Replying to LO27871 --
Dear Organlearners,
Daan Joubert <daanj@kingsley.co.za> writes:
>I am new here, having discovered the forum with
>a Google search on "strategic management" that
>delivered some 1997 posts from a thread started
>by Winfried Dressler.
Greetings Daan,
Welcome to our LO-dialogue. You are not perhaps the Daan Joubert who
studied with me in the physics department of the Potchefstroom Univeristy,
two years my senior? Any way, may you become a persistent and active
fellow learner.
>Although interested in and doing some conceptual
>work in the field of management for some 20 years,
>I can by no means be considered a "responsible
>person" in this field as I have never really published
>or did anything of public note. However, a discovery
>I stumbled across early on - a formal and generalised
>definition of the role of the manager - has provided
>me with a somewhat off-beat perspective that has
>bearing on ...(snip)
I am immensely pleased with one thing on our LO-dialogue -- it is learning
in the sense of an active becoming on which we focus and not on learning
as some status achieved in the past through peer review on the information
produced. Learning is a sacred activity which every member of any
organisation (even the members of this list) has to share in collectively
and not only the big shots of that organisation. Once this happens
individually and collectively in an organisation, two LO-disciplines
(Personal Mastery and Team Learning) are operating. When the other three
(Mental Models, Shared Vision and Systems Thinking) also operate, the
organisation operates as a LO (Learning Organisation).
>(snip) ...the question of whether one can seriously
>disagree with the principles of LO as encapsulated
>in all Five Disciplines which, as At de Lange
>pointed out (LO27864), form a whole philosophy
> - one cannot isolate only the Fifth Discipline as the
>key to 'it all'.
Daan, I have seen many lovely organisations with admirable intentions
which just could not accomplish what they wanted to because of this
placing of all their eggs in Systems Thinking, General Systems Theory,
Total Systems Intervention, Living Systems or whatever it has been called.
Although living and learning are both "one-to-many-mappings", we must stay
with the whole of the "one-to-many-mapping" and not only with its "one".
One of the ancient Chinese sages (I cannot remember whom) said that living
is a "one-become-many". Goethe gave us a living example of this with
respect to both living and learning.
>My problem with what I have read here so far
>- and which does not mean I disagree with LO or
>its principles - is a lack, a deficiency, rather than
>something that appears wrong or incorrect. That
>lack is "purpose".
Daan, do you have the LO-list, Senge's seminal work The Fifth iscipline or
LOs in general in mind? One of my passions is that our LO-list will become
the first ever LO in cyberspace or virtual reality. I have written so in
the past too. You are right, a LO has to have a purpose. But that purpose
must come from (as they so often say in our dear country ;-) from the
"grass roots level". In other words, everybody has to participate in
formulating the purpose and not only a section according to some or other
ill functioning distinction.
To do this each need to say what his/her purpose in life is. My purpose in
life is to teach fellow learners how to learn authentically. I cannot
expect and do not want everyone else to have the same purpose, or even to
formulate his/her purpose in life. This would not lead to authentic
learning. But this I can say from my own experiences in the few
organisations where it happened. As more of us give our
formal-explicate-external-tangible-variable-"found" purposes in life, the
more we become aware of the
tacit-implicate-internal-intangible-steadfast-"hidden" purpose we share
collectively. (I am thinking here of the writings of JW Goethe, Jan Smuts,
Alfred Whitehead, Michael Polanyi and David Boehm. Their immense
sensitivity to wholeness enabled them to detect this "hidden order" in
life.) Once we have detected the purpose of this "hidden order", our next
step would be to articulate it. This is very, very difficult, so much so
that we may fall into the trap of saying that it is actually impossible.
Once we have succeeded in articulating the purpose of this "hidden order"
in our dear LO-dialogue, it will be nothing else than its Shared Vision
which Senge writes about, one of the five disciplines of a LO. I have some
idea what the purpose is of this "hidden order" and I have written often
on it, but never identified it as possibly our Shared Vision. I will not
do it because authentic learning requires that we have to experience (by
feeling, tasting, smelling, seeing and hearing) this "hidden order" so
that our tacit knowledge on it can grow.
Perhaps Senge did say too little on purpose itself in Shared Vision. If it
is the case, it is not for us to criticise it, but to amend it through
continual dialogue. That is why your first contribution is so important to
us, reminding ourselves what did we say on purpose and what we still will
have to say on it.
