Replying to LO25185 --
Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@Voith.de> writes:
>At de Lange wrote:
>
>>There is nothing in the articulation of a Learning
>>Organisation as Peter Senge dit it to prevent the
>>LO from adapting is Systems Thinking towards an
>>"evolution friendly" version.
>
>Sorry, I don't understand this sentence, even my guesses
>from the context fail to make sense. May be there is too
>much of your shivers left in it? ;-)
Greetings Winfried,
Thank you for your serious as well as important question.
Perhaps I should have painted a richer picture on what I meant with that
sentence. As it stands, it seems as if I had "biological evolution" in
mind. It also seems as if I were saying that the Systems Thinking of LOs
is indifferent to "ecology" (in the biological sense). I had much more in
mind which I did not articulated.
I was replying to Bill Harris' contribution LO25160 which initiated the
topic above. While reading through his contribution, I was struck how much
it had FORMALLY to do with what I perceive as the "evolution of human
organisations". But the book which he refered to, had the name
"Unternehmung" in its title. This name made me also think of a TACIT
dimension to what he have said. The German "unter"=under="onder"
(Afrikaans) and the German "nehmung"=taking="neming" (Afrikaans).
The word "onderneming" in my mother tongue in Afrikaans has a rich
meaning. It can refer to an "organisation" and in all four the meanings
("pioneers, growth, maturity, and transition") which Bill refered to. But
it can also refer to any "creative venture", "responsible task", "daring
feat" or "risky adventure" without involving any formal organisation. In
other words, it refers to any "cultural emergence" as a result of a
bifurcation brought about by humans, whether as individuals or
organisations.
While preparing my reply to you, I looked at the meaning of the English
word "undertaking" which I should have done in the first place. Stupid me
-- I thought it refered only to the "burial business". I see now that it
has most of the meanings which the Afrikaans word "onderneming" also has.
So I will now use the word "undertaking" in this comprehensive sense. It
is only when we compare similar "undertakings" from various periods of
time that we observe a complexification or "evolution" in all the
"undertakings" of that kind.
For example, learning and specifically in its emergent phase is an
"undertaking". Learning is the process by which the evolution of a
person's knowledge happens. When we begin to compare the knowledge of a
person at various periods of time in that person's life, we become aware
of the "evolutionary" nature of that person's knowledge. Another kind of
cultural evolution is commiting a spoken language to a written from by
means of an ortography. When we again compare the ortography from various
periods of time (allowing for many centuries because of the slow change)
we become aware of evolution in the ortography.
Making movies is another kind of "undertaking". When I compare movies from
pre-WWI to that of WWI-to-WWII and post-WWII periods, a remarkable
evolution jumps to my mind. Playing games (like rugby and cricket),
erecting political systems (like democracy and socialism) and developing
academical disciplines are other kinds of cultural evolution.
Apart from "evolution" in culture, we also get "evolution" in nature. The
classical example is the "evolution" of biological species and to which
the name of Charles Darwin is synonymous. But I can picture two other
major kinds of evolution in nature too -- the "evolution" of elementary
particles (matter and energy) into the elements with stable nuclei and the
"evolution" of the elements on/in earth into geological species.
It may be that all these kinds of evolution have nothing to do with each
other. But it may also be that some of these kinds of evolution are
related to each other by following the same systemic patterns. However, it
may also be that all these kinds of evolution (i.e. temporal
complexification of systems) have some common patterns -- evolutionary
patterns which will be reflected in the LO too and whatever business of
that LO. What are these "evolution patterns"? How can we make use of them
to optimise the LO as well as its business? What have the Fifth
Discipline, the Fieldbook and Dance of Change to say from this viewpoint
of evolution? It is is in this sense that I meant "an evolutionary
friendly version of Systems Thinking".
When I think of "an evolutionary friendly version of Systems Thinking", I
also bear in mind "microevolution" (anagenetic changes in populations and
their appearances) and "macroevolution" (cladogenic emergences and
immergences of species). Let us now use the names "pioneers, growth,
maturity, and transition" which Bill has introduced rather than my four
names descriptive of the dynamics of creativity so as not to complicate
the complex picture. I perceive how these four phases act in all
successive levels of complexity with every lower level as "micro" and the
next level as "macro". In other words, these four phases do not describe
merely one level of complexity.
The four phases "pioneers, growth, maturity, and transition" which Bill
pointed our attention to, go much wider than merely human organisations.
They are, for example, also applicable to the management of an ecological
system. An interesting case is the management of elephants. In many parts
of Africa elephants have become extinct or are on the verge of extinction
because of trading in ivory with other parts of the world. In such parts
the phases "pioneers, growth" or "transition" of the elephant population
apply.
But in South Africa much more heed was taken of elephant conservation to
keep it at the "mature" phase and not allow it to degenerate into the
"transition" phase. (This can happen easily because not only do elephants
require much leaflike fodder, but are they also an important factor in
nature's control of tree populations, breaking and uprooting them as if
the elephants have to continually demontrate their strength.) Elephant
management included their systematical culling to keep their numbers
within the limit of what the environment could sustain. Suddenly the rest
of the world took notice of this "hidious culling of elephants" in the
context of "elephants on the verge of extinction elsewhere".
