Diagnosing Complex Organisations with Diverse Cultures—Part 1: Agency Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The mention of pathologies and its relation with cybernetics could be developed further to give  colsure to the general aim of the framework proposed (diagnostic). 

Figure 2 is repeted in the document

Author Response

We thank you indeed for your important observation. I note your comments here, and provide our responses. 

Review note: The mention of pathologies and its relation with cybernetics could be developed further to give closure to the general aim of the framework proposed (diagnostic). Figure 2 has been repeated.

Response: Actually, Figure 2 is not excatly the same as Figure 1, since one is concerned with cognition, and the other with affect, though they are so similar that it is easy to not see their difference, especially since not so much attention is given to affect. However, your point is well taken. One of the two figures has been deleted, and the other modified to reflect both cognition and affect. A new and different figure has been produced to replace it. Figure 2 has been deleted.

Thank you also for your useful observation about closure. The text has been elaborated to hopefully respond to your observation. In addition, a new conclusion has been created in order embrace your comment. In doing this there has been a need to elaborate on some of the conceptualisation. As a result, the abstract has also been modified. All changes are indicated by using a yellow background.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your significant observations. We shall repeat your comments, and respond to them below.

Reviewer Note: The manuscript deals with an interesting and relevant field of contemporary systems science. By developing a framework for modelling and diagnosing complex adaptive systems with cultural diversity, the paper provides valuable methodological tool consisting of combining MAT with social organization paradigm. The paper contains an interesting approach which attends to holistically conceptualize the various aspects of complexities of culturally diverse agencies having instabilities that can become pathologies, recognizing the potential effect this can have on behavior and performance. It reflects the perspective of critical systems thinking and necessity for combining diverse methodological tools in the one intervention. The paper is primarily theoretical so the contribution to the practice is not so clear.  However, the authors indicate the follow up paper introducing the application of the proposed framework. As I read the first part of the paper, I would suggest the authors to think about introducing some practical implications of the proposed framework in this part of the paper. I also think the paper is too extensive.  Regarding the abstract, I would suggest the authors to reframe the abstract. First of all, the abstract should clarify the research purpose that clearly represents the whole paper. Additionally, more clearly identifying of the main findings, research limitations and implications, as well as originality/value of the paper would be beneficial. Concerning the literature, the paper cites extensive and relevant literature. However, when submitting paper to the Systems, I think the author(s) should refer to the papers published in this journal.

Response: Thank you for this very supportive statement, which is appreciated.  The abstract has been rewritten, and hopefully now clarifies the research purpose and seeks to represents attributes of the whole paper. The issue of including citations directly related to the journal in which a paper hopes to be published is actually at the centre of an argument, ad not all journals adopt this recommendation. US journals appear to be particularly prone to this suggestion. There are many reasons to request that articles from the publishing journal are cited, and there are both pros and cons relating to this. One reason to do so might be to improve a journal's citation index, and another might be to develop a profile for a particular research trajectory. An argument against might be that excessive citation for the given journal might arrow the research, and thus limit the development of the theme. In some areas of research, especially with respect to new paradigms, such citations may be very sparse, and this is the case with the work here. To respond to your suggestion, the journal publications have been searched, and only one relevant paper has been found, which is indeed an excellent citation related to the observer in cybernetic systems. This has been included when considering the symbolic observer as a disposition of agency. So we thank you for this suggestion. Your additional suggestion that some consideration of applications are introduced to explain some of the detail in this paper is noted. However, this makes the paper even more extensive. The conclusion has been reformulated to satisfy a suggestion by another reviewer, and illustrations have been inserted there. Your consideration about lack of application might also be satisfied by you considering a preprint entitled Diagnosing ASEAN part 2 is available on the web, which so far has had 2 recommendations as indicated by ResearchGate..

Reviewer 3 Report

1) a basic problem with that submission is that it seems to be only the 1 part of the complete intended submission. (see line, 24, 25,1093,1094)

2)  The submission seem to be just an extensive literature survey (some 120 papers!) but with little cross-referencing between the remarks.  Notably on later pagers practically no backward reference are provided, except to th Yolles-papers.

3) Some of the cited papers are just scited, without tgheir contents being used (cf. line 63)

4) The paper does in an introduction define essential of  concepts of the paper (e.g. 'agency' ,  'culture',  'Social org. theory') .    Very late a discussion of 'agency' is made (line 546 ff)

5) The paper is not really structured by topics and sub-headings.   Paragraphs are excessively long and often contain different issues. Typically in line 324 a new subtitle might be useful.

