Replying to LO23015 and LO23021 --
Good morning Prof. Dash,
Indeed, it reminds me of Thorngates clock: you have to negotiate trade
offs between General, Accurate and Simple (GAS, for short). A General and
Simple model often isn't very Accurate, while an Accurate and General
theory is difficult - or not so Simple. Something that is Accurate and
Simple (a case study) is hard to Generalize. When starting a study,
writing a thesis or paper, one has to take a starting point. For
instance, you want to have a acurate and simple description of the LO's.
After a while, you'll notice that LO's lack generality.
Would it help to start from a general standpoint and create a simple
description? No. In that case, LO's will be far from accurate depicted.
And for making a general and accurate theory on LO's, it would take ages
and become rather complex. So, what you get is not what you expect.
Also, your starting point prevents you from filling "the hole". A general
paper can not be turned into a simple one by adding accuracy. Neither can
it be become accurate by adding simple statemements. That's creating
meaning for you: an endless task, like the filling of the well by the
daughters of Danaus - hmmm, perhaps this list is in supply by the cousines
of the daughters of Danaus, it seems unfillable - , or Sisyphus'labour -
every year we're talking about whether LO really exists or not - , or the
punishments of Prometheus: pain is what you'll get when supplying wisdom
to humanity.
OK. Setting the Greeks aside, i would like to add a fourth attribute:
Passionate (or perhaps somebody can suggest another characteristic from
the emotional, unrational and inneffective buth very human dimension). I
think that all theories, models, principles or books contain an emotional,
normative dimension. Some literature takes this as a starting point: a
movement to change the world, to make this world a better place, to change
things for humanity - and all other species - for the better. I'm thinking
of theories like Marx' Dass Kapital, other Social Theories, or a Culturale
Perspective or The Dilbert Principle -. As soon as you look back on what
you've created, it will be lacking either simplicity, or generality or
accuracy. The meaning of life sucks.
And hereby i postulate a Mutual Exclusion Principle on organisation
theory: no organisation theory can be General, Accurate, Simple and
Passionate (GASP) at the same time. You may oversimplify this to: you
cannot have your cake and eat it.
Bon apetit,
Jan Lelie
> Miss M S Nordarlina <esuij@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > ... are they really LOs? Personally I don't
> > think LO really exists. That is, one that really matches all the
> > descriptions found in all the literatures.
>
> The descriptions in academic literature seem to serve diverse aims. They
> sometimes help one identify examples (instances) of what is being
> described (e.g., schizophrenia in psychology). They also help one bring
> forth new things (that serve as instances of a new type of object) in the
> world (e.g., aircrafts in engineering). They sometimes provide the 'rules
> of interaction' that produce strange (and surprising) effects (e.g.,
> voting in politics). Etc., etc.
>
> My humble suggestion will be to use the LO literature in new and
> unconventional ways, although you find it discouraging to locate real
> instances of what the LO literature describes. I have suggested two such
> uses in the paragraph above. There can be more.
-- With kind regards - met vriendelijke groeten,Jan Lelie
Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM (Jan) LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development Mind@Work est. 1998 - Group Resolution Process Support Tel.: (+ 31) (0)70 3243475 or car: (+ 31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl and/or taoSystems: + 31 (0)30 6377973 - Mindatwork@taoNet.nl
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>