Richard Goodale begins his interesting critique of my antiviews on
biological metaphors with a more fitting metaphor, given my views: I am
"off base", although "still in the ballpark"
I appreciate Richard's willingness to abstain from taking my temperature,
or diagnosing my health, mental or physical: at least he does not practice
medicine without a license.
His intricate and detailed "reading" of Gates and Walsh and who did what
may be a useful reading: it is closely textured, and it is not impossible
that his reading may have some connection with what actually what went on.
His analysis is not in any way confirmed or supported or negated by images
of health or unhealth: it is no way confirmed or denied by summaries that
say this leader is "sound" and this organization is "healthy".
Those health judgments follow the facts, not predict them: if Apple
explodes into a huge and successful company, it obviously is "healthy"; if
it begins to falter and decline, we now--after the fact--pronounce it
"unhealthy" (another name for saying sales are declining), and then we
look back and find that if we had been looking at the right "symptoms" we
could have predicted the sickness even when we were proclaiming the
patient's health.
I'll continue to believe that those trying to help organizations help
themselves will not be helped in that effort by talking the language of
biology and ecology and health.
We'll see.
Since Richard honored me with honest critique in depth--and I appreciate
his willingness to challenge without being overly sweet and
accomodating--I'd like to return the favor with some pointed responses.
"All I think I know is that there is a discernible, quasi-tangible,
qualitative difference between a "healthy" organisation and an "unhealthy"
one. And, I think, using biological methaphors (or similes or whatever
rhetorical devices) is a useful way of diagnosing and characterising
organisational health."
If these differences are "discernible" and "quasi-tangible" why of course
we can tangibly discern whether Microsoft is a healthy organization or an
unhealthy organization. Unfortunately, I, for one, don't find the answer
either tangible or discernible, so here's my diagnosis: Microsoft is
currently healthy, but there are discernble signs of illness needing
remedial action. Now I'm covered: if the Fedsor the market kill Microsoft
I predicted that; if Microsoft continues to grow, that means they took the
right medicine and recovered. Can't lose with that metaphor
"Does that mean I think organisations are "alive?" Quite frankly I don't
know and I don't care."
Really, Richard?
"All I know is that using that analogy can be very
useful, so I use it, from time to time, where and when appropriate."
Whether or not it's useful is what we're discussing, and noone who uses it
has taken the trouble to explain how it sharpens our insight into Apple's
weaknesses and Microsoft's strengths. So for now I assume that assertion
that the metaphor is useful is an assertion not yet demonstrated.
"Do/Can organisations "self organise?" Are tautologies tautological? How
did the Celtics manage to run their fast breaks so seamlessly for so many
years, regardless of the people involved?"
The reason the Celtic managed their breaks "seamlessly" is that were not a
sew-sew organization, but a healthy one. A healthy organization doesn't
expect the self to organise spontaneously, but insists on proper diet and
good medical help. The other teams expected miracles of self organization,
which didn't happen, while the Celtics left nothing to chance and biology.
(The fact that I have no idea of what I'm talking about makes no never
mind when you're in the grip of a metaphor and running with it: it begins
to self organize itself, as a narrative.)
"and when we find these sorts of things out, the world will be a much
less mysterious place to be. If we do so, however, I strongly suspect
that metaphors from our understanding of "life," biological, ontological,
or otherwise will have proven to be be among our most important and
irreplaceable tools."
Now, I thought you didn't care one way or another : you're sounding like
you care very much.
"That in initself is a tuautology, for we only know
what we experience, and what we experience is, by definition, our life.
"Isn't it?"
No, Richard, now that you ask.
Where did you find that definition?
All the best to a tough dialoger.
Steve Eskow
Dr. Steve Eskow
President, The Electronic University Network
288 Stone Island Road
Enterprise, Florida 32725
Phone: 407-321-8770; Fax: 407-321-4861
email: dreskow@magicnet.net
--"Dr. Steve Eskow" <dreskow@magicnet.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>