Structural Parallels, Part 2: The A-B-A

Part 2 of the Structural Parallels series. Transformation follows a fundamental structure. This essay reveals how the same logic that governs a melody's return or an immune response's recovery also determines whether organizations adapt or collapse. By tracing where systems skip, stall, or refuse disruption, it exposes why transformation fails not from ignorance, but from breaking the structural rhythm that governs all successful change.

THE SYNTAX OF SYSTEMS

Long before modern systems theory, ancient Egypt treated stability and disruption as linked parts of a single cycle. Ma'at did not simply mean “order.” It referred to a shared understanding of how the world should function, which included balance, predictability, and coherence across social, political, and environmental life. Isfet represented disruption. It was not random chaos but the recognized moment when the existing order could no longer interpret conditions accurately.

The A-B-A pattern represents: Establishment (A) Deviation (B) Resolution (A’)

Crucially, restoration was not a return to the past; it was a recalibrated baseline shaped by what disruption revealed. This cycle was embedded in ritual, governance, and everyday decision-making. The value was not in tradition. It was in the cultural expectation that stability must periodically absorb new information. Egypt survived because it treated equilibrium as something that had to be continually re-earned rather than preserved through resistance.

This meaning-centered architecture mirrors pattern modern organizations often struggle to see. Systems function best when they acknowledge disruption, interpret what it exposes, and rebuild a baseline that reflects newly understood reality.

This structure appears across every domain where systems adapt under constraint:

Music Composition

• Verse (A): Establishes melodic theme and emotional baseline

• Chorus (B): Introduces tension through contrast

• Return to Verse (A): Resolves tension, theme now enriched by what chorus revealed

Negotiation Dynamics

• Opening positions (A): Each party stakes boundaries and non-negotiables

• Concessions (B): Probe limits of acceptable compromise

• Final agreement (A): Modified initial positions, transformed through testing

Crisis Response

• Normal operations (A): Established protocols and resource allocation

• Shock event (B): Forces deviation beyond standard procedures

• New baseline (A): Stability restored with crisis learning embedded

Immune Response

• Homeostasis (A): Stable internal conditions through continuous monitoring

• Detection (B): Inflammatory response and antibody production

• Equilibrium (A): Stability restored with enhanced pathogen recognition

The pattern isn't metaphorical. It's structural. Any system processing information under constraint converges on this architecture. Organizations that recognize it can transfer proven implementations across domains: aviation crisis protocols inform healthcare error management, military doctrine translates to product development, biological adaptation patterns map to organizational change. The transfer works because the underlying structure is identical.

Where Systems Fail

Organizations fracture ABA' in three predictable ways. Each failure stems from treating one phase as permanent rather than transitional.

Premature Optimization: Skipping Phase B

The system collapses back to initial state by imposing old constraints onto new capabilities before discovering which constraints were structural necessity and which were historical artifact.

Consequence: Technology firms deploy AI tools, then force them into legacy workflows. Result: 95% report zero ROI because deviation was eliminated before learning could occur.²

A (capability) → A (standardization)

Skip disruption, and you optimize for yesterday's problems.

Perpetual Motion: Trapped in Phase B

The system remains stuck in continuous disruption, burning resources without building stable capability. Employees may not document, institutional memory loss. Transformation requires full resolution: the integration of learning into stable state.

Consequence: : Organizations cycle through talent faster than knowledge can transfer. 46% of leaders reporting retention challenges, employees leave before knowledge stabilizes.³

B (continuous turnover) → B (perpetual rebuilding)

Without resolution, there is no transformation. Only exhaustion.

3. False Stability: Refusing Phase B

The system treats baseline as permanent truth, refusing to test assumptions under stress. Baseline stability and system resilience require periodic stress-testing. Without it, organizations cannot distinguish what's durable from what's merely unexamined. Financial institutions maintain legacy systems despite mounting threats. When compliance becomes unavoidable, technical debt triples transition costs

Consequence: 63% of financial firms carry critical vulnerabilities unfixed for over a year.⁴

A (status quo) → A (institutional rigidity)

The system baseline as truth

Implication

The ABA' pattern isn't prescriptive. It's descriptive: a recognition of how information processing works under constraint. Organizations don't choose whether to follow it. They choose whether to recognize when they're breaking it. Leaders and executives who recognize the pattern gain diagnostic advantage. Transformation failures become classifiable: skipped deviation, trapped disruption, or refused stress-testing. The pattern exists whether recognized or not. What varies is whether organizations complete the cycle or fracture it.

References

¹ Mark, J. J. (2016). Ancient Egyptian Government. World History Encyclopedia.

² MIT NANDA Initiative. (2025). The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025.

³ J.P. Morgan Commercial Banking. (2025). U.S. 2025 Business Leaders Outlook Report.

⁴ Veracode. (2025). State of Software Security Report - Financial Services.