Replying to LO26569 --
Dear Organlearners,
demingtw (Hanching Chung) <demingtw@ms17.hinet.net> writes:
>I didn't follow this thread very well but I read Peggy
>and At mails.
Greetings dear Hanching,
I study your mails too! As for my own contributuins, they are solely
intended to help fellow learners think of things which they have not
thought before. They are not intended to, for example, set out a new
philosophy.
>To be honest speaking, I can not see the point to teach
>'organization structure' in schools.
In chemistry the determination of the structure of molecular species
became important after the 1930's when chemists began to employ Quantum
Mechanics. For the next somewhat 40 years the goal was merely to elucidate
chemical structure. The original conception of structure was that it was
something static. Perhaps the most important structure ever to uncover was
that of the massive heredity molecule which got its name DNA from that
structure.
In the early 1970's chemists began to realise that the function
(reactivity, behaviour) of a molecule depended intimately on its
structure. However, in the late 1980's chemists also began to realise that
not only the "static structure", but also the interrnal behaviour of such
a structure was just as important to predict the function of a molecule.
Chemists used these "internal behaviours" since the 1950's to determine
the structure of a molecule. But it took them some other fourty years to
realise that this "internal behaviour" is just as important as "internal
structure" to predict the outer functionality of a molecule.
In other words, chemists are beginning to think more and more since
the 1990's in terms of dynamical structures rather than startic structures
to predict the chemical functionality of molecular species. It took more
than 200 years for modern-like chemistry to reach this stage. I wonder
how long it will take managers of human organisations to reach the
same insight. I think that I can safely say that most managers think
in terms of the pattern
. structure => process => structure
although a few are beinning to think in terms of
. process => structure => process.
In other words, they think of a switching between pure structures
and procvesses.
>I don't know whether 'forms follow functions' or not
>but some people think 'strategy' or 'purpose' first
>and then 'structure'.
As I have said, chemists begin to realise the futility of trying to
predict functionality with too much structure and too little process. I
also think like chemists, but rather in terms of the essentiality liveness
("becoming-being"). For me in human organisations it is necceassy to think
in terms of both a systems internal structures and processes to predict
its functionality. Thus I speak of "processing structures" to indicate
this garmony between "becoming" and "being".
However, when moving from a PAST "processing-structure" to a FUTURE
"processing structure", what connects these two, a structure or a process?
As for my own understanding, there is a subtile complexity to take into
account. When the focus is on the structure of a PAST "processing
-structure", the connection is a process and the focus in the FUTURE
"processing-structure" will be on its structure. But when the focus is on
the internal process of a PAST "processing-structure", the connection
will be a structure and the focus in the FUTURE "processing-structure"
will be on its process! Diagrammatically, with focus symbolised by ( )
and "processing-structure" symbolised by [ ], the above may be
symbolised as
. [process (structure)] => (process) => [(structure) process]
. [structure (process)] => (structure) => [(process) structure]
Should you reduce the complexity of the [ ] and ( ) brackets, see how the
simple pattern of the managers are uncovered.
Yet, complex as they are, they are but the two sides of the same coin.
Thinking of both sides together results in
[[structure-process]] =>[structure-process] => [[[structure-process]]]
or exacty the same
[[process-structure]] => [process-structure] => [[[process-structure]]]
Here the more the number of square brackets [ ] around a "processing
structure" the "more complex the processing structure" becomes. This
is basically how my mind works since I have discovered the seven
essentialities more than a dozen years ago. Again, should you reduce
the complexity of the [[ ]], [ ] and [[[ ]]] brackets, see how the simple
pattern of the managers again are revealed -- alternatively structure and
process.
Deep down I percieve LEC (Law of Energy Conservation for structure) and
LEP (Law of Entropy Production for process) as a simple "processing
structure" having only one pair [ ] brackets and high above I perceive
unconditional love as the most complex "processing structure" having the
most [[[[....]]]] brackets.
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.