Forced dependence e.g. children, rankers in hierarchies is BAD
Voluntary dependence e.g. welfare state, branders in a hierarchies is
BAD
Forced independence e.g. latch-key children is BAD
Forced interdependence e.g. communism, formal teams is BAD
Voluntary independence eg. branders is GOOD
Voluntary interdependence e.g. collapsible corporations is GOOD
What I am basically saying is that being forced/ coerced to do things is
never good. As such individuals should strive to be independent (by
developing lifestreams and becoming a brand (Explained at
http://www.unorgn.com/index3.htm). Once they have avoided dependence and
achieved independence, they can then choose whether they wish to
voluntarily accept interdependence. This decision will depend on their
personal ambitions and also the benefits (ideas implementation and income)
compared with the transaction costs from that interdependence.
For example, I can generate my ideas independently because they are
reasonably personal to me, but I cannot participate in implementing them
widely on my own.
Under this logic, teams are a bad thing when team members are assigned
without their choice, but dynamic teams/ collapsible corporations where
people collaborate voluntarily are perfectly acceptable and to be
expected.
This may appease some list members, although truth rather than polularity
is my aim whilst the two remain in conflict. I offer this clarification in
the spirit of continuous improvement i.e. learning!
Regards sincerely Simon Buckingham http://www.unorgn.com
unorganization: business not busyness!
--Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>