Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> initiated a thread
which I think is most important. However, I have reason to think that
very little will come of this thread. I will hold the mailing of my
contributions to the LO list back to see whether my thoughts on this
matter was correct. I will mail this contribution privately in advance
to Winfried so that I cannot afterwards backtrack and say that I knew
it all in advance. I am asking her not to act in terms of what she
might learn from the contribution, in other words, to act as if she
have not received it all.
[A few others have replied to Winfried's call. They are DC (Doc
Holloway, TC (Tim Clark), GS (Ginger Shafer) and JC (James
Carrington). I will answer to them in square brackets to distinguish
these answers from my original reply.]
The reason why I think nothing will come of this thread, is that
members of this forum is not motivated to contribute to this thread.
It is the very topic of the thread which impairs their motivation. I
say it not with criticism. I say it as a fact because I love you all.
Personal mastery begins with knowing and accepting yourself as you now
are and not how you will be somewhere in the future. As we are now, we
can easily cause our own immergences while trying to emerge. It is
these immergences which so often make our wheels go flat and empty our
fuel tank.
> I am preparing a course on strategic management/leading. I will use
> some of the ideas in this list and much of the spirit here, so it is
> time to thank you all for your engagement in this forum.
The word strategic may come form the Greek word "strategos" which
refer to the"general" of an army or the Latin word "stratus" which
refer to a "spread out" of some collection of things. Despite which
cae it is, the term "strategy" in English was originally a military
term.
[DC/4/10/97 also refers to this etymology.]
After I have discovered the seven essentialities of creativity, I had
the distressing insight that the basis of all war strategies was to
impair the creativity of the enemy forces as much as possible while
promoting the creativity of own forces as much as possible.
Unfortunately, it is much easier to impair creativity than to promote
it. Thus the side who won the war was usually the side who impaired
the opponent's creativity the better. This is what makes warfare so
distressful. Usually, no side wins.
[TC/9/10/97 comments on Richard Smith who suggested the use of
garden metaphors rather than war metaphors.]
[TC/9/10/97 notes that "fighting wars is usually easier than
preventing them.
[GS/13/10/97 applauds TC's note.]
The phrase "Strategic Mangement" articulate many things, among others
this distressful facet of war - any war is lost by the side who loses
the most.
> The traditional target of strategic management is "best fit to the
> environment, basis for longterm survival" and understood as "leading
> to competitive advantage". Often, organisational learning is
> understood as a necessity to support this target in a rapidly
> changing world.
Your description above fits what I would describe as a business
warfare. We all know that most big businesses has front room
operations and back room operations. The frontroom operations
concern the promoting of the creativity of own forces by using
concepts such as "fitness landscape", "longterm survival" and
"competitive advantage". The backroom operation concerns the
impairing of the creativity of enemy forces by using techniques such
as "perpetual lawsuits", "disinformation" and "industrial espionage".
[DC/4/10/97 refers to these backroom operations as "manipulative
techniques". He says "people, eventually, don't enjoy being
maneuvered".]
[JC/13/10/97 notes that "This is a noble ideal, unfortunately it
is far from reality". I wish to add that reality is not only the
spectrum (BEING) from Backroom Operations (BOs) to Frontroom
Operations (FOs, the "noble ideal", but also the drive
(BECOMING) from the one end to the other. However, the drive
from FOs to BOs differ very much from the opposite drive from
BOs to FOs because immergences are so different from
emergences.]
Unfortunately, like in political warfare, few in business (warfare)
are willing to open the eyes to the backroom operations, believing
that facilitating and assisting only the frontroom operations cannot
itself be bad. This is a false belief. The backroom operations, if
they exist, and which is often difficult to detect, are just as part
of the business as the frontroom operations. Furthemore, a very
destructive spirit emminates from these backrooms operations which
mesmerizes most of those who participate in the frontroom operations.
Thus the frontroom operators have to battle continuously to maintain
their own level of creativity against this destructive spirit.
[DC/4/10/97 refers to the need to coerce or manipulate the
soldier. I think this need follows from this destructive
spirit.]
[TC/9/10/97 writes that customers think in terms of the good
behaviour of businesses, i.e.frontroom operations. But how will
customers act towards a business is they knew about its
backroom operations?]
[JC/13/9/97 writes that for him the term "strategy" does not have
a negative connotation, but that it is rather a "mental
challenge, sort of a 'meta-method' concept".]
> On this list, I would like to trigger a process to explore another
> view of strategy with the focus on value creation and problem
> solving for the customer/target group instead of looking too much
> after the competitors.
Winfried, I think that with this sentence above you have articulated
what I tried to recapture with my comments immediately preceding them.
