Dr. Steve Eskow wrote:
> David Hurst reminds me, quite correctly, that it is impossible to look at
> the complexity of an "organization" and see anything except confusion
> unless one looks through the lens of an organizing metaphor.
--snip--
> I find more value in the metaphor of "culture"; the US and the world are a
> series of cultures, and the rules, codes, traditions, and rituals of those
> cultures do not in any way resemble those of living creatures, but they do
> lend themselves to discovery by patient and empathetic study.
I appreciate the problems associated with using metaphor. Indeed, how
many of us have puzzled over the meaning of a poem, or painting, sometimes
finding our own ideas to associate with the artist's symbolism, simile or
metaphor. That's one of the most endearing and significant aspects of
art.
Interestingly, Steve, is your comfort with the "culture" metaphor.
Culture is certainly a phenomenon of living systems. So, here we are--I
agree and empathize with your use of this metaphor (from a living systems
perspective), yet you use it because you apparently find "culture" as
antithetical to living systems. What a wonder the use of language is, eh?
Regarding Drucker's influence . . . well, we all find something personally
important from what we read. One slight comment he made was about
structure--I believe (without looking) that he simply stated something
like "all that one could ever want to learn about structure" he had
learned from the book "On Growth and Form" by D'Arcy Thompson. I was
intrigued by this statement, and found Thompson's book with a great deal
of effort. Thompson was a naturalist and mathematician. He first
published the book in 1917. It is a book "about the way things grow, and
the shapes they take." It's mostly about biological systems, but also
delves into other areas.
I'm sure that much of the original work is no longer scientifically
relevant or even valid (indeed, the abridged version that I found was
published in 1961, and left much of the original out for that reason). It
is easy to see, though, what fascinated Drucker and led him to make such
an interesting comment. Indeed, it is for that reason that I suspected
Drucker of harboring some value for the concept of living organizations
like I do. Perhaps I've simply drawn him into a discussion that he would
prefer to be (if he had the choice) of not being involved in. But, I
appreciate the lessons he's provided.
I am, quite frankly, excited by the value that the "living" concept might
make for those who work with organizational systems. As a practitioner,
I'm interested in facilitating the development of those skills necessary
for an organization to realize the characteristics associated with living
systems (continuous adaptability, sustainability, individuality,
integration, flexibility). Viable organizations (teams, businesses,
communities) evince these characteristics in a variety of complex ways.
So, Steve--or anyone else--what are the problems associated with looking
at organizations from the perspective of these 5 living principles? Does
it matter whether one consider them a metaphor, or a matter of being? Are
these characteristics invalid or irrelevant to organizational life? Does
the application of the word "living" to organizations somehow demean us or
otherwise offend the sensibilities? I'm candidly surprised by the fuss!
regards,
Doc
-- "Mind is like the faculty, phenomena are the data; both are like scratches in a mirror. When there are no scratches or dust, the clarity of the mirror shows. When mind and phenomena are both forgotten, then your nature is real." -Master YangqiRichard C. "Doc" Holloway Developing skills for living organizations Visit me at http://www.thresholds.com/community/learnshops/index.html Or e-mail me at <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com> Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2361 Phone: 01 360 786 0925 Olympia, WA 98507 USA Fax: 01 360 709 4361
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>