeless at renewal.

The manager’s real job is to know, situation by situation, which posture the moment demands and to switch smoothly between them. Sometimes the toggle is slow, at the level of a year or a strategic cycle. Sometimes it is fast, at the level of a single meeting where you might discuss a structured operational issue in engineer mode and then move to an emergent question in gardener mode. Dr Iain McGilchrist‘s work on the divided brain, which Hurst has drawn on for decades, gives a neurological foundation for why humans are equipped to do this in the first place. Hurst himself has been living with the framework since 1984, when a Harvard Business Review article he wrote about the leveraged buyout turnaround, “Of Boxes, Bubbles and Effective Management”, laid out the same yin-yang tension in different vocabulary.

Ecological rationality in practice: the steel delivery story

The most concrete practitioner story of the conversation comes from Hurst’s time running a Canadian steel service centre. Once in a while, he would set his alarm for 4:30am, meet a driver at the yard, and go out on a steel delivery to a customer at six in the morning. Standing in the customer’s back yard at that hour, he could see what no head office report could ever show him. Whose competitors were queued up delivering to the same customer, and what they were delivering. Whether the customer’s production line was full or empty. Whether the workforce looked as if they might be about to strike. Whether the yard was well-run or in disarray. What was arriving, what was leaving, what was piling up.

This is ecological rationality made concrete. The affordances of the situation, the action possibilities, become visible only from a specific place at a specific time. No abstract dashboard can generate them, because they do not exist as data in any system. They exist in the world, and they only become available to a leader who deliberately puts themselves in the world where they live.

This is the fine-grained awareness of what’s actually happening, which allows you to adjust your top-down picture, which allows you to predict the world. – David Hurst

Every senior leader has some version of this available. A morning at a farm-gate. A shift on a production line. An afternoon in a distributor’s warehouse. A day in a formulator’s application lab. The specific place matters less than the discipline of going to it, on foot, at the hour when the work is actually happening.

What this means for leaders on Monday morning

Asked what senior leaders in mature businesses should do next week with their teams, Hurst declined to give a general answer. Any generic recommendation, he pointed out, is going to be true but useless. Cultivate psychological safety. The opposite is clearly nonsense, so everyone will nod, and nothing will change. The advice that actually helps is particular to this organisation, with these people, right here, right now.

The takeaway, then, is not a checklist. It is a discipline. The discipline is sense-making. Put effort into diagnosing where on the ecocycle your organisation actually sits, and where different parts of it sit, because a large business will have some units clearly on the front loop and others clearly on the back loop. Notice which posture, engineer or gardener, the situation in front of you demands. And when you are about to reach for a piece of context-free advice from a management text or from a generative AI tool, ask whether the advice is a map fit for the terrain, or whether the terrain requires a compass.

That is the work. It is the work that AI cannot do for you. And it is the work that, done well, makes AI genuinely useful in the parts of the business where it earns its place.

Listen to the full conversation

The full episode with David Hurst is available on YouTube (www.youtube.com/@arkaro) and on the Arkaro Insights podcast (arkaroinsights.buzzsprout.com), along with Apple Podcasts, Spotify and all major platforms.


About the speakers

David Hurst

David K. Hurst is a reflective practitioner, speaker, educator and writer on management. He spent twenty-five years as a senior operating executive, including a decade as Executive Vice-President of Federal Industries’ Metals Group in Canada, following the rescue of Hugh Russel Inc. after a leveraged buyout. He is the author of Crisis & Renewal (Harvard Business School Press, 1995) and The New Ecology of Leadership (Columbia Business School Publishing, 2012). He writes regularly at davidkhurst.com and on Medium.

Mark Blackwell

Mark Blackwell is the founder of Arkaro Ltd, a boutique B2B consultancy specialising in change management, innovation, integrated business planning and commercial excellence. Arkaro works with clients in agriculture, food and chemicals through a ‘do it with you’ philosophy that builds lasting capability alongside measurable performance improvement. Mark hosts the Arkaro Insights podcast.


