Replying to LO25379 --
Dear Organlearners,
Harriett Robles < HJRobles@aol.com > writes in Non-western Leadership
Theories LO25379
>I am getting ready to do some research on non-western
>leadership theories and thought this group might be one
>place to start. Would any of you have suggestions as to
>authors I might begin with?
and Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@Voith.de> answers in Non-western
Leadership Theories LO25383
>'research on theories' sounds so much 'western' to me,
>that I am wondering how much 'non-western leadership'
>such research may capture.
Greetings to you all,
I think we have reached that level of complexity in which we have to
question once again every thought which we have seriously. For example,
Winfried pointed out that theories let him think of western thinking. Are
theories indeed typical of Western Thinking? Did the people from Asia,
Africa, America and Asia also thought in terms of theories before
Europeans began to settle all over the world? Is it possible to get the
same thinking results by using a way of thinking which does not involve
theories like thinking in terms of metaphors or stories?
Western thinking with theories began in Greece. Before Aristotle and
Euclid, the word "teoria" had a general and special meaning. The general
meaning was "view" with the emphasis on seeing as much as possible. The
special meaning refered to a "body of theors" send by the state to
perform a solemn legation like a relgious rite ("teos"=god). The other
Greek word is "teoreo" (to look and not merely to see.)
Then Aristotle some three and a half centuries BC began to use the word
"teoria" to define the first of the three pillars of philosophy.
Alexander (the great) was the first leader to show that theoretical
preparation had immense power when he overthrew the "theoryless" Persian
empire of Darius. This ended the ancient Chaldean- Babilonian-Assirian
epoch for good. Soon afterwards Euclid created the word "teorema" to refer
to the true statements within a theory -- statements which were not
self-evident true like axioms, but which had to be proved by careful
argumentation to be true.
It is very interesting that Jesus (reported by all FOUR the Gospels) used
the word "teoreo" quite often, not only in the sense of "look" (which is
more than "see"), but especially in the sense of "looking from a spiritual
view point to became aware of what is actual, but concealed". St Luke who
was a medical doctor and a well educated Greek (also in philosophy)
immediately grasped this unique usage and hence used the word in a similar
sense several times in Acts. St Paul never used the word, the writer of
the Hebrews used it once in 7:4 and St John used it once in 1 Joh 3:17 and
twice in Rev 11:11 and Rev 11:12, although 21 times in his gospel when
telling what Jesus actually said!
It is enlightening to compare Alexander (and many Roman generals
afterwards) with Jesus. They used "theories" to prepare themselves in
advance so as to succeed in the actual practice of warfare, i.e.
inflicting destructive immergences so as to take over control. But Jesus
began to use it in his ministery of advancing "lovefare", i.e. caring for
constructive emergences so as to heal the broken human spirit.
Only four centuries afterwards this special use began to dawn on Ambrosius
(397AC) when he wrote that the theory is not the actual, but tries to
anticipate what cannot yet be seen, but will become actual. Thereafter,
even for Thomas of Aquinas and Augustinus, the evolution of the idea of a
"theory" remained stagnant. Most surprisingly it was even so during the
entire Renaissance! Then suddenly, early in the 17th century, some 50
years before Newton presented his Theory of Mechanics, people suddenly
began to used the word theory in philosophy, theology, mathematics,
medicine, geography, astronomy and economics, giving new facets to its
meaning.
I personally think that this use emerged as the result of the
revolutionary work of Copernicus, followed up by the work of Keppler
(practice) and Galileo (theory). In other words, a shift to a certain
paradigm was needed before the use of the word theory became necessary.
This is a remarkable manifestation of what may be called the Law of
Requisite Complexity (LRC). Notice that more than three centuries of
university life (Bologna, Paris, Krakow, Oxford, Heidelberg, etc) could
not accomplish what one man did. The work of Copernicus (1543) seemed to
have made a great impression on Recorde (1551) who wrote "As they (which
are only mind workers) in their theorics do precisely understand these
definitions." Yes, the term "mind worker" is far older than what we may
tend to think.
