Robert Bacal wote:
> I suspect the controversy is around the details of Fred's assertion,
> and its extremeness. .... It is not consistent with the legal
> issues I (and others) have mentioned.
Fair enough. Personally, I don't think legal definitions are quite
germane, either; the requirements of legal language have no obligatory
relationship to actual behavior, whatever that is.
> It is not consistent with several social science disciplines such as
> sociology or social psychology which look at group behaviour. Neither
> is it consistent with the notions of organization culture, etc.
Can't say I agree with you there, being a psychologist myself, admittedly
more of the personality field and therefore well wedded to a individual
differences approach. But I also studied with a couple of the group
behavior folks, primarily Robert Freed Bales at Harvard and his SYMLOG,
which was very much an analysis of the whole through understanding the
relationship between measured individual parts. And while I am aware of
notions of organization culture, I wasn't saying my opinion was either the
absolute truth, nor that it was consistent with every approach. Whether
or not there is an objective reality to "groups," it is certainly far more
convenient to use the concept, and I do that as readily as anyone else.
Because I think it is possible and generally desirable to analyze groups
at the atomic level does not mean I have to --or should--all the time.
> While you can say that
> the Beatles would not exist without the four members (interestingly
> you don't mention the two "non-beatles" who were replaced), none of
> the four members is the same as the beatles, and none would have
> produced the same thing on their own.
Oddly enough, after writing a lengthy response and then rereading your
letter, I think we are in agreement on many points. I'll summarize mine:
It is convenient and easy to refer to the Beatles as a unit as distinctly
different in performance from Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr,
George Harrison, and indeed Wings or the Plastic Ono Band. You assess
their music at that level of analysis: the unit that produces the music.
I propose that to understand how they were able to be different, how the
Beatles were different, requires one to look at the individuals AND their
relationship to each other. That is, Lennon and McCartney not only had
separate gifts, but worked together in a way that can be evaluated (Lennon
usually did the middle eight, e.g.) in addition to those gifts. I prefer
not to treat a group as an irreducible entity, because I think it does not
reflect the reality, nor does it provide information that can be used by
others. Again, my competency-based bias showing--but on the other hand I
am not arguing purely from opinion, I am arguing from research done by
myself and others in the business world.
So now you realize I deliberately did not mention Stu Sutcliffe or Pete
Best--I assessed the Beatles as that unique entity that hit it big (as
noted above, the unit that produces the popular music), which is composed
of those four individuals and no one else. You can argue, in fact, that
the wrong group can squelch individual competence, that Sutcliffe hit his
stride after leaving the band and pursuing his (visual) art.
I think all I am arguing for is to assess at the proper unit of analysis,
and to understand the performance outcomes of groups it is better (I
think) to get to the level of individuals.
Steve Kelner
Director, Educational and Advising Services
Center for Quality of Management
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>