Replying to LO25490 --
Dear Organlearners,
John Zavacki <jzavacki@greenapple.com> asks in reply to my:
>> So how can an organisation manifest metanoia?
>> By emerging into a Learning Organisation.
>
>Does this not mean that an organization manifests
>change by manifesting change?
Greetings John,
I love this seemingly simple question, but one to which the answer has
profound ramifications. But we will have to stretch our abstract thinking
with some imagination to become aware of these ramifications.
My observation can be presented digrammatically as
. [organisation] ----> {authentic learning} ---->[LO] ----> {metanoia}
where the system is indicated by [ ] and its inputs/outputs by { }. I often
stressed in the past that for me "authentic learning" and "metanoia" are
dynamical changes rather than fixed states. John, it seemed that you
have taken a que from this to formulate your enticing question. The
question may self be presented digrammatically as
. {change}(!) ---->[organisation] ----> {change}(?)
It has the general form
. {input} ----> [system] ---->{output}
John's question involves the following. If the input is a change, will the
output also be change? In other words, is
. {input-change} ----> [system] ---->{output-change}
the only possibility? If the output is not a "change", what else can
it be other than a "constant"? In other words, is
. {input-change} ----> [system] ---->{output-constant}
not also possible? I wish to stress that the thinking here is definitely
complementary to traditional thinking which has the form
. {input-constant} ----> [system] ---->{output-constant}
The last possibility we will have to bear in mind is
. {input-constant} ----> [system] ---->{output-change}
In other words, can a system begin to output changes when it is
subjected to constant inputs from a constant environment? Yes, but
it involves a "creative collapse" (a compassionate, yet carefully
controlled, deconstruction).
In TOC a system suffering a serious constraint will be characterised by
. {input-change} ---->[organisation] ----> {output-constant}
There is no transformational "throughput" of the "change" from "input"
to "output". Something within the organisation hinders the "throughput
with modification" of the change from "input" to "output". In TOC that
something is called a constraint. In a LO it is a failure of one of the
five disciplines, usually rigid Mental Models. In "deep creativity" it is
in form either an immaturity (too little complexity) in one or more of the
seven essentialities, or it is in content the "entropy production" which
is out of harmony with what the system requires at that stage.
Is the goal in Systems Thinking not to have
. {input-change} ---->[organisation] ----> {output-change}
I distinguish specifically between {input-change} and {output-change}
because as a result of the "throughput with modification" we have
. {input-change} <> {output-change}
where the sign "<>" means "is not equal to". If there was only throughput
without any modification, we would have (stretching the use of the "="
to even compare changes!!)
. {input-change} = {output-change}
This would be something like a perfect propagation without the damping
or amplification of a control loop.
I can think of many examples (and have given a few in the contribution
"Work and Free Energy") where the pattern
. {input-change} ---->[organisation] ----> {output-constant}
is not necessarily detrimental. Here a "change" has been modified into
a "constant". As I have indicated in "Work and Free Energy" they are
all labile equilibria. Most (but not all) of these examples are homeostasis
(an entropic force kept zero) while a few (but not none) are rheostasis
(an entropic flux kept xero). What is indeed detrimental are stable
equilbria where the pattern is
. {input-constant} ---->[organisation] ----> {output-constant}
except for minor, if not insignificant, reversible fluctuations on these
constants.
I personally think that most of the problems which organisations are
facing are how to "modify the throughput" so that for
. {input specifications} ---->[organisation]---->{output-specifications}
The first "dimension" in the "specifications" would then be a distinction
between "change" or "constant".
Here in South Africa the ideology of apartheid caused an immense
number of rheostasic equilibria detrimental to the evolution (development)
of our nation. It means an over-zealous commitment during apartheid to
the specification
. {input-change} ---->[organisation] ----> {output-constant}
So when the New South Africa emerged, the swing was to the other
extreme to get rid of these many rheostasic equilbria, namely an
overzealous commitment to the specification
. {input-change} ---->[organisation] ----> {output-constant}
with
. {input-change} <> {output-change}
Thus many a necessary homeostasis which also has the specification
. {input-change} ---->[organisation] ----> {output-constant}
were destroyed, flinging the nation into deeper trouble.
Thus South Africa serves as an example that a merely one level distinction
between "change" and "constant" is not sufficient. For "constant" a second
order distinction into "rheostasis" or "homeostasis" should also have
been made. For "change" this second order distinction should have been
made into "reversible" and "irreversible". For example. black people were
so severely subjected to the irreversible changes brought about by white
people that they now have swung to the other extreme, neglecting
irreversible changes in a peculiar manner. Only the executive leaders may
make an irreversible change. All other subordinates must make reversible
changes which the executive leaders may reverse with least effort. I must
stress that all these comments of mine, as I perceive and understand it,
refer to thinking which happens on the tacit level of knowledge.
Should we think of "change" as "becoming" and "constant" as "being",
this first "dimension" in the specifications points to the essentiality
liveness ("becoming-being"). The other six essentialties may then be
used in a similar manner to expand the specifications in six other
dimentions too. For example, taking otherness ("quality-variety"),
consider the orignal observation
. [organisation] ----> {authentic learning} ---->[LO] ----> {metanoia}
How can "authentic learning" which is one kind of action, give rise
to "metanoia" which is (are?) another kind of action? Or to modify
John's words slightly:
. Does this not mean that an organization manifests
. variety by manifesting variety?
The answer to this question and Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety
is one and the same thing.
To conclude, I think that John's question compels us to think in terms of
a network of "changes" and "constants". In this network the "changes" and
"constants" link up into many different patterns. Sometimes a constant
will diverge into many changes and sometimes many changes will converge
into a constant. Sometimes we find fractal connections between changes and
constants and sometimes we find linear connections between them. I wish it
was possible to make drawings of all the patterns which I am now aware of.
Anyway, what strikes me as most important is that when "changes" connect
it is through a constant and when constants connect, it is through a
change. In other words, a change is the mediator between two or more
constants and a constant is the mediator between two or more changes.
There is no direct link between changes (without a constant in between)
and there is no direct link between constants (without a change in
between). Thus it is detrimental to go overboard with thinking mainly in
terms of the one (changes or constants) and thus neglecting the other
(respectively constants ior changes).
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 AfricaLearning-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.