> What is your preferred definition of "strategic management"? Or do
> you avoid the word strategic for its closeness to military and its
> touch of "control the future" or...?
I will not use the military term "strategic". I will rather use a term
like "creatively directed management/leading", or even "creatively
directed learning organisations". The term strategic carries the
notion that it involves many people by spreading them out. But so do
the term organisation. The term strategic also carries the notion that
the speading happens according to the commands of a general. But so
does the term learning. Whereas the general had to command his own
creativity directed towards winning the war, each member of the
organisation has to command his/her own creativty to direct the future
of the organisation.
> To make a start, I thought about the funny word "survival". Isn't
> this illusion anyhow (as Keynes put it: "In the long run we are all
> dead")? So, what strategy should be about is not survival but life
> itself.
What I am now going to write, will sound crazy to many of you, but
please bear with me. I often observe people in all walks of life use
the phrase "the unity of humankind". I also often observe how others
criticise this term, saying it is the bad breath of humanism or the
luring of the devil itself.
When I walk in nature, I cannot form a concept such as the "unity of
all elephants", eventhough I do observe such a thing as the unity of a
herd of elephants. It is as if the rest of nature forces me to think
of only the unity of a community of humans. However, if humans had to
survive in nature as any other living creature, humankind would have
become extinct. Our 5 senses are too poorly developed. We do not have
a skin or fur coat protective enough. Our teeth and nails are not
equiped for survival. If other animals would not care for us, on our
own as animals we will not survive. Thus, despite the overwhelming
commonness with the rest of nature, we are different. We are different
because we define the top limit of the scale of creativity for
creatures this universe
Our survival depends on our unity of humankind. For example, each of
us amplify our 5 sense by employing the 5 senses of many other humans,
many of them long dead. We do it by our creations, for example
language. We articulate what we observe through these 5 senses also in
a non-spoken form and then commit these articulations to other humans
who cannot be reached in the spoken form. Many animal species also use
sounds to extend their observations to others of their community, but
they do it on the spur of the moment and for only those who can
reached by it.
Thus we experience this unity of humankind through our higher order
creations - those creations which enable us to identify ourselves as
humans and not merely animals. In other words, we use our creative
emergents to serve our fellow humans. Unfortunately with the same pen
which we commend one person to nobelness, we condemn another person
into criminality! In other words, we may use our emergences to further
subsequent emergences, but also immergences.
[TC/9/10/97 believes "we have the technology (as evidenced in
many LO threads) to solve almost any of an organizations' or
world's problems. I wish to caution that technology can assist
immergences just as much as it can assist emergences. We have
to employ something else which promote all emergences and
no immergences. This "something else" is unconditional love -
see below.]
[GC//13/10/97 wrote: "I've been willing to pay this price all
my adult life!" I hope it does not refer to the use of
technology as the BASIS of our stewardship. Technology is a
powerful aid, but a poor basis.]
> With this, I tried to apply the "Bergpredigt" (Matthaus 5-7) to a
> business target system in 4 dimensions (by Siemens-manager
> Gro_e-Oetringhaus) and found the "house, built on rocks instead of
> sand". It is very provoking:
>
> 1. Dimension: Vision - Love is possible, Love is life
> 2. Dimension: Model - "Ndchstenliebe" (Love for the next (?))
> 3. Dimension: Leading System - "Feindesliebe" (Love for the enemy
> (?)) 4. Dimension: Measure for success - golden rule
>
> Isn't "love for the enemy" a great competitive strategy? I should
> ask Michael Porter.
What we have to try and see, is that human creativity has led to a
complex tree (hierarchy) of emergences. Right at the top of this tree
is unconditional love for our fellow humans, other creatures, the rest
of nature and our Creator.
Unfortunately, we think of the roots of the tree sustaining its
trunk, the trunk sustaining its branches, the branches sustaining its
leaves and fruit. Likewise we see how our lower order creations gives
rise to our higher order creations and subsequently influence them.
But we are very ignorant of how the leaves of the tree sustains the
chemistry of the roots. Likewise we are almost completely ignorant of
the back actions of our higher order creations on the lower order
ones. How ignorant are we about love?
Winfried, what I observe in your articulation in terms of your four
dimensions, is the back action of the higher order emergents. In three
of them you actually tried to articulate them with love, the highest
ordered emergence among humans.
What I think you have tried to articulate, is that you take stance
that you want to promote the creativity of all your fellow humans
because there is no greater promoter than love. In other words, the
strategy of warfare to impair the creativity of those who you fear as
enemies, will not be part of your stance.
Forgive me the audacity of trying to fathom your articulations in
terms of my own. But I will let you be the judge whether I have
succeeded or not.
I personally feel we should not only include all other humans under
the back action of this love, but all creation as well as the Creator.