Almost as soon (within a couple of decades) as the word "theory" came
into use, it also became fashionable to use it. Thus serious thinkers on
theories had to warn against what they called "theory-mongering",
"theory-bigots", "theory-tailors" (contempt for theorists), theorism
(ignoring practice) and theoreticism (theory on all theories). However, by
the end of the same century, the common understanding of the word theory
became sufficient to curtail the hype going along with it.
The situation remained normalised for more than two centuries until after
WWII. Then suddenly new contenders for theory like system and model (with
all the associated hype) began to appear on the scene, bringing the
concept theory somewhat into disfavour.
It is in this evolutionary context that we will have to rethink the
categorical identity (sureness) of theory once again. I think that we will
have to do so whether we like it or not. We are experiencing a grand shift
from simplicity as paradigm to complexity. Theories of the past dealt in
simplicity whereas new theories will have to deal in complexity.
Allow me to summarise what has been learned in the past of theories in
terms of simplicity. Each person gains over a period of time a certain set
of experiences. That person may learn from some of these experiences how
to manage in future a group or system of related experiences. When the
person codifies these principles and procedures used in the management,
the result can be called a "personal theory". When the person takes into
consideration the experiences of other person's and/or begin to make
experiments (planned experiences), the "personal theory" begins to emerge
into a "common theory". When many persons begin to falsify deliberately
such a "common theory" by using experiences and experiments once again,
that which remains (stood the test) can be called a "scientific theory".
Allow me also to make a few notes on theories from the viewpoint of
complexity. Firstly, I think that wholeness will play a much greater role
in theories. I like to think of it in terms of the "associativity" pattern
of wholeness as
. learner * theory * practice
Here the practice is not a single discipline, i.e a specialised group
of related experiences, but many related disciplines which can
be comperhended together in a transdiciplinary manner. A very
good example if the Learning Organisation in which five disciplines
are needed to comprehend the LO.
Secondly, I think that liveness ("becoming-being") will also play
a much greater role in welding theory and practice together. A
theory is too much of a "being" because of the very nature of
its condification in a natural language or the symbolic expressions
of a technical language. T Macarnesse (1624) wrote that reading
a theory makes safe knowing of the practice. We will now
have to complement it by telling that experiencing a practice
makes safe knowing of the theory. Thst is why I prefer to take
the last two members in
. learner * theory * practice
together as
. learner * art
Thirdly, we will have to become aware of the roles of "requisite
complexity" and "singularity of complexity" in "theory+practice". In the
past we spoke of the "theory of evolution" of species and the "theory of
evolution" of languages, but we will now also have to bear in mind the
"evolution of theories". Science, for example, will have to focus far more
in its history so as to know to what future its "sceintific theories" are
heading. Although we are still far from a TOE (Theory Of Everything), that
TOE will consist of, metapgorically speaking, many kinds of animals rather
than many animals of a kind.
Fourthly, we will have to become aware of the decicive role which our
creativity, knowledge and even faith will play in making theories
appropiate to the paradigm of complexity. For example, is our creativity
is seriously impaired, can we expect to make any superior theory? Another
example, many people seem to think nowadays that "theory+practice" and
"problem-solving" are (problem reflecting theory and solving reflecting
practice) are synonymous. Perhaps they are not when viewed creatively.
The "mitsein" dimension of our creativity will become as important as its
"dassein" dimension. For example, we will have to pay much more attention
to the "principle of priority" when naming a theretical concept. Too many
names are give too easily to one and the same concept, except for slight
differences in emphasis. Consider the names "evolution", "autopoiesis",
"complex adaptive systems" and "irreversible self-organisation". The
"principle of priority" means that the oldest known name has to be used so
as to avoid creating confusion in what is already complex.
I have left the most exciting part for last so that we can have a
LO-dialogue on it. How do we create a theory? For example, think of
Harriet's request above. What will she do when she finds out that there is
very little "non-western leadership theories". There were definitely many
"non-western leaders" through the ages on all the other continents too. So
it is actually the "theories" which are lacking. How will she create the
"non-western leadership theories".