Working through a rigidity trap of your own?

Arkaro’s four-step approach, understand, co-create, enable, sustain, is built for exactly the kind of adaptive work David Hurst describes. If the shape of the conversation resonates with what you are seeing in your own business, we would be glad to explore whether a first conversation might be useful.

www.arkaro.com | mark@arkaro.com


Related reading from Arkaro

On strategy in complex adaptive systems

  • Beyond the Tyranny of the Mid-Case, with Dr Pete Compo on the Emergent Approach to strategy in conditions of genuine uncertainty. Compo gives the practitioner method; Hurst gives the ecological theory underneath it.
  • The Hidden Power of Messy Teams, Dr Johnathan Cromwell on why teams that discover their problem over time achieve implementation rates of over 80 per cent, while those that clarify it early struggle to reach half of that.
  • People-Centric Change: The End of Linear Thinking, Professor Julie Hodges on why linear change models are no longer fit for purpose in complex organisations.

 

On AI in mature organisations

 

On the whole human at work

  • The Brilliant but Limited Mind, Linden Thorp on why modern leadership has overinvested in the mind at the expense of the body, the breath and the wider nervous system.
  • Group Genius, Dr Keith Sawyer on the ten conditions for group flow, the state of peak collective performance that AI cannot produce but can undermine.
  • Junk Values: Why Corporate Values Fail, Erika Clegg on why three decades of recycled corporate values have failed, and what it takes to build values that guide real decisions.

 

On escaping the rigidity trap

 

External resources and further reading

By David Hurst

  • The New Ecology of Leadership: Business Mastery in a Chaotic World (Columbia Business School Publishing, 2012)
  • Crisis & Renewal: Meeting the Challenge of Organizational Change (Harvard Business School Press, 1995)
  • Of Boxes, Bubbles and Effective Management (Harvard Business Review, 1984)
  • davidkhurst.com, David’s blog and complete essay archive
  • davidkhurst.medium.com, recent essays including Toggling Between Two Worlds

 

Foundational reading he references

  • C.S. (Buzz) Holling and Lance Gunderson, Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems
  • Iain McGilchrist, The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World
  • Richard Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently
  • Gerd Gigerenzer, on fast and frugal heuristics and ecological rationality
  • Gary Klein, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Naturalistic Decision Making)
  • Karl Friston and Andy Clark, on active inference and predictive processing as alternative foundations for AI

 

Subscribe to Arkaro Insights

For long-form conversations with the practitioners and researchers helping senior leaders in agriculture, food and chemicals think more clearly about change, complexity, AI and commercial performance.

 

Making Sense of Innovation in an Uncertain World

In 2026, as AI reshapes management and volatility defines markets, innovation demands more than data or disruption – it’s about perceiving possibilities and acting on them amid chaos. Four concepts – sensemaking, predictive processing, affordances, and emergence – offer managers a practical framework to navigate this reality.

Perception Shapes Reality

Sensemaking, pioneered by the late Karl Weick, reminds us that reality isn’t just observed; it’s enacted through ongoing interpretation. Managers don’t analyze like detached scientists – they weave order from ambiguity using experiences, emotions, and context. This contrasts with the rationalist bias in business schools and explains why rigid planning often fails in dynamic environments.

Cognitive psychologist Gary Klein has shown how experienced practitioners make decisions under time pressure, uncertainty, unclear goals, high stakes, poorly defined procedures, dynamic conditions, etc. Under these circumstances they do not use the mainstream Rational Choice Model. Instead, they use what Klein calls the Naturalistic or Recognition-primed Decision Model. It’s about recognizing patterns derived from long and varied experiences to create expectancies, trigger sensitivity to cues, and suggest plausible goals and possible actions. The focus is on the way they assess the situation and judge it familiar, not on comparing options.

