Cybernetic Lookbooks
An Emerging Visual Approach for Organizational Understanding
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47061/jasc.v5i2.10308Keywords:
Cybernetics, organizational understanding, visual approach, diagramming practicesAbstract
Academic research often privileges written language in both production and dissemination of knowledge. However, language exists alongside visual and material artifacts in the definition, sensemaking, transportation, and stabilization of organizations (Boxenbaum et al., 2018). In contrast, a focus on language is not as prominent in the realm of fashion, where visuals, aesthetics, and materiality are core (Castaldo Lundén, 2020; Jenß & Hofmann, 2019; Julier, 2006; Pecorari, 2021). This paper demonstrates how an appropriation of a commonly used visual artifact in fashion—the lookbook—can promote the surfacing, sensemaking, and co-creation of new organizational realities. The cybernetic lookbook compiles a series of visual representations of the organization, created through cybernetic diagramming practices—diagrams that reflect feedback loops, scales, thresholds, leverage points, and cybernetic awareness. These visual representations emerged in the context of intervention research with three organizations—two early-stage startups and one responsible technology ecosystem-enabler. Reflections on the process suggest that cybernetic diagramming afforded three types of convening spaces—conversation spaces, co-production spaces, and reflection spaces—prompting new shared understanding about the products being built, new product innovation ideas, and potential new ways to communicate organizational stories as well as that of the research itself. It is hoped that this contribution may open novel avenues for visual methods experimentation for organizational understanding.
References
Abson, D., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C., Jager, N., & Lang, D. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y
ANU School of Cybernetics. (2022). Re/defining leadership in the 21st century: The view from cybernetics, a white paper developed by the ANU School of Cybernetics powered by The Menzies Foundation. Australian National University & Menzies Foundation. https://cybernetics.anu.edu.au/assets/Redefining_Leadership_in_the_21st_Century-the_view_from_Cybernetics.pdf
Ashby, W. R. (1960). Design for a brain: The origin of adaptive behaviour (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1320-3
Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.5851
Barbrook-Johnson, P., & Penn, A. S. (2022). Systems mapping: How to build and use causal models of systems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01919-7
Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. D. (2004). Special Issue on action research in information systems: Making IS research relevant to practice: Foreword. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148642
Bell, G. (2021). Talking to AI: An anthropological encounter with artificial intelligence. In L. Pedersen, & L. Cliggett (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of cultural anthropology (pp. 442–458). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529756449.n25
Bell, G., Zafiroglu, A., Assaad, Z., Bradley, C., Cooper, N., O’Brien, E., Reid, K., & Ruster, L. (2021). Custodians and midwives: The library of the future. School of Cybernetics, Australian National University.
Bernard, C. (1957). An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. Courier Corporation.
Bird, K. (2017, December 30). Generative scribing. Kelvy Bird. https://kelvybird.com/generative-scribing/
Bird, K. (2018). Generative scribing: A social art of the 21st century. PI Press.
Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R. E., & Svejenova, S. (2018). Towards an articulation of the material and visual turn in organization studies. Organization Studies, 39(5–6), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618772611
Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2010). Beyond reflective practice: New approaches to professional lifelong learning. Routledge.
Brand, S. (2000). The clock of the long now: Time and responsibility. Basic Books.
Cash, D., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208
Castaldo Lundén, E. (2020). Exploring fashion as communication: The search for a new fashion history against the grain. Popular Communication, 18(4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2020.1854952
Checkland, P. B. (1972). Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem solving. Journal of Systems Engineering, 3(2), 87–116.
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach. Dell Publishing Company.
Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). Extended epistemology. In D. Coghlan, & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of action research (pp. 329–332). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406
Cordeschi, R. (2002). The discovery of the artificial: Behavior, mind and machines before and beyond cybernetics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9870-5
Corlett, S., & Mavin, S. (2018). Reflexivity and researcher positionality. In C. Cassell, A. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and traditions (pp. 377–398). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212.n23
Costello, P. J. M., & Costello, J. (2011). Effective action research developing reflective thinking and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Daniell, K. A., & Barreteau, O. (2014). Water governance across competing scales: Coupling land and water management. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 2367–2380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.055
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Gibson, C., Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. (1998). Scaling issues in the social sciences: A report for the International Human Dimensions Program. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42765043_Scaling_Issues_in_the_Social_Sciences_A_Report_for_the_International_Human_Dimensions_Program
Hatchuel, A., & Molet, H. (1986). Rational modelling in understanding and aiding human decision-making: About two case studies. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90024-X
Institute for the Future. (2021). Foresight essentials. https://www.iftf.org/foresightessentials/
Ison, R. (2008). Systems thinking and practice for action research. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 139–159). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/10538-000
Jenß, H., & Hofmann, V. (2019). Fashion and materiality: Cultural practices in global contexts. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
Julier, G. (2006). From visual culture to design culture. Design Issues, 22(1), 64–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25224031
Krippendorff, K. (2023). A critical cybernetics. Constructivist Foundations, 19(1), 82–93. https://constructivist.info/19/1/082
Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
Malhi, L., Karanfil, Ö., Merth, T., Acheson, M., Palmer, A., & Finegood, D. T. (2009). Places to intervene to make complex food systems more healthy, green, fair, and affordable. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 4(3–4), 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240903346448
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green Publishing.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4201-8
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (n.d.). Business model canvas. Strategyzer. Retrieved May 25, 2024, from https://www.strategyzer.com/library/the-business-model-canvas
Pecorari, M. (2021). Fashion remains: Rethinking fashion ephemera in the archive. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1-8; C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds., Vols. 1-6; A. W. Burks, Ed., Vols. 7-8). Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1978). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Vol. 6. Scientific metaphysics (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds.). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1935)
Pickering, A. (2014). The cybernetic brain: Sketches of another future. University of Chicago Press.
Pross, A. (2016). What is life? How chemistry becomes biology. Oxford University Press.
Reiff, N. (2025, November 4). What is series funding A, B, and C? Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102015/series-b-c-funding-what-it-all-means-and-how-it-works.asp
Rid, T. (2017). Rise of the machines: A cybernetic history. Scribe Publications.
Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., & Bigelow, J. (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/286788
Ruster, L. P. (2023). Dignity-centred reflective practice for responsible action in technology startups: A preliminary approach [Conference paper]. Australasian Conference of Information Systems 2023 Proceedings, Wellington, New Zealand. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2023/25
Ruster, L. P., & Daniell, K. (2025). How to operationalize responsible use of artificial intelligence. MIS Quarterly Executive, 24(2). https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol24/iss2/6
Ruster, L. P., Oliva‐Altamirano, P., & Daniell, K. A. (2025). The dignity lens: Advancing human‐centred Protective and proactive algorithmic responsibility. Information Systems Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12601
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler.
Schön, D. A. (2017). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473
Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations: A complexity approach to change. Routledge.
Stjernfelt, F. (2000). Diagrams as centerpiece of a Peircean epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 36(3), 357–384. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40320800
Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582–603. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392581
Taylor, S. S., & Hansen, H. (2005). Finding form: Looking at the field of organizational aesthetics. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1211–1231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00539.x
von Foerster, H. (2003). Ethics and second-order cybernetics. In H. von Foerster, Understanding understanding (pp. 287–304). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21722-3_14
Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1639–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606068343
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Wiener, N. (1950). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. Spottiswoode.
Wong, S. K. B., & Rud, M. (2011). Turning a new page: Co–creation in practice through the study of C–G lookbook [Master’s thesis, Lund University]. https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2276669&fileOId=2436311
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lorenn Ruster
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