>Of course, "purpose" is the subject of strategic
>planning or management and the fact that the
>Google search only picked out a single 1997
>thread from this very voluminous LO archive says
>that strategic management - 'where the organisation
>wants to be' and thus what the overriding role of
>management ought to be - is not a regular topic at all.
Thank you for making us aware of this fact. I used Google's
advance search engine just to make sure how much the word
"purpose" (first window of the engine) occurred in the LO-
contributions. Then I did the same for "strategic management"
(second window). The results are
purpose(587 hits)--
"strategic management"(750 hits)
Afterwards I used "purpose" in the first window and "strategic
management" in the second window. The result is
purpose(587)(2hits)
The one hit is an announcement and the other one
"Strategy and Ontology LO26150"
< http://www.learning-org.com/01.02/0120.html >
by Doc Holloway, a dear fellow learner who passed away recently.
He was a person with a strong purpose in life as many of us will
remember. I specifically mention these two hits to remind us that
the 2 is the upper limit. Only one of the 2 hits actually discussed
purpose in strategic management. We may say that the 2 hits have
a low value of "confidence".
I did not get the contribution of Winfried Dressler as one of the hits.
Google gives different outcomes when using the same keywords in different
configurations. For example, when I use all three "purpose strategic
management" in the top window, I get 17 hits! We have to try picturing the
"hidden logic" of Google in terms of its "windows found".
One of the many things which I learned on this list, is that many kinds of
dedicated terminology appear in our LO-dialogue. Likewise many kinds of
diction and stance, even in language appear here. Some authors have
English as mother tongue while others with different mother tongues may
have difficulty expressing themselves. With all this otherness
("quality-variety") in the list, we ought to be careful in not making
quick conclusions.
So what I then did, was to compile a list of synonyms for "purpose". I
have arranged them in three sections -- strong, moderate and weak
synonyms. For each synonym I did two searches with Google, one with only
the synonym in the top window and the other one with also "strategic
management" in the second window. The numbers of hits for these two
searches are then supplied in two (##)(##) behind it. Please remember that
these numbers imply possible discussions, not actual discussions I have
illustrated above. In other words, they have low "confidence" values.
purpose(587)(2)
Strong synonyms:
aim(101)(0), design(600)(8), end(1010)(16), goal(445)(7),
intention(91)(0), mission(395)(13), motive(163)(1),
objective(198)(2), outcome(283)(3), plan(362)(8),
purport(7)(0),
Moderate synonyms:
function(395)(1), meaning(738)(8), point(1590)(6),
rationale(37)(0), reason(711)(3), drift(21)(0),
view(900)(11)
Weak synonyms:
conscious(259)(2), confidence(128)(3),
determination(24)(0), resolve(93)(2), tenacity(4)(0)
Once we begin to compare these hits ("frequency of data") we enter the
domain of statistics. There are many standard procedures of several kinds
available to try and make sense out of the frequency of data. However, it
is not the use of such standard procedures to arrive at a few "statistics"
(numerical values of statistical parameters like average, standard
deviation, confidence interval, etc.) which makes the comparison
legitimate. It is the wise use of such standard procedures AS WELL AS
non-standard procedures and all their outcomes ("statistics") which makes
the comparison legitimate.
For example, I have once explained to fellow learners the difference
between "multivariable regression analysis" and "path analysis". It is not
wise to use the former whenever liveness ("becoming-being") is part of the
"hidden order" of the system. This was the incredible insight of the
geneticist Sewall Wright and why he invented "path analysis" in the first
place. On the other hand, I have seen statisticians and managers using
"path analyses" as a new fad for a static system arriving at shocking
illusions.
A new era is opening up of using logical patterns rather than formulae
involving the computing of a "statisctic" for making comparisons. Google's
advanced search engine is an example for doing this. In my CACTAL
(Computer Assisted Creative Teaching and Learning) authoring system for
CAE (Computer Assisted Lessons), I have designed, programmed and
implemented a novel procedure to do the same with the authentic answers
which learners provided to the computer.
So let us compare these hits (bearing in mind the low value of
"confidence" in these hits). Some synonyms for purpose (whatever their
strength and whatever the context they were used) are used very much while
others are used very little. Six of them have been used more than purpose
itself. Five of them have been used less than 10% compared to purpose.
