Consequently, it’s not enough just to listen. To make people feel heard, we have to show them that we listened. We have to respond in a way that demonstrates that we attended to and understood what they said.

And this is why concrete language is so valuable. A customer service representative may have paid attention, and understood the problem, but without some outward signal of understanding, there is no way for the customer to know.

Concrete language provides that signal. Using specific, concrete language shows that rather than just going through the motions, someone went to the effort to attend to and understand what was said. Or, said differently, to listen.

Concrete language boosted customer satisfaction, and purchase, because it showed customers that employees were listening to their needs…

So while attending to and understanding needs are key facets of listening, using concrete language takes it one step further. It shows listening.

At the front is a conductor — and here we can see why Stafford Beer often said it was difficult to separate the operational systems. The conductor has one definite System 2 role; to mark the beat so everyone plays in time. That’s clearly regulatory in nature, but the conductor isn’t just a human metronome. They’re responsible for the dynamics of the piece, directing instruments to play softer or louder at the appropriate points, and to change the tempo according to the needs of the piece. System 3 integration and management role of the conductor is to provide the feedback to the musicians about the noise they’re making and how it needs to adapt.

So now we move on to the higher functions. I picked the example of an orchestra for this part of the explanation because there’s a clear boundary between decisions made during its performances (the operations) and other kinds of decision. Conducting an orchestra in a piece of music is a particular job, but a lot of other decisions need to be made to provide the context for the performance. As well as the ‘here-and-now’ functions which ensure that the music is played, the orchestra needs to be able to make higher-level choices — picking the repertoire and deciding where and when the performances will happen. The conductor might be involved in this, or there might be an artistic director or a tour manager — the point is that the function needs to exist.

This is System 4 of the model, often described as the intelligence function. Its defining characteristic is that while System 3 manages things happening ‘here-and-now’, System 4 is responsible for ‘there-and-then’. It is meant to be dealing with information from those parts of the environment that aren’t in direct contact with System I, and so which are capable of generating shocks that can’t be handled by the ‘management by exception’ system. The usual reason why this part of the environment isn’t detected by the operations is that it doesn’t exist yet; the key job of System 4 is to make sure that the resource bargains System 3 strikes with operations will remain feasible following anticipated future structural changes. *

It’s also important to note again that systems of this sort don’t necessarily match up to organisation charts, and that individuals can appear in different roles in different functions and contexts. For example, when on stage the piano player is part of System I operations, and will follow the conductor’s instructions. If, however, the orchestra is accompanying Elton John, the piano player will also be involved in higher levels of management and decision-making — because the piano player is Elton John!

*What about coping with unanticipated structural changes? We’ll get there in a minute, but the honest answer might be ‘sometimes they don’t’. A viable system is one capable of surviving indefinitely and of adapting to unanticipated shocks — which doesn’t mean that it can adapt to everything.

There are two obvious failure modes here — changing too much, and changing too little. If the orchestra never changes its programme it will stagnate, but if it changes too often the musicians will be under-rehearsed and quality will suffer. The Variety transmitted from the intelligence function needs to be matched both to the change it anticipates in the environment and to the capacity of the operational function to reorganise itself.

• There are five core functions, and if any of them are missing or under-resourced, the flow of information won’t be balanced with the capacity to process it.

• Information only counts if it’s being delivered in a form in which it can be translated into action, and this means that it needs to arrive quickly enough.

• Systems preserve their viability by dealing with problems as much as possible at the same level at which they arrive, but they also need to have communication channels that cross multiple levels of management, to deal with big shocks that require immediate change.