Fast Evaluations

Courses of action can be quickly evaluated by imagining how they will be carried out, not by formal analysis. Decision makers usually look for the first workable option they can find, not the best option. Since the first option they consider is usually workable, they do not have to generate a large set of options to be sure they get a good one. They generate and evaluate options, one at a time, and do not bother comparing advantages and disadvantages of alternatives. By imagining the option being carried out, they can spot weaknesses thereby making the option stronger. While conventional models select the best, without seeing how it can be improved., the emphasis is on being poised to act rather than being paralyzed until all evaluations have been completed.

Brains and Bodies Predict Ahead

This recognition-primed approach aligns with how our brains and bodies cope with the world. Neuroscientist Andy Clark’s predictive processing suggests that we constantly forecast outcomes, blending top-down models with bottom-up feedback to minimize surprise. In the realm of necessity (where AI excels with precise answers), we refine predictions. But in the domain of contingency – where judgment rules – we act to bend reality. This demands embodied experience that LLM AIs lack. From this activity action possibilities emerge

Action and Perception are tightly coupled

A good example of how action and perception are connected is from baseball. Outfielders in professional baseball (or cricket) catch most fly balls successfully. From the perspective of a physicist, it is ‘as-if’ they can calculate the velocity of the ball off the bat, predict its trajectory and run to the spot where it will land. We know they don’t actually do this. Instead, they use a gaze heuristic, maintaining a constant angle of gaze between their eyes and the ball. If the ball rises in their field of view, they run away from it, if it’s dropping, they run toward it. The constant process of adjustment, weaving together error detection through perception and error reduction through action allows them to be at the right place by the time the ball becomes catchable. That’s what innovative organizations do: they put themselves in the right place at the right time.

Seizing Action Opportunities

Ecologist J.J. Gibson’s affordances frame environments as landscapes of possibilities tailored to our goals. Innovation thrives on spotting these “adjacent possibles”—opportunities for bricolage or improvisation. Leaders who expand choices, rather than narrowing them, turn constraints into breakthroughs, much like startups pivoting amid scarcity.

When I ran a North American steel distribution company (traditionally regarded as a price-taking commodity business), I occasionally got up at 4:30 a.m. to ride in delivery trucks making their morning rounds with customers. It soon became apparent that the customers’ yards in the early morning were places and occasions when threats and opportunities became most visible. It was clear that our drivers were a valuable resource. From their unique vantage points, they could see how busy our customers were, what kinds of materials they were buying and from who. We could get early warning of strikes and slowdowns and by cultivating relations with yard bosses our drivers could get our trucks in and out faster. The solution was to treat the drivers, not as hired hands, but as the valuable sources of information that they were and engage them in the company conversation. Weekly lunchtime debriefs and the occasional distribution of football tickets via the drivers made all the difference. Affordances – action possibilities – emerge continually from processes like these.

Orchestrating Emergence

Emergence can’t be commanded, only fostered. New ventures start in passion and trust, scaling through repeatable models into power structures that risk stifling creativity. Discerning managers dwell in an “adaptive space”: oscillating in a yin-yang dynamic between abstraction and action, necessity and contingency, to avoid competency traps and sustain vitality.

For Drucker Forum leaders, this means redesigning organizations as porous ecosystems—decentralized, experimental, and purpose-driven. Ditch top-down control for facilitated emergence: empower frontline sensemaking, hunt affordances daily, and measure success by adaptive capacity, not just outputs. Consultants, Neel Doshi and Lindsay McGregor describe a yin-yang tension between tactical performance and adaptive performance. Tactical performance, assessed by conventional metrics, is often overused, suppressing initiative and curiosity, especially when performance reviews are tied to compensation. Adaptive performance is all about how well people respond when plans break down. It’s about experimentation and their ability to improvise under pressure. It’s about learning goals in a culture that encourages exploration and develops peripheral vision and resilience. It turns out that tech companies can learn from hotels and florists, financial service companies from barber shops and tattoo parlours.