6) Table 8 (line 515) is missing

7) Descriptions what MAT  is spread over many place and comes too late (e.g. p.345 ff )

8) With respect to culture and agency a discussion of papers [5] to [9]    and their contribution to the culture-problem is missing. Also  'author={House,  et. al. Strategic Leadership Across Cultures: GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries , SAGE Publ. Calif. ,
isbn=978-1412995948,     is missing

9)  reference [4] and [107]  and the same

From now on comments by like number

 63, 64 The contribution of these authors shoud be made more explicit.

41: what are appearance conflicts

91: give a reference  to MAT

141: ref to Prigogine missing

200: Finally a short description of MAT is given, should be much earlier

214: where is 'sensate, ideational'  explained or referred to? Can't be some other values,  too, e.g. 0.3?

240-249 should be at least another paragraph ('different topic')

324:- 344 should be under  a new subtitle

448: an explanation of the general notion of ' mindset' would  be helpful.

461- 467  the figure are almost identical, would be helpful to the reader to have one figure with the minor  differences indicated and not let the reader do the search

469-477, 504 no references! from where are they?

476 explain the term  'Agency SYSTEM' !

454 -593: 6 finally Agency and traits is discussed  - should much earlier

681 what is a figurative system?

747 Is Tönnies [93] the only reference?

839 Add [93] again as reference

881 -888 very vague, not precise

904 add <893] again!

963- 986: These are only vague statements all using the word 'may'!i

1027-1034, are there no other references than [16]

1051 I believe that 'operative functionality' has not been mentioned i the

paper before  (reference?

/

Author Response

We thank you for your detailed identification of issues in the paper, all of which are important, and contribute to a very much improved ms. Here, yiur comments will be noted followed by our responses.

1) a basic problem with that submission is that it seems to be only the 1 part of the complete intended submission. (see line, 24, 25,1093,1094).

Part 2 is still under development, but an early version is available as a preprint under the title Diagnosing ASEAN part 2 (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202308.0378/v1) and which ResearchGate notes has had two recommendations.

2)  The submission seem to be just an extensive literature survey (some 120 papers!) but with little cross-referencing between the remarks.  Notably on later pagers practically no backward reference are provided, except to the Yolles-papers.

This is a new paradigm, and it is not easy to follow. Only now are we seeing some movement from other authors to develop on the model, and most are my old students. Hence, detailed considerations of the model requir back-reference to the authors' work. To include reference to authors relevant to the development of the theory would make the paper too extensive to be published in any journal. Background is available in 4 books published on the theme. There are really two aspects to the paper, and neither constitute a literature review "as such." One aspect is the detailed background to MAT, since in part 2 of the paper the mindset of ASEAN will be determined as part of the diagnosis. The other aspect concerns the configuration process which requires detailed entry into the literature.

3) Some of the cited papers are just sited, without their contents being used (cf. line 63).

This observation is correct, but the approach had been adopted in order not to make the paper too extensive. Some citations were provided for reader interest in extending their appreciation of the concepts. However, a significant number of adjustments have now been made to the citations by providing detail. Due to the space cost in doing this, it has been done judiciously.

4) The paper does an introduction define essential of  concepts of the paper (e.g. 'agency' ,  'culture',  'Social org. theory') .   Very late a discussion of 'agency' is made (line 546 ff).

This is a valuable observation. An elaborated definition of agency has been moved to the very start of the introduction.

5) The paper is not really structured by topics and sub-headings.   Paragraphs are excessively long and often contain different issues. Typically in line 324 a new subtitle might be useful.

Thank you for this. A significant amount of rewriting has occurred, most of which hs a yellow background. In section 2 a new subheading has been introduced. A number of paragraphs have been broken at appropriate points.

6) Table 8 (line 515) is missing

Thank you for spotting this error. It should read Table 5, and it has been modified in the text.

7) Descriptions what MAT  is spread over many place and comes too late (e.g. p.345 ff )

There is value in bringing the definition of MAT earlier in the paper, however the preamble is important for creating the context, and like a good wine, the model itself should not be rushed. MAT is really detailed on p.4. However, discussion of the nature of MAT continues until the figures on p.10, when only then can MAT be seen as an integral model.

