Replying to LO28591 --
While replacing "in" and "un" with "not" often clarifies the discussion, I
disagree that it does in this instance. In organizational studies, the
informal organization represents something that is capable of standing
alone without necessarily requiring the formal organization to be defined.
While the concepts of the formal organization and the informal
organization can stand as negatives of each other, it is not always
possible to know one with the knowledge of the other in specific
situations. For example, knowing the formal organization hierarchy that
is on paper tells you nothing about the actual communication network that
exists in the informal channels in the organization. Also, knowing how
information flows through the organization does not necessarily tell you
the organizational reporting structure. At a conceptual level, they are
opposites, yet each must be investigated individually and collectively to
gain understanding of how the entire organizational system operates.
The issue of control and not-control also requires further clarification
in many instances. The formal organization is normally thought to be
controllable, but I think that relates more of how the formal organization
is defined. The formality of structure requires specific design
specifications to be enacted. Dan's original statement is one I have
heard before and it implies uncontrollability of the informal
organization. However, this relationship might be better explained through
the use of "influence" rather than "control." Therefore, the formal
organization is controllable (by definition) and while the informal
organization cannot be controlled (also by definition), it may be
influenced. The significance to organizational learning and change in
general is the mistake that is often made in trying to control the
organization rather than trying to influence it. Influencing requires
knowledge of how the informal organization works to the point of being
able to negotiate mutually agreeable actions by all stakeholders.
Looking at the email domain used by Judy, I suspect this difference of
opinion might also be traced back to differences in primary language, but
I am only guessing on this.
>From: Judy Tal [mailto:judyt@netvision.net.il]
>With your permission Dan, i'd like to offer a nottation: replace
>negation-prefixes (like "in*", "un*" ...) by "not*" for the sake of this
>discussion. Maybe you have something different from "notformal" in mind,
>when you use "informal". in such case please consider the rest of this
>post as a vague asociation :-)
--"Wirth, Ross" <RWIRTH@citgo.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.