[LO Host's Note: CoP = "Community of Practice" and com-prac is a mailing
list, similar to LO, hosted by my good friend and sometimes collaborator
John Smith. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/ ..Rick]
I agree and disagree with this recent CoP dialogue. I also copy it to
Learning Organisation circle because I do not understand why we
systematically under-represent system and community logics. It's a real,
double loop learning paradox if we are saying that because we are more
transparent in recognising all models are approximate we'll never unite to
challenge the system transparency shredders who rule over us with numbers
modelling. It's rather like people who would incline to be pacifist in
soul saying there is never a circumstance when we must go to war for the
good of human nature.
I am a mathematician; I know that numbers were not designed to model
relationships, connectivity, most of what fosters intangibles (hi-touch
networked) productivity, holistic system risks of value destruction (cf
Andersen's System failure), all non-monetary value of social, learning and
emotionally energizing win-win sorts. I know that numbers bury assumptions
of precisely the sort that any simple learning organization needs to
surface.
The big paradox: If we are going to use the lens that all mental models
are vaguely right at best, why did the corporate world permit the
quarterly accounting numbers model a different status, lording above
everything else
Given that President Bush, Fortune, Alan Greenspan and almost any
establishment name down is now speaking to this crisis daily it is
relevant to ask if we have been too soft in not requiring your lens to
apply to accountants, numbers people who ask for business cases,
valuations of separate units etc, indeed all the so-called hard
professions
We can then turn the investigation spotlight on things that communal
people hopefully hold dearer than numbers like system standards. So Senge
and others popularise how different system performance models are to
relationship world understanding than numbers nearly 15 years ago. But
still we have no standard of system embedded in organisations at the level
of attention of quarterly numbers. It would be charitable to say that
organization enact system standards with 1 per cent of attention they give
quarterly numbers. And it should be clear to us communal folks that
however rough the system model is, it is more nearly right for any
organisational stakeholder with medium-term investment/communal interests
in an organisation (eg investors, employees who would like to make a
difference, good customers) than the transparently wrong monopoly of
quarterly numbers
So apply your criticism of all models as unreal equally; and since 100
times more damage is currently being done everywhere by quarterly numbers,
review all the ways that this mental model is destroying community, value
systems, integrity of relationships, economics and society, if you please
chris at www.valuetrue.com Transparency Standards Community
wcbn007@easynet.co.uk London & DC
version -1 of Community's Transparency Benchmarking Standards available on
request
www.normanmacrae.com Economics
----- Original Message -----
From: <tony@companycommand.com>
To: <com-prac@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 13 July 2002 5:07 AM
Subject: Re: [cp] Network or community
> I believe that it is important to recognize that models--to include mental
> models--are not reality. I think this is what Roy was getting at. Life is
> irreducibly complex. You can't boil it down to a model or a list. Mental
> models and language--especially as we create shared meaning about it--is
> valuable and helps us make sense of things.
>
> However, human beings have a tendency to take their mental models and
> assumptions as reality. This can be severely limiting. e.g., Parallel lines
> do not cross; or, do they. The "truth" is that they do cross. e.g., you
> can't run a mile faster than four minutes; that is, until one person did.
>
> We are creating models to help us understand how to create more effective
> individuals and organizations, focusing on community. But, we should not
> accept the models that help us understand as the "answer." Life would be
> boring that way anyways.
>
> Tony
--"chris macrae" <wcbn007@easynet.co.uk>
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.