In Southern Africa she will have to dug deep into the culture of "indaba"
(dialogue), "umlomo" (metaphorical mouthpiece) and "ubuntu" ( harmonius
living) before she will be able translate the many profound findings in
this culture in the typical manner of a theory. How will she translate her
findings? In Central Asia and South America she will have to study
carefully the orally preserved stories of the indigenous people on leaders
of the past to see what leadership traits have been preserved in such
stories so as to translate these traits into theory. How will she identify
these traits which became preserved in the story?
The two examples above concern a translation of other existing modes of
codefication into the form of code known as a theory. But the general
population is often much slower in codefying leadership into metaphors,
stories and theories. Thus she will have to codify things not yet codified
as leadership too. How will she do this? Perhaps by studying the history
"non-western leaders" in general and specifc biographies on them where
these are available too.
I have read hundreds of biographies the past fourty years for the sheer
fun of it and not to formulate a theory of leadership. I came to the
conclusion that leadership is very much like catalysis in chemistry. In
other words, rather than formulating the outcome of this study as a
theory, I would now prefer to do it metaphorically in terms of "chemical
catalysis". The only trouble is that in order to tell other people what
"chemical catalysis" is, I have to make use of chemical theory too. Should
they have had sufficient experiences in the practice of chemistry, little
of this theory would have been needed.
But how will we actually create a theory? I have not really answered that
question from my viewpoint because I want us to have a LO-dialogue on it.
I know that there is not enough literature on this question to answer it
decisively. And that which is available, usually says that a theory is a
systematic exposition of the principles and procedures needed to manage a
predefined practice. But this is the viewpoint from simplicity. Some
thinkers create principles, others create procedures and eventually some
thinkers combine them into a theory. Perhaps this is what Harriet also
want to do -- to seek additional principles and procedures and then import
them into an existing theory so as to modify it.
As I see it, this viewpoint from simplicity merely articulated what I call
the digestive phase (low entropy production) of creativity. It did not
articulate the chaotic phase (high entropy production) of creativity. It
did not tell how Aristotle created the concept of a theory. It did not
tell how Newton created his theory of mechanics, Darwin his theory of
evolution, Wegener (and a South African Du Toit even before him) his
theory of continental drift, Einstein his theory of relativity, Heisenberg
and Schroedinger the theory of quantum mechanics or Prigogine his theory
of self-organising dissipative structures. It does not even tell for sure
how someone will discover a new principle, invent a new procedure or link
seemingly unrelated principle and procedure into the kernel of a novel
theory.
Up to now these things have remained to a large extend the tacit knowledge
of the individual. Can these things be made a common codified culture
within a Learning Organisation? Assuming that we want to, can we have a
LO-dialogue on how to create a theory? What can we learn from our possible
inability to have a LO-dialogue on how to create a theory?
It was a rather shocking mental experience for myself almost two decades
ago when I asked myself "How will I create a theory based on the unique
experiences which I had and experiments which I made?" The experiences and
experiments were sheer joy, but the question was horrifying and
intimidating. And except for some books, there were very, very few people
in my own country willing to step into an open and unconditional dialogue
on this question. Sooner or later a discussion (not dialogue) on this
question would end up in the other person(s) defending the right of the
"body of theors" to perform a solemn legation so as to upheld the "tyranny
of the experts".
It seemed to me that they were incapable of taking the bold Aristotelian
step to make an explicit rite into in implicit, mental right. But I was
not sure because sometimes it also seemed that questioning the theory
would leave them without a theory so that they could not like Alexander
the Great come and stay in control of a vast empire. The creating of a
"theory-empire" is something which is clearly lifting its ugly head even
in complexity studies now. Many confess of having become "atheists"
because of some or other "theology-empire". I sometimes felt like changing
into an "atheorist" because of these "theory-empires".
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.