Resending to list and replying to reply to LO27578 --
"Dressler, Winfried" wrote:
> Dear Laura
> thank you very much for your reply. You may not be aware that I've sent my
> mail to you in private, so your reply will not appear on the LO list unless
> you resend it. I don't mind if you wish to do so.
> >What you should be careful about is the intentions.
> Yes, so my question transforms to: Along which lines would you guide
> intentions so as to care about them? ;-) One guideline could be the
> necessity to "become blind and deaf every now and then". Provokative indeed.
> The "loose way" indicates another guideline. There are surely more exciting
> guidelines to be discovered. And there are many existing commonly accepted
> guidelines worth to be questioned seriously. A great journey, so I wish you
> many miracles on your way.
Yes, you are right, there are guidelines in what I say.
> > Replying to LO27578
> > "Dressler, Winfried" wrote:
> > > Dear Laura,
> > > I like your approach to put business integrity into the center of your
> > > emerging thesis. May be the following questions are worth thinking
> > > about:
> > > What conditions need to be met so that "Business integrity remains as
> > > integral/integrating(?) as it sounds"?
> > > How could information harm these conditions?
> > > How should we deal with information so as to foster integrity?
> > > Does empowerment align automatically with integrity or do we need some
> > > sort
> > > of rules or guidelines so that empowerment of some cannot destroy
> > > willingly
> > > or accidently the whole? (Nick Leeson (?) of the Barings bank could be a
> > > nice case study on the interplay of integrity, information processing
> > > and
> > > empowerment.)
> > Hello Winfried,
> > Thank you for your contribution. I don't think rules or guidelines are
> > the means to protect the whole. With rules and guidelines you might be
> > able to prevent the whole against obvious wrongdoing, but not agianst
> > the unseeable. Like intentions. I think that if you believe in
> > wholeness, the outcome of a good intented mistake could be evolution to
> > a next, more integrated level.
> > What you should be careful about is the intentions.
> > I wonder why in some cases (Ben & Jerry's) the intention changed.
> > And now they are still succesful, but they (in my opinion) do not differ
> > very much from other brands. I wonder when this will show, if it will.
> > Who has an example of intention showing in a remarkable way?
> > In Joseph Jaworski's book, he writes about predictable miracles, he
> > experiences them to happen if you are operating with the right
> > intention. He says that you should have these intentions in a 'loose'
> > way, meaning that you dont fall in the trap of feeling to responsible.
> > Also rules and guidelines indicate that you know what's best, while what
> > I mean by calling this the information age is that there is to much
> > information to process in one single point. This means that there is no
> > central point for decision taking, nobody knows enough to direct, the
> > organization in its totality knows enough, and succes is possible if
> > this knowledge is allowed to excert itself.
> > > For example: Is change a necessary condition for integrity? Some would
> > > say:
> > > No, change is unavoidable due to environmental changes but change
> > > threatens
> > > integrity and it need to be handled in such a way that integrity is
> > > conserved. Others would say: With too little change a business would
> > > become
> > > rigid and rigid business lacks integrity, thus a certain rate of change
> > > is
> > > necessary to maintain integrity.
> > >
> > Integrity is needed to be able to change acoording to the changes in the
> > environment.
> > And then, yes, it is indeed a cycle, change prevents rigidness to
> > settle, so it preserves the possibility of integrity.
> > > Another example: Information processing for a business can be compared
> > > with
> > > food eating for humans. Eating food is necessary for a human to maintain
> > > its
> > > integrity, yet poisonous food can kill.
> > > You are a young mom. May be you have already observed what I didn't
> > > observe
> > > before our third child was born. To cry is the natural empowerment of
> > > babies, isn't it ;-)? I thought babies cry for one reason: They want
> > > something and the trick is to find out what. Not wrong but I missed to
> > > see
> > > that the "something" could also be "nothing". So now I would say: When a
> > > baby cries when it gets nothing for a while, it wants something (food,
> > > sensory input - information). When it cries after getting something, it
> > > was
> > > usually too much of the good and it needs to be left alone. This dance
> > > of
> > > input - no input is vital to the integrity of a developing child. I
> > > think
> > > this is true also for business.
> >
> > I love this analogue! This means, as I translate it to a business, that
> > in a way it is necessary for a business to become deaf and blind every
> > now and then to prevent it from desintegrating. A provocative thought.
> >
--Laura Peek <laura.peek@asml.com>
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.