Replying to LO27892 --
Dear Learners
In LO27892 At replied to my earlier post (LO27871) in which I
mentioned that a systems approach to organisations can result in a
definition of the 'worth' of a system - the degree to which the system
meets, or satisfies, the needs and expectations of the the people in
its environment who interact with it.
Before I reply to At's comments, a little more on the idea that the
'manager' of a system has the overriding objective of improving the
worth of that system.
There is no a priori definition of which parameters or factors have to
be taken into regard by people when they evaluate 'the system'. They
do so purely in terms of their own personal expectations, priorities
and experiences of the system. From the perspective of the 'manager",
improving the worth of the system would seem very much like trying to
make the system behave as he himself would prefer to experience it
from the 'outside', as someone who provides some material input or
service for the system (Inputs), who works there or who supplies the
funds that are used by the system (Resources) or who uses its outputs
in some manner.
It means that "improving the worth of the system" correlates for all
practical reasons with the Golden Rule of "Doing unto others . . ".
Now this is something that has long been debated within the context of
real life businesses and other organisations and the conclusion has
generally been that the Golden Rule is essentially altruistic and
therefore can apply to family and close friends, but definitely not to
business in pursuit of profit. The flaw in that reasoning is that
modern business, and other organisations, only consider the interface
to the user or customer, where trying "to do unto others . . " would
soon bankrupt the enterprise. But action predicated on this limited
view would favour users over suppliers, employees and the 'owners' of
the system, who provide the funds, to the disadvantage of other people
in the environment and thus resulting in a sharp fall in 'worth'.
The 'manager' is obligated to find the best possible compromise
between the different expectations and requirements of all people who
interact with the system - an effort that when successful must result
in the system being considered 'excellent', in all respects. Rather
than leading to bankruptcy, "Doing unto others . . " in the
organisational context promotes the achievement of excellence.
My intention by introducing this subject was to highlight what I
believe IMHO to be a deficiency in the practical application of LO in
client organisations. In a philosophical sense, to be touched on
below, it has wider application.
At asked:
>Welcome to our LO-dialogue. You are not perhaps the Daan Joubert who
>studied with me in the physics department of the Potchefstroom
>Univeristy, two years my senior?
It is truly a small world.
As an aside of perhaps some interest: At and I to some degree
overlapped during our studies of Physics at the 'Potchefstroom
University for Christian Higher Education', back in the 1960's. At
that University ALL students have to sit through 1 year of a broadly
based philosophy course, and pass, and then a second year of faculty
relevant philosophy.
This seems to have rubbed off more firmly on At at the time and been
more fertile, judging from his writings, while in my case the course
and the way of thinking it espouses has taken much longer to grow
roots. Which means time has become more precious and one is tempted
into rushing things along.
I am immensely pleased with one thing on our LO-dialogue -- it is
learning in the sense of an active becoming on which we focus and not
on learning as some status achieved in the past through peer review
on the information produced. Learning is a sacred activity which
every member of any organisation (even the members of this list) has
to share in collectively and not only the big shots of that
organisation.
Firstly, it has struck me that this list is behaving like an LO, with
the main objective of learning about learning, rather than primarily
learning about how LO's function or should function - which was my
original impression of what I would find at this list. But this list
is not a formal organisation in the accepted sense of the word - one
that implies a certain (usually hierarchical) structure and a top-down
communicated purpose. Here the structure is essentially flat, a
compendium of peers, what an internet friend would call a 'heterarchy'
rather than hierarchy. In either case, At's point that everyone should
participate in the learning process is appropriate to any
organisation.
I wrote "That lack [in LO theory] is "purpose". and At responded,
> Daan, do you have the LO-list, Senge's seminal work The Fifth
> iscipline or LOs in general in mind? One of my passions is that our
> LO-list will become the first ever LO in cyberspace or
> virtual reality. I have written so in the past too. You are right, a
> LO has to have a purpose. But that purpose must come from (as they so
> often say in our dear country ;-) from the "grass roots
> level". In other words, everybody has to participate in formulating
> the purpose and not only a section according to some or other ill
> functioning distinction.
Perhaps the best answer to At's opening question here is ,"All of
them.".
With regard to any organisational system - closed systems excluded as
of no relevance - it operates within an environment and, in terms of
the concept of improving 'worth', should strive to better satisfy the
needs and requirements of all the people in its environment. Any
discussion group, the LO-list as well, is a rather loosely structured
organisation that as a system has its own environment of people -
consisting of contributors as well as the lurkers - and, in principle,
the same principle of improving worth can [should?] apply.
At is fully correct within the context of this list that everybody
here should participate in formulating a purpose - and it needs not be
done as a strict exercise with a definite outcome; it surely has been
going on in an implicit and evolutionary manner. At has the vision of
the list as a true and real LO in cyberspace, one that may or may not
be shared by all the members. But it would be difficult to deny that
it is well on its way, if not there already.