The world forced South Africa to stop this culling. The weather cycle has
been such that it sustained the exploding elephant population, although it
could not sustain the tree population too. The tree population has become
dangerously low. Consequently the coming of another seven years of drought
like in the eighties will have a disastrous effect on the elephant
population unlike the eighties. In those days a few hundred died because
of the drought. But now many thousand will die because of the drought,
leaving us with FAR LESS elephants IN TOTAL afterwards than what was the
case in the eighties. I wonder how much the rest of the world will do to
save these many thousands of elephants when the time of sure death to them
has come?
What we have to try and understand here is that the exploiting of
elephants, rhinoceros and whales have led them to the verge of extinction.
This exploiting was indeed demonstrative of the lack "evolutionary
friendly" systems thinking. In order to manage these species at peril in
all their knonw habitats, they have to be managed at the "pioneer" phase
of ("pioneers, growth, maturity, and transition") -- except in South
Africa where the elephants are in the "maturity" phase and the rhinoceros
at the "growth" phase, both as a result of VISIONARY MANAGEMENT. However,
the forcing of South Africa to comply to the "pioneer" phase of
management too is again demonstrative of the lack of "evolutionary
friendly" systems thinking.
Dear Winfried, I have used the elephants issue as an example of what I
meant. I can use many other examples too. As soon as they involve human
culture and thus Mental Models, some of them become most contencious.
Allow me give you an indication of such a contencious issue, again taking
South Africa as example. I thought of using HIV-AIDS as an example, but I
have little hope that somebody will not try to make a conflict out of even
such a distressing example
You know about apartheid and the "white"-"black" conflicts. Should we
plot the educational status of "whites" of South Africa during the last
years of apartheid according to the "pioneers, growth, maturity, and
transition" phases, they would fit in somewhere from "growth to maturity".
(Do not equate them with their counterparts in Europe.) Should we do the
same for the "blacks" they would fit into the "transition" to "pioneer"
phases.
Now, since the demolition of apartheid and with the blacks in power
following the Pan-Africanistic vision, the situation has changed
drastically. "Blacks" are fast organising themselves into the "growth"
phase, but simultaneously pushing the "whites" into the "transition"
phase by "preventing" them to grow as in the past along their "European"
traditions. This "preventing" is a complex thing made up of "affirmative
action", "your interests as whites are racism in disguise", "there is too
little money to serve also your expensive European interests", "your
European interests do not fit into vision of the African Renaissance",
etc.
This sudden phase shift from "growth" to "transition" is very real to some
two million "whites" who have emigrated from South Africa the past eight
years. They may not articulate their reason with explicit reference to
these four phases, but what many of them say, boils down to it. Millions
more "whites" are contemplate emigration, expecially because the "black"
government usually says that South Africa is better off without people who
cannot face their inevitable "transformation". This is their name for the
shift of the any one of the four phases to the other.
Please, understand me clearly. I am not taking sides in this
"white"-"black" issue, but try to describe the perspectives of each side
as clearly as possible. The problem comes when the one side expect all the
other sides to conform to the same phase shift along the four phases
"pioneers, growth, maturity, and transition". It has been so in South
Africa before apartheid with the colonial powers dictating, then during
apartheid with the "whites" in power and now even after apartheid with the
"blacks" in control. In all these years any section of the nation who was
at a different phase shift than those in power while wanting to evolve
according to what their own phase required, was seen to be "opposing by
their exclusivity what is good for the nation". A harmonious
synchronisation between the various sections of society, each at one of
the four phases, was never contemplated by most leaders of each section.
The one important exception was Jan Smuts (also "father" of Holism). In
especially his private correspondence one soon learns how frustrated he
was as a national and international leader with leaders all over the world
who were ignorant to the "evolution angle" of change.
Why a lack of harmonious synchronisation? Because in whatever systematical
thinking (I dare not even speak of Systems Thinking ;-) these leaders
followed, very little of it was "evolution friendly".
Some fellow learner has stressed the following for which I
will use rather my own words above and slightly altered,
. "Harmonious synchronisation between the various
. departments of an organisation, each department
. at one of the four phases, have to be contemplated
. by departmental heads and the executive team".
But how much does it happen? Often the organisational
structure is reshuffled when a department gets into the "transition"
stage so as to make the "transition" phase less obvious and
hoping that a "pioneer" phase would result from such shuffling.
But there is little guidance of the personnel of that defunct
department in the reshuffled organisation from the "transition" to
the "pioneer" stage. Hence often reshuffling upon reshuffling
follows to make this lack of "harmony" less obvious, each time
with managers hoping that the system will by hook or crook
take care of it -- autopoiesis.