In 2026’s unpredictable terrain, innovative managers don’t predict the future—they can shape it, moment by moment.

Snakes and Ladders: Making Ecological Sense of Liberal Democracy

A Multi-dimensional Game of Snakes and Ladders

There is a contradiction at the heart of liberal democracy: while democracy requires social equality, the engine of capitalism creates both wealth and inequality. While direct democracy – the purest form – thrives only in small-scale, face-to-face communities, the interaction of capitalism and technology systematically produces large-scale enterprises and institutions, where people are separated in space and time. Coordination now takes rules and hierarchy, which, together with the accumulation of wealth, leads to the emergence of elites. Over time the interests of these elites will turn to rent-seeking and value extraction at the expense of value creation. Many will strive to retain power by blocking all efforts at its redistribution.

Add to this behavior of the elites the ‘creative destruction’ of technological change and the result is that the relationship between democracy and capitalism changes constantly as technology both creates and destroys, value creation morphs into value extraction and elites accumulate wealth and power. Social inequality grows. The constant dilemma for proponents of liberal democracy is how to harness the productive power of capitalism, while ensuring that its benefits are spread widely enough to maintain a sense of political participation and shared citizenship.  It’s a bit like trying to design and manage a multi-dimensional game of snakes and ladders.

Addressing this tension, between democratic responsiveness and institutional stability, was the primary concern of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. They knew, as modern Americans are rediscovering, that when this effort succeeds the result is a resilient society and a robust middle class with a shared narrative of who they are. When the process fails the middle-class fragments and societies become unstable. Oligopolies flourish and elites become entrenched, while many members of the erstwhile middle-class join the ‘invisible class’, losing their stories and their identities: for them the game seems to become all snakes and no ladders.  They will then turn to populist politicians and anyone else who promises to restore their lost narratives.

To continue reading this article go to Medium: Snakes and Ladders

Making Sense of Management: Theory and Practice

Plato points upward toward universal truths and his Theory of Forms, while his student Aristotle indicates that true reality lies lower in the particulars of practice and experience

Plato and Aristotle in detail from Raphael’s School of Athens (1511). Plato points upward toward universal truths and his Theory of Forms, while his student Aristotle indicates that true reality lies lower in the particulars of practice and experience

What’s the relationship between management theory and management practice? Today I published a 3,000-word essay on the topic on Medium. Here’s a brief introduction:

The relationship between theory and practice has vexed management academics and practitioners alike for decades. Traditionally the Anglo-American approach has been to address it as a knowledge transfer problem. This approach was helped by making no distinction between the natural and human sciences. The assumption was that reality was ‘out there’ to be studied objectively and that the goal of knowledge, via the scientific method, was to learn more and more about its true nature. This perspective assigns a superior position to formal-technical ‘scientific’ knowledge and sees practical knowledge as an inferior derivative of it. This was a triumph for Plato’s views over those of Aristotle. Plato had contended that the knowledge of forms or universals was sufficient to understand reality. Aristotle, on the other hand, had argued that, while knowledge of forms was necessary, it was not sufficient: one also needed experience with particulars. He said that this explained why experienced practitioners with little theoretical knowledge often performed better than those who knew a lot of theory but had little experience.

Ever since the Enlightenment Plato’s ideas have dominated Anglo-American management thought but in recent years Aristotle’s views have been making a comeback. Management theory and management practice are increasingly seen as different types of knowledge, with different philosophical assumptions about reality and how we apprehend it. Theory and practice may appear to be in opposition and even as substitutes for each other, but their relationship is best seen as complementary. This complementary relationship becomes clear if one takes a sensemaking perspective which is where my Medium article begins….

Restoring Humanity to Management: the Power of Context

My blog on this topic has just been published on the Drucker Forum here.

