I certainly can- I would dump or modify all or any of my ideas if it
turned out not be true. Just to say that I seek not no organizations but
simply a different form of organizations- dynamic and voluntary rather
than static and forced. That's learning after all- continually assessing
actual outcomes compared with expected outcomes and modifying. Einstein
has the greatest at this- he continually reassessed his past work and that
of others as he developed his ideas more widely and deeply. And even he
ended up stubbornly ignoring and rejecting new paths such as quantum
physics.
> For one thing, there can be no "learning organizations" for us to talk
> about if there are no organizations!
Agreed.
> Second, there can only be "unorganizations" within the organizing
> framework or a society of organizations: that is, for us to communicate
> with each other as unorganized individuals requires that we be housed and
> contained and sheltered and fed and paid by a society of organizations
> designed to supply us with all those things.
Agreed. We will always need these things and not all of us will be experts
enough to build houses- we outsource/ subcontract that task to experts to
reduce the transaction costs (possible errors and expertise disadvantages)
those specialists have. I see no problem with this if it is a voluntary
transaction.
> For us to communicate electronically requires organization: despite all
> the talk of Internet as "anarchy," that of course is not true: a network
> of organized industries creates and supports it.
Agreed- just a more dynamic form of order with intrinsic patterns formed
around the very needs you describe here- eat, sleep, communicatate.
> Some comments on other aspect of Simon's view of organization:
>
> > collapsible
> >corporations are okay, hierarchies are not.
>
> The notion that teams can prosper with quarterbacks and coaches,
> businesses without managers, orchestras without orchestra leaders--that we
> can have nonhierarchical organizations may be a myth, and a harmful myth.
Businesses can thrive without managers for sure- if you like me define a
manager as someone who forces others to do something whereas a leader
seeks to guide and persuade. What I say about management is that it is
again dynamic- he or she who takes the lead is the person best placed to
solve that particular challenge- when building the house, sometimes the
plumber is the team leader, sometimes the roof fitter is, sometimes the
bricklayers are, and so on dynamically rather than arbitrarily according
to the task being undertaken. I would certainly see positive effects from
having overall coordination from one or probably more people coupling
disparate activities and interests and building synergies between them.
> Is the "structure" of chess dynamic or static? Every game begins with
> exactly the same pieces, and exactly the same preordained moves that are
> permissible: and yet no two chess games are alike.
The most important thing is that the participants of the chess game are
playing voluntarily. In fact, whilst the starting positions are the same,
the game then flows dynamically and variably.
> Form and structure are the very foundation of organization. What makes
> some organizations "static" is that they make the same chess moves over
> and over again when they no longer serve. Or: they refuse to abandon one
> form and structure and create a new one when altered conditions require
> change.
Nice metaphor, and true. Either that or markets are not contestable and
new players cannot get onto the board because entry barriers are too high.
> We live, most of us, in physical structures. Some of us have a need for
> place, a need for roots, a need for a settled community.
If its voluntary, its fine. if it cannot be transcended upon desire, then
its bad!
> But: the idea of "unorganization" is intriguing, nevertheless.
Thanks for commenting and for reading "trans" too. I do see unorganization
as an all encompassing theory suited to personal, business, economic,
social and political decisions and actions. I do not think that it is a
fad, routed as it is so inherently in market and human forces, but we will
know more as some of the companies implementing the ideas in Russia,
Austrailia, Norway, Japan, Belguim, the US, South Africa and so on report
their discoveries.
Myself and my clients have developed opporTUNEizing as an alternative to
downstructuring when finding that downstructuring wasn't always
applicable- areas of companies involved in knowledge work tend to
downstrcuture as ideas creation is independent of time and place, whereas
areas of companies involved in time and mission critical physical
activities tend to opporTUNEitize. Whereas downstructuring is removing
structure, opporTUNEitizing is making structure dynamic through
initiatives such as cross-training, empowerment and so on.
In sum, not no organizations, just dynamic rather than static forms in
which people voluntarily participate rather than be coerced or forced.
regards sincerely Simon Buckingham
http:/www.unorg.com/trans
--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/>