It is easy to test the ability of an organisation to harmonise the four
phases of the dynamics of evolution in its various departments. Or to test
the notion that "the system will automatically take care of its internal
evolution -- autopoiesis". Just introduce a new department in the
"pioneer" phase and which will be responsible for a novel extention of the
usual business of that organisation. I definitely do not mean by this
"introducing" the "takeover" and then "incorporation" of an already
existing organisation which so frequently happens.
The system will not automatically take care of synchronising the four
phases. Managers will have to take care of it by first becoming aware of
these four phases and then reflecting the harmonious synchronisation in
their Systems Thinking.
Winfried, you will have noticed that I have not said a single word on
"entropy production" and how it may be used as the parameter to
characterise the "evolutionary age" of any organisation and departments in
it. I have merely kept this parameter tacit so as try and describe the
problem of "evolution friendly" management as clearly as possible. If the
problem is authentic, then its solution will require a higher order of
complexity in thinking. If it is a rote problem, then it should have been
solved long ago. It will be interesting to observe whether this problem
can be solved without introducing "entropy production" as belonging to the
higher level. Many managers are becoming aware that creativity is
necessary to the higher level. But is creativity sufficient too? Is it
possible to uncover the complex intricacies of creativity without "entropy
production"?
Anyway, there may also be no second chance left so as to
try incorporating "entropy production". Many organisations
have hit the dust, thinking that they have a second chance left.
However, from biological "evolution" we may learn a very curious
"law" formulated long ago by Dollo:
. Evolution does not reverse itself nor repeat its steps.
Organisations which are upon their own in this world and try to
circumvent Dollo's law, hoping for a second chance when doing
so, will hit the dust. I have observed this happening so often in
the difficult times of South Africa, that I have little doubt about
what is happening. The only sound explanation which I can
give for Dollo's law, is to make use of the much later formulated
thesis of Prigogine that biological systems evolve because they
are dissipative ("entropy producing"). Then we will have to argue
that the very irreversibility of "entropy production" means for the
system "not reversing itself" and "not repeating its steps".
This "irreversibility" is something I try to reflect in "authentic
learning" in particular and "authentic mental behaviour" in general. This
coonection between "entropy production", creativity, learning and
evolution may not appear to be "evolution friendly" to many fellow
learners, but if I could have circumvented the complexity involved in
evolution, I would have done so.
Winfried, I hope I have communicated some understanding with which I have
written the sentence which you have questioned. I tried to show that
"evolution friendly" Systems Thinking involves complexity, well knowing
that this complexity might intimidate you and every fellow learner as it
intimidated me once too. In order to once again help you to overcome this
complexity, let me draw you attention to Goethe who preceded Darwin with
almost a century.
Goethe became extremely aware in language, politics, economy, phsyical
science and in biology of something which he called "Metamorphose". My
description "one-to-many-mapping" corresponds to his concept of
"Metamorphose". He was deeply under the impression not only how complex it
is, but also the destructive-constructive dialectic involved with it. He
carefully, systematically and with dedication worked all this complexity
into his drama Faust which took him dozens of years. Today he is barely
known as the writer of Faust while very, very little is known at all of
his other major intellectual endeavours. I may describe (for myself ?) all
these endeavours as "evolution friendly" thinking. If poeple were more
"evolution friendly" in their thinking, would they not have studied Goethe
more closely?
But I think it is even more complex. Before ending, I want to share the
following curious thought which I often had and contemplated the past few
months when situations emerged making it necessary.
We are often very fast with our judgement that a person is an "ignoramus"
when trying to "discover the wheel once again" rather than "explore in
literature" whether such a discovery had not been made before. But another
reason than "ignorance" is also possible. Is it not vital to the EVOLUTION
of that person's creativity and hence authentic mental behaviour to
discover in action (deed) the wheel rather than reading about its
discovery in literature? Is our insistence on "check the literature first"
perhaps ignorant of "evolution friendly"? Have any of the millions of
biological species which have evolved, ever checked the literature first?
I will tell you why this thought troubled me so much. When we compare the
ways in which humans were organising before the invention of the "printing
press" by Goethenberg and thereafter, a radical change has taken place. My
dear wife returned from a tour in England yesterday (Sunday) and brought
some books on the "long" history of England, some of its cities and some
of its instituitions back for me to study. While working through three of
them yesterday evening, I was reminded several times again of how the
"printing press" changed radically the ways in which people organised.
(The books self said nothing, but I continually compared dates. One book
on castles could not have helped me better.) I thought of what "internet"
is now doing and how many organisations will hit the dust like once
happened to medieval organisations also. Did they hit the dust because
they read printed stuff too little, or because they read too much and thus
did too little self authentically?
How much will any organisation allow for the startup of a novel department
in it? How many outstanding organisations have dwindeled into the common
or even ceased to exist because of preventing the startup of a novel
department in it? In how many cases was the "drowning by paper work" the
ultimate constraint?
Winfried, I do hope that my reply has not caused a "drowning by screen
work" too ;-) I was surprised that such an "innocent" sentence was so
devoid of sense for you and thus probably for most fellow learners. I am
grateful to you for pointing out how meaningless it was to you. Is it
still meaningless?
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.