8) With respect to culture and agency a discussion of papers [5] to [9] and their contribution to the culture-problem is missing. Also  'author={House,  et. al. Strategic Leadership Across Cultures: GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries , SAGE Publ. Calif. ,
isbn=978-1412995948,     is missing

This ref has been inserted, but later on when referring to the work by Hofstede. The GLOBE studies are incredibly important, and can at the same time as the work by Shalom Schwartz, but this is out of reach for this particular paper due to the extension that it would create.

9)  reference [4] and [107]  and the same.

Thank you for spotting this. It has been corrected.

From now on comments by like number

 63, 64 The contribution of these authors should be made more explicit. We appreciate and thank you for your comment that refers to the reference 5-9.

Adjustment has been made here to respond to your comment.

41: what are appearance conflicts.

Thank you for spotting the loss of the word “of”.

91: give a reference  to MAT

Thank you. The citation hs been inserted.

141: ref to Prigogine missing

Thank you. this has been corrected.

200: Finally a short description of MAT is given, should be much earlier

Some of this description has been moved some to p.2, but sine the theory is described in section 2, it is problematic for coherence bringing much of it forward.

214: where is 'sensate, ideational'  explained or referred to? Can't be some other values,  too, e.g. 0.3?

An interesting and excellent observation and question. I have added in the sentence “Of course other balances may occur (e.g., 0.3) that indicates distinction in the balanced relationship between Sensate and Ideational cultural values, where lower values will indicate greater dominance of the Sensate.” This has been marked in a yellow background in the paper.

240-249 should be at least another paragraph ('different topic')

Thanks for this observation. The sentence should not start with “Earlier we considered self-organisation” and it has been changed to “Besides self-orgaisation”

324:- 344 should be under  a new subtitle.

Thanks. A new subheader 2.2 has been inserted entitled The Ontology of Mindset Agency Theory

448: an explanation of the general notion of ' mindset' would  be helpful.

A new paragraph has been inserted to hopefully provide the requisite explanation.

461- 467  the figure are almost identical, would be helpful to the reader to have one figure with the minor differences indicated and not let the reader do the search.

A very valid observation. Thank yo. One of the figures has been eliminated and the other generalised to show variations. However, a new figure 1 has also been introduced to explain the fractal.

469-477, 504 no references! from where are they?

Citations have been inserted relevant to each table.

476 explain the term  'Agency SYSTEM' !

Thank you for spotting that error. It is of course Agency Mindset, and a correction has been made.

454 -593: 6 finally Agency and traits is discussed  - should much earlier.

The discussion considering agency and traits has been brought forward in the ms. The bulk description, however, needs to appear where the figures are situated, in Section 2.

681 what is a figurative system?

Thank you for spotting this. It is really the dispositional figurative system, as depicted in the figures. More description has been provided on this.

747 Is Tönnies [93] the only reference?

Additional references have been inserted.

839 Add [93] again as reference.

This has now been done. Thank you.

881 -888 very vague, not precise.

It is important to eliminate vagueness in a paper. We thank you for noting this. The piece has been rewritten to make it less vague.

904 add <893] again!

Thank you. This whole section has been rewritten to address your observation.

963- 986: These are only vague statements all using the word 'may'!i

Thank you. The vagueness has been eliminated.

1027-1034, are there no other references than [16]

This section is a summary that derives from the 2021 book of the first author of this paper. The paragraph has been adjusted to make this clearer.

1051 I believe that 'operative functionality' has not been mentioned i the paper before  (reference?

The term operative functionality, which is part of the new paradigm, has been used earlier on p.3, but there was not satisfactorily defined. There, the definition has been improved on p.3.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the updated Version of paper   systems-2721909

The 2^nd version – on my opinion – has not amended the basic problems I already indicated in the review of the first version.

It is extremely user-unfriendly :

The citation of external papers is inconsistent (cf. line 1161 and line 1183)  and in many instance only  the citation number is given which is not helpful for a user, because this number even changed between the 1^st and the 2^nd version – for every number the user would have to look up the citation index.

The paper is still labelled “ part 1”, but without an indication what part 2 is to be or when it will come into existence.

The ‘discussion and conclusion’ does not have any pointers back to text, so the reader is left on his/her own to relate it to previous pages

There is still no table of contents

In my opinion  my  suggestions to – perhaps – make the paper easier to read are:

1)     Add a table of content

2)     Add more subtitles and thus structure the paper

3)     Add the authors’ names to all papers in the in the text:                                                                                                                                                        what should I do with ‘[109][110][111]  which do not even refer to the same author  – what is the commonality?