My biggest beef with mainstream Anglo-American management (‘Cartesian’ management, as I call it) is that it ignores context. It treats management as an amoral, technical practice, modelled on the natural sciences and often based on what John Dewey called the spectator theory of knowledge. This myth, that we are passive observers who can view the world objectively, lies at the root of our impoverished models of what it means to be human.

Cartesian management sanctions the stripping of apparently successful methodologies from the human contexts that made them successful and presenting them as abstract, context-free ‘principles’ that can be ‘applied’ by anybody in any situation. This disregards the importance of initial conditions and path-dependent nature of whatever happens in practice and perpetuates an illusion of rationality, predictability and control. Many academics and consultants like this approach, but it is anathema to effective managers.

Effective managers know that abstract principles cannot be applied to humans in the same way that they are in the natural sciences. If people are treated as objects – assets and resources – they respond badly. The best management frameworks are those that help managers make sense of the contexts that they are in. The frames direct their attentions and guide their conversations in their search for affordances, the action possibilities afforded by the particular situations in which they find themselves.

It is the ability of managers (a practical wisdom developed through experience) to find these affordances that makes or breaks their efforts. Context matters! This may be why many managers prefer to read history, biography and even fiction to management books. The former offer quasi-experiences that illustrate how other humans discovered action possibilities in the situations in which they found themselves.

Management academics and consultants persist with the Cartesian approach for at least two major reasons. Apart from allowing them to wrap themselves in the mantle of ‘science’, ignoring context broadens the markets and industries that they can address – one size fits all! The second advantage is that the Cartesian approach leaves the current power structure of the organization (and society) unchallenged. This allows a servants-of-power approach, especially in the business schools: “In other words, they say given your ends, whatever they may be, the study of administration will help you to achieve them. We offer you tools. Into the foundations of your choices we shall not inquire, for that would make us moralists rather than scientists.” Philip Selznick Leadership in Administration P 80.

Once again, this is anathema to effective managers trying to enable significant organizational change. They know that power structures that perpetuate the status quo and allow only incremental efficiency innovations are barriers to more radical experimentation. This does not imply a need for wholesale revolution, only continual renewal, as power is spread more widely and moves around the organization. This allows people to exercise responsibility and take action in the areas where they are best suited to do so.

Management cannot be treated as an amoral technical practice that deals only with means and leaves ends unaddressed. Rather, it is also a human inquiry, a moral practice that questions chosen ends and their good for both business and society. People are ends-in-themselves.

The Scientific and the Humanistic Modes of Inquiry

The core of the blog is the diagram, which captures some of my intellectual journey over the last forty years, as I tried to make sense of a major organizational transformation experience:

The contrast between the scientific and humanistic modes of inquiry has many precedents. Among my inspirations were the writings of psychologist Jerome Bruner, psychiatrist/philosopher Iain McGilchrist and many dual process theorists of cognition and emotion. Underpinning it all is the taijitu, the yin-yang symbol of complementary yet opposing forces that form a self-perpetuating cycle of the kinds found in complex ecosystems like forests and estuaries.

The “Cartesian Search for Truth” and the “Goethean Quest for Meaning” titles were inspired by the long debate on multiple topics between Anglo-American and Continental philosophers, particularly on the contrast between naturwissenschaft (natural sciences) and geisteswissenschaft (human sciences) (e.g. Dilthey).

The left column is effectively a summary of the current mainstream Anglo-American management canon. The right column is a ‘both…and’ addition to the left. Together they outline my conception of the next management canon. It is not a movement from one canon to a new one but a dynamic synthesis of the old and the new, the conservative and the radical. The dynamic has been described as a dance, but the ‘both…and’ nature of the humanistic perspective, means that it must always embrace and contain the ‘either/or’ scientific view.

In short, the Next Management Canon regards organizations as constantly emerging processes fashioned by humans: creatures of nature, with bodies and intentions, situated in time and space, culture and society, searching for identity and meaning and struggling for credibility and authority.

Life is the ultimate context.