As i was catching up my literature, i must admit that Philip Ramsey's
contribution to The System Thinker 'The Structure of Paradox: managing
Interdependent Opposites', far better explains the complexities of
processes of organising than i did.
His diagram (page 4, perhaps it also somewere on internet?) on value based
conflicts can be applyed straight-forward to the (un)organising dialogue.
Sometimes "structuring" generates more gains then its counter-pole
"destructuring". These gains AND strengthen the use of structuring AND add
to the need of destructuring. Most people will try to reduce short term
tension, and prefer structure and control. Remembering that systems can
become hyper-critical (dynamical systems can evolve past the point of
equilibrium) it becomes clear to me why destructuring can happen suddenly.
And the opposite, the truth of the saying: a revolution eats its own
children.
[Host's Note: No, I doubt that Ramsey's article is on the net. One can
obtain reprints from Pegasus Communications. ...Rick]
Not only does Philip refer to most of the literature i also use (with the
exception of McWhinney's Path of Change), he also puts quotes around the
word dinosaurs in the sentence "Systems become dinosaurs", when he refers
to organisations atrophy and stagnate. Indeed, there is no need to blame
dinosaurs for stagnating evolution.
Jan Lelie
- CORElate diversity! -
--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>