4)     I would order the Reference List by the name of the author(s) -  I KNOW that this has to be discussed with the r Board.

Thus I stay with my previous evaluation

The reviewer

Author Response

Author: Thank you for your view on this paper.

Reviewer: The 2^nd version – on my opinion – has not amended the basic problems I already indicated in the review of the first version.

Author: I responded to all of the details you provided since there were some minor errors in the paper that I may not have discovered. I thank you for that. However, I notice that you did not comment on the conceptualisation at all, which is unusual for a reviewer.

Reviewer: It is extremely user-unfriendly

Author: This if often the case with papers that are presenting complex modelling processes with very abstract ideas.

Reviewer: The citation of external papers is inconsistent (cf. line 1161 and line 1183)  and in many instance only  the citation number is given which is not helpful for a user, because this number even changed between the 1^st and the 2^nd version – for every number the user would have to look up the citation index.

Author: In the second draft of the paper that you are referring to there is only one citation between the lines you indicated, and this refers to my own book. With respect to changes in citation numbers, the reader will only see one version of the paper. That the citation numbers may have changed from the first draft to the second is likely a function of finding an improved citation. The citations are intended to amplify and validate an argument in the normative way undertaken in academic papers. It seems you are arguing for the Harvard citation style which MDPI publications do not use. I have adopted the MDPI style for the citations, and if you require that I change it, the paper cannot possibly be published by them. Your apparent  advocation for an alternative style to MDPI citations is not therefore consistent with their request for you to review the paper.

Reviewer: The paper is still labelled “ part 1”, but without an indication what part 2 is to be or when it will come into existence.

Author: I had already indicated to you that the editors requested that I submit part 1 first since it was ready, but likely you missed that. An early version of part 2 is on the web as a preprint which already had 2 recommendations, so it would seem to be a sound paper. I provided you with access to the location of that paper which would have satisfied you, but perhaps you missed this too.

Reviewer: The ‘discussion and conclusion’ does not have any pointers back to text, so the reader is left on his/her own to relate it to previous pages

Author: The discussion and conclusion is exactly that, and is an integrated and hopefully more conversational explanation of the earlier part of the paper. It is assumed that the reader would have read the earlier part of the paper so that it does not require citations unless they are exceptional. I find it curious that you are making this point that any more senior academic would recognise to be fallacious.

Reviewer: There is still no table of contents

Author: Research papers do not have a table of contents. Books do. I will be generous and assume that this statement arises from your use of Google Translate, and is a language issue. Having said that, I give you that the introduction should have been a little shorter and the structure of the paper should have been more clearly indicated. Thus, I have now divided it into Introduction and Methodology, and the last paragraph of the Introduction indicates the structure of the paper.

Reviewer: In my opinion  my  suggestions to – perhaps – make the paper easier to read are: Add a table of content

Author: This has been replied to already. It is an illegitimate request.

Reviewer: Add more subtitles and thus structure the paper

Author: The structure is well defined, and each section already has a number of subsections. I have, however, split the Introduction. Many of the remaining sections already have many short subsections.  Long subsections (like 3.4) only appear to be the case because of a number of tables. To make the subsections shorter would interfere with comprehension.

Reviewer: Add the authors’ names to all papers in the in the text:                                                                                                                      what should I do with ‘[109][110][111]  which do not even refer to the same author  – what is the commonality?

Author: If interested, you should check the references and read their papers. This is the purpose of citations. Apparently you are not familiar with the citation style adopted by MDPI. With respect to your identification of the 3 citations, their commonality is obviously indicated by the context in which they are set. You note that they do not refer to the same author. They are not intended to. Rather, they are supposed to collectively indicate support for the statement in the sentence. However, as a response to this comment from you, where there are perhaps 3 such citations, I have introduced names even though this defeats the reason for using this citation method.

Reviewer:  I would order the Reference List by the name of the author(s) -  I KNOW that this has to be discussed with the Board.

Author: Your preference is immaterial if it goes against the guidelines of MDPI. You appear to be making yourself an illegitimate reviewer.

Reviewer: Thus I stay with my previous evaluation

Author: This is your prerogative, whether rational or not. It is a pity that you seem so obsessed with the citations that you have been unable to comment on the content of the paper, and taken together with some of your other comments, this puts into question your competence to review it.