Following the above quoted paragraph, At continued:
> To do this each need to say what his/her purpose in life is. My
> purpose in life is to teach fellow learners how to learn
> authentically. I cannot expect and do not want everyone else to have
> the same purpose, or even to formulate his/her purpose in life. This
> would not lead to authentic learning.
We live complex lives with a host of different interactions, many of
which places us under certain obligations that curtail our freedom to
act. Just as is the case for the manager of some organisational
system! In our individual lives some of us have used the freedom to
select a primary purpose, others react mostly to the obligations life
imposes on them - and perhaps view these as purpose. And, as you say
At, nobody can prescribe what one should do or even whether one should
have purpose.
At, while I found your discourse on hidden order interesting, I would
have to read many more of your posts before I could comment. Also, I
found your use of Google interesting and illuminating and so too the
results you found. Thank you.
After expressing the opinion that the LO-list has a 'hidden order' and
a 'strategic purpose", At, you continued,
> Daan, yes, many of us are tacitly aware of our LO-dialogue having a
> strategic purpose. Yes, you have made many of us aware that we have to
> articulate that tacit knowledge, despite its difficulty and the
> difficulties of the dynamics of the LO-dialogue.
Hoo boy! - feels like I stuck my head into a bee's nest (and not a
tacit swarm at all!). While the objective of "improving worth" (the
Normative Objective) applies to any organisation, I had the very
restricted meaning of the formal organisation trying to become a
Learning Organisation in mind when I wrote the first post. Purely the
practical matter of providing each decision maker in the organisation
with a tool, a vision, that brings freedom from the traditional
constraints of the hierarchy. (The practical way of doing this in real
life has not been touched upon - only the basic principle)
The question of course is whether a group such as this actually need
an articulated and formulated purpose - a stated mission. Is its
strength not the fact that it is operating like a flock of birds?
(Briefly, in a flock of birds each bird reacts to its neighbours and
to outside events or presences. If one bird should see a predator
approaching, it will begin to swerve away. Its neighbour(s)
practically instantaneously react to the change in its flight
behaviour and also swerve, almost in unison, with the 'wave' of
reaction progressing through the flock in a very brief time. The
overall direction of the flock is set by the birds at the front, but
any one of many possible reactions could change the 'leaders' in very
short time. This takes place even when the flock is following a
relatively straight line to a distant destination.)
Perhaps your 'hidden order' that becomes a Shared Vision might be that
kind of distant (unarticulated?) destination, but with the flock not
necessarily making an absolutely straight beeline towards it - having
a lot of fun along the way as the 'whims' of individuals cause the
flock to swerve and sway through a thicket of topics and tangents.
I work in the same manner as you seem to be doing. But I think that
the WHOLE environment in the case of our LO-dialogue is the globe,
Mother Earth, with all its learning peoples, past, present and future.
[Snip]
Take sureness ("identity-categoricity") as example. Each of us has a
changing identity. But exactly what is this changing identity? Only
when each of us walk through all the relationships which each of us
have with our whole environment, will we know for sure.
At, the first statement applies to any system or organisation, but I
think you mean it in the way that what the LO-list is doing would
(eventually) affect the All. Secondly, in finding out identity one
should also walk through your relationship with yourself. That might
be the more difficult one to do. (I seem to remember a post
approximately to this effect, the theme was questioning yourself and
your motives??)
At, in response to the following from me, you wrote:
> >Once the specific factors for a given situation have
> >been identified, the manager can decide which factors
> >can be best improved, and the effect of negative
> >factors reduced, to result in a higher rating for the
> >system. This applies to the organisation as a whole
> >or to any unique part of one.
> I am in danger here of using the quote above out of its
> context. Obviously, the manager has to decide because that is his/her
> job. But for me in the LO, otherwise than in an OO (Ordinary
> Organisation), the manager merely decide in terms what all the members
> have already decided, directed by the Five Disciplines in action. This
> issue on who decide(s) is one of the things which
> makes a LO patently different from an OO.
My description of the system and its manager in pursuit of increased
worth should be read as purely at the conceptual level. System, as
concept, with someone who has responsibility for what the system does
in its environment as the 'manager'. In practice, though, decision
making of necessity becomes very much a Team exercise. But that is
another tale - it took me a long time to turn the concept of a
normative manager into something that is both simple and practical.
And this caused me to understand why the "Do unto others . . "
directive found no easy home in formal business. [With respect to this
discussion list, my concern is more with the philosiphical concept of
"improving the worth of a system' as an overriding objective for any
organisational system, than the mechanics of how to implement this in
practice.]
Yes, the "learning atmosphere" of the forum did not switch ON
instantaneously, but we are working on its fractal path from OFF to
ON, gaining in "free energy" all the way by doing the thing.
Flock of birds analogy?
At, thank you for your response. As you suggest, I will be patient for
more. Seeing that we are only about 50 miles apart, it might be
possible to meet face to face at some time - an event that I guess
would a rather rare experience for most of the people who have
contributed to this list.
Best wishes to all
Kind regards
daan
Daan Joubert
Roodepoort South Africa
daanj@kingsly.co.za
--Daan Joubert <daanj@kingsley.co.za>
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.