In other words, I do not want warfare on nature and the Creator to be
part of my stance. I want to live creatively in loving harmony with
all reality. Now what about the business and corporate world - is it
possible to live such a live in this world. It is not only possible,
but necessary if we want to experience again the joy which comes with
"humanship".
> Can one committ to this system? Can one committ to this system even
> in a multicultural context? I believe, that many of you, at least
> those participating in the mission, spirituality and religion
> threads, agree, that this is what learning is about.
Bravo!
> The advantage of "building on sand" is, that it is much smoother
> than rocks. I am not able to build a course on "strategic
> management" on this understanding yet.
Building directly on sand is a short term solution. The more complex a
solution, the longer the time needed to create it. We often shy away
from building on rocks because of the time, complexity and free energy
involved. That is why I am a desert wolf - not because the desert is
so sparsely populated, but because it is populated with people,
animals, insects and plants who manage to live in such conditions
harsh to life by their very creativity.
But let us not be fooled. To try and live in the desert without
LEARNING the ways of desert life, will leave only a bleached skeleton
for posterity to observe what once had been alive.
[TC/9/10/97/ writes that the USA army also emphasises the role of
learning. either to prevent it or to deal with it swiftly and
with little loss.]
> I am wondering whether this is worth a thread on this list.
Really?
Best wishes
________________________________________________________
I have sent a copy of the contribution above to Winfried. This is how
Winfried replied to it (quoted with >) and my reply to his remarks.
________________________________________________________
Dear Winfried,
Thank you for your kind reply.
> "Business warfare" and "back room operations" must be considered
> when thinking about "Strategy", although I think that speaking in
> military metaphers, back room operations would be more part of
> "tactics" - winning battles instead of winning the war. But surely
> startegy has to organise the back room operations.
Backroom Operations (BOs) have for me the meaning of impairing the
creativity of competitors. Since my mission in life is to promote
creativity, I therefore cannot participate in BOs or even support
them.
What worries me is that the Middelroom Operations comprise so much of
most organisations. The MOs means neutrality towards creativity.
> I also like the change of term "strategic" to "creatively directed
> learning organisation", but I see big difficulties to sell this
> different concept. My way is to reframe the meaning of the word
> "strategic" by using it differently just as "allocating ressources".
> When I say I am doing my business strategic (and showing the
> concept, which does not include competitors) I get ressources. If I
> would say I am doing my business creatively, I would not get
> ressources. Executives feel strong if a concept is labeled
> "strategic" and they feel uneasy, not to say anxious, if it is
> labeled "creative". I think you have good explanation why this is
> so.
Oh, I thoroughly understand your difficulties to sell any paticular
title which is not in fashion. Fashion sells. But fashion change too
much and is seldom functional. If the business is not in the fashion
business itself, its mangement will impair the business when planning
in terms of fashion.
> Of course, if asked about competition I can answer and show where
> the competitive advantages are. But the real motivation is, that we
> have a concept, that changes rules in the market by adding real
> value - things become possible, which were not before. And so did/do
> the concepts of our so called competitors. The real meaning of
> competitors is to keep awake and to provoke creative ideas for more
> or different added value. Seen like this, competition is not
> impairing creativity but promoting creativity. This learning is
> required, otherwise, as you write "desert life, will leave only a
> bleached skeleton for posterity to observe what once had been
> alive."
You have described the Frontroom Operations (FO) of competitors. If
all competitors would have scrapped the BOs, the world would have
progressed towards more love. Obviously, the business with the
highest ratio of FO/MO will be the leader.
> >> I am wondering whether this is worth a thread on this list.
>
> >Really?
>
> Yes, really, as you do:
I know my friend. I was questioning your questioning of the worth of
the thread. In my mind you have done a MO on your thread, if not a BO.
> > I have reason to think that very little will come of this thread.
>
> Finally, ("I am asking her not to act in terms of
> what she might learn from the contribution, in other words, to act
> as if she have not received it all.") I should correct that I am
> male - not that I think it makes a big difference, but to avoid
> surprise, if we might meet some day.
I would have beeen surprised if you turned out to be a male. I
usually try to think of anyone on Internet as a female if I have no
information on the sex of the person. Since there is not sexless
English pronoun for female animals, I use she/her to honour the
opposite sex.
> Greetings to the deset wolf,
Many desert plants are dioecious. It is very curious for a bystander
to hear me speak of a female plant when the plant under question is
actually a female plant.
> Winfried
>
> P.S.: Can you attach this when you send your mail to the list?
I will do so. So far only two replies have appeared to your call. I
will comment on their replies in square brackets.
[Two others have since then also done so and I have included their
comments.]
Love and peace.
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>