Simon Buckingham wrote:
> Hello there, this is just to let you know that a site summary of the
> "unorganization" ideas had just been published in the Dutch language at
> http://www.unorg.com/nl.htm
Thank you, i'll take a peek at it one of these days.
> My translator could not find a suitable translation for "unorganiztion"
> into Dutch and as such uses non-organization. If you can suggest a
> better translation or have any comments on it, then I would be delighted
> to receive them.
Unorganization is an unsuitable word, me thinks. I've read some of your
mails and recognise the basics behind your ideas, up to a point.
The essence of 'organisation' is processes and nothing else, says i.
These processes tend to assemble into ever increasing complex systems of
processes, processes processing processes. In my opinion there are low
levels of processing (like in the ordinary stone, basic processing), some
what higher levels of processing (like in life: complex, self-encoding,
self-organizing processes) and, NEW, NEW!, conscious processes NEW!! get
one of these now. Hack, you've already got one of your own.
All these processes have to obey some basic rules, based on their
character and level. Like stones, perfectly obeying the laws of gravity,
electro-magnetism and so on. Biological life is constrained by the way
these macro-mollecules behave (chemo/physical laws). The higher processes
just have more laws to obey, as the 'lower' or less-complex laws also
apply.
The latest additions, this spiritual stuff, conscious being, obey the
added laws of logic (rationality) and emotions (irrationality) and, as it
is a relatively new concept, is still discovering its nature (and/or
culture, depending on your preference). But they look very promising, as
they start to discover, develop how these systems of processes 'interact'.
A basic structuring principle (for every level of complexity) is action
equals minus reaction: a cause will (after some time) create, generate,
call forward, lead to its counter-effect. This will lead to balancing
processes. Another principle is: the flow of the least resistance. In my
opinion, every flow of energy (on any level) will travel 'automatically'
along the paths of the least resistance. The higher the level of
complexity, the more options for storing and manipulating energies. All
these processes i call organizing.
So, i think, we can not escape organizing. Organizing is the name of the
game, changing structures, matter and meanings; life itself is one big
adventure in organizing (that's also why we have (internal) organs),
temporarily harnessing energies, forces, releasing them in order to create
more complexing systems of energies.
The most complex of complexes (a.k.a. our mind) became conscious at a
price: most of the principles, processes, structures, knowledge remained
unconscious, unknown. And bounded by limited abilities, trying to use
resources as economical as possible. In a world that seems structureless
(imagine yourself seeing, experiencing your environment for the first
time, inventing words, concepts, speech), structures and laws are the
first desirables. Run for the hills first, then for The Ten Commandments
and finally for any big caring institution (church, nation, organisation).
Waves of imposing structure (reducing complexity, conventionalising) are
intermixed with waves of loosing-up (differentiating, creating,
renaissance). After a number of centuries, structuring becomes so
successful, that everything gets structured. This creates the
counter-movement of differentiating, again. And the pendulum sways back:
there is no such thing as permanent revolution (OK, the earth around its
axis) nor is there permanent structure (unless, you consider the laws and
principles structures).
There is, in my opinion, no such thing as unorganizing, like there is no
such thing as motionlessness (unmotion). Everything is in motion, from the
tiniest string, quark or quanta to the biggest system of milky ways.
There is 'constant craving, constant craving has always been' (k.d.
lange's CD, inginue). However, you do have a point.
Now, based on Jungian psychology (or Kolb's learning styles or
Myers-Briggs Type Indicators or Nedd Hermann's Braintest or the seasons of
the year) and as i experience people, people in organizing processes,
people tend to behave according a few basic, mutually exclusive but
unprovable, assumptions. One of these assumptions/choices is: "change
comes from the outside versus change comes from within". So some people
say: the markets changes, the customer changes, technology change, while
others say: events cause changes, emotions, drives, values, they drive
change processes. Both are true, but never at the same moment. The other
seems to be something like: "how do we react to change?". Some people want
to reduce problems, conflicts, get control; while others see change as an
opportunity, invention, a change to work with people. Both are best, but
never at the same moment. This gives four archetypes, for basic assumption
on organisations:
1. Organisations are based on structures and rules, needed to control
time and space (unitary)
2. Organisations are based on facts and actions, one thing causes another
thing and we need clear objectives and goals (sensory)
3. Organisations are based on ideas, plans, symbols, created to create
more opportunities, products and services (mythical)
4. Organisations are based on common values, intentions, people care for
each others and therefore organize (social).
The nice thing is: all are true, the problem is: they are mutually
exclusive. A combination of two assumptions is possible, but adding a
third will create tension, which will have to be resolved. There is a kind
of Uncertainty Principle at work: the more we control, think, feel, act
like 1 and 2, which i call 'task-orientation' (or 3 and 4, which i call
'facilitating orientation'), the more we create the need for the other
orientation.
I assume (based on evolution theory) that most people will prefer the
notion that change comes from the outside and that they would like to
control these changes. This results in a firm belief in structures,
institutions and hierarchy. These seem to be 'save', for most people.
Others, called heretics, change agents, prophets, inventors,
entrepreneurs, artists, seem to prefer causing change, creating change and
facilitating change. Now, for a really complex system of systems it will
be imperative to have both 'types' of thinking and acting on board,
accepting differences in an active way, creating harmonious waves of
change, now and then differentiating (more differences), now and then
conventionalising (more structure). But never at the same moment.
Constant craving ...
(NB: I guess this is also why i like Hamlets statement: "To be or not to
be, that is the question, whether it is better .. etc", meaning: when is
what appropriate and inaction is no answer. Also Kurt Vonnegut (jr) made a
striking remark, but i can not find it at the moment).
> I have targeted The Netherlands because of the existing high number of
> visitors to unorg.com from ".nl" email addresses and also because The
> Netherlands apparently has twice the average number of people working
> independently or from home- 30%
I will not check your figures, but i consider it an undeserved compliment.
The Dutch are, and have been, an exception to main stream cultures (it is
not I that says this, but cultural anthropologists and philosophers and so
on). Probably because we had to invent our culture as an response to
a. the rising sea-levels,
b. the structures imposed by kings and emperors and
c. the necessity to deal with pretty strong outsiders.
The Dutch culture, some say, is better integrated because they had to
assimilate different peoples, streams, ideas. On the one hand this
generated a proliferation of different churches, beliefs,
(conventionalising) on the other hand, it generated tolerance
(differentiating) and wealth.
The success of any organization (big and small, community and nation)
depends on it ability to harmonise without destruction, walking the
tight-rope of dealing with cultural differences, balancing
conventionalising and differentiating. One way to achieve this is the way
we, in The Netherlands, have on the one hand some things forbidden by law
(i.e. prostitution, some drugs, abortus, euthanasia) and on the other hand
have the same things organised (by a red light district, coffee shops, and
a codes of conduct for women and GP's). The price we pay: continuous
debates, so we've become great talkers.
> I believe that the unorganization ideas are highly applicable to you and
> would ask you to dial in and take a look, and recommend unorg.com to
> your colleagues, customers and associates. My primary concern in
> targeting The Netherlands is potential realization, rather than personal
> financial gain.
I'll look into this.
> unorganization: business not busyness!
Coreorganizing: being busy being?
(I wanted to call it co (together) re (anew) organizing, but now i'm
reading core (centre, heart) organizing. (COreorganizing, coREorganizing,
CORE-organizing) Shall i trade mark it?)
Best regards,
Jan
--Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM (Jan) janlelie@pi.net (J.C. Lelie) @date@ @time@ LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development - + (31) 70 3243475 Fax: idem
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>