In the use (at least once) of "strategic management"(750 hits) only in
94+2 of them from all the possible synonyms were used (at least once), but
for what "purpose" I would not know unless I study each of these 750
files. Obviously, nobody has the time to do that. But yes, you are right,
the ratio 96/750 (some 13%) is rather low, especially when we bear in mind
the low value of "confidence". For a higher value of "confidence" the
ratio will become even lower. Google can be used to some extend to get a
higher value of "confidence" by using its fourth window ("without the
words"). Since we have used up to three words in first two windows and one
in the site window, we will have to restrict ourselves to six words to
remove the "off-beat" improbable) hits. Google allows 10 keywords maximum.
I now come to the hot problem which statistics cannot ever solve. It
cannot fathom the "hidden order" of our LO-dialogue. Louis de Broglie, one
of the fathers of quantum mechanics, sensed it first in quantum mechanics.
Planck, the grandfather, discovered that energy comes in quantums. De
Broglie, sensitive to wholeness like Einstein, discovered by using
Planck's equation E=hxF and Einstein's equation E=MxC^2 that momentum also
comes in quantums P=h/L. Having both the frequency F and the wave length L
enabled Schroedinger to create his famous wave equation for quantum
mechanics. To interpret the meaning of these quantum mechanical waves, Max
Born thought of their square as probability spaces. This gave Einstein the
creeps, making him exclaiming in one of his letters "God does not play
dice."
De Broglie began to think in a different direction. What if the wave
equation is incomplete? Dirac grabbed on this, producing the relativistic
wave equation which solved some famous problems, but introduced new
infamous problems. But this was not what De Broglie had in mind. Twenty
five years later Boehm sensed what he had in mind. There is a part of the
quantum mechanical system which all the wave equations, how clever they
are made, simply cannot reach into. He called it the implicate order. A
"higher intelligence" is needed to delve into this "hidden order". Any use
of probability theory and statistics is a clear signal that this "higher
intelligence" is not operating. (Also See the Law of Veracity of
Complexity in Part 5 of Constructive Creativity and Leadership.)
Every measurement sets irreversibly a "ping" into this "hidden order" so
that the next measurement is disturbed by how this "ping" echoed through
the "hidden order". This makes the analysis of the "hidden order" by
theories of probablilty and statistics based on the "found order" a futile
and even ridiculous excercise. Its like somebody telling me what I am
thinking while writing this paragraph form what he/she will eventually
read.
This difference between the "hidden order" and the "found order" is very
much the same as the difference between authentic learning and rote
learning. In the "hidden order" of authentic learning are our sensations,
experiences and tacit knowledge. Each of our other spiritual faculties and
not merely our knowledge has a "hidden order". All these "hidden orders"
together form the "hidden order" of our personality -- the "subconscious"
as many psychologists might say. Jan Smuts, one of the former prime
ministers of our dear country and father of holism, was very good at
detecting this "hidden order" of the personality, as we may gather at his
private letters to Margeret Gillett over many, many years.
Our LO-dialogue does have a "hidden order". That "hidden order" does have
a "strategic purpose" of which I became sure through my experiences in the
LO-dialogue and outside it with fellow learners. I think it is the same
for several other fellow learners. Some participate regularly, some
occasionally and some just stay in the background. If all of them would
respond to the following question
. Do you "sense" the "strategic purpose" in the "hidden order"
. of our LO-dialogue without needing to motivate your answer?
I think that many of us will be surprised at the ratio of YES to NO
responses. Rick as our skipper keeps his mouth wisely shut.
Daan, yes, many of us are tacitly aware of our LO-dialogue having a
strategic purpose. Yes, you have made many of us aware that we have to
articulate that tacit knowledge, despite its difficulty and the
difficulties of the dynamics of the LO-dialogue.
>The key to the breakthrough was the question of
>"purpose", namely "Why does any organisation, or
>a unique part of one, exist? The only possible
>answer is that the environment within which any
>particular "organisational system" functions finds it
>useful. When the environment no longer has a
>reason to interact with a system, it atrophies and
>disappear.
>
>And to make sure that the WHOLE environment is
>considered for this answer, I distinguish three main
>interfaces to the environment: Input ... (snip)
I like your use of "atrophies" and "disappear". It reminds me of
what Schroedinger wrote in 1952 to the indignation of many
specialised experts in every branch of science, especially those
who used him Schroedinger in their very "tyranny of experts":
Quote
"... there is a tendency to forget that all science is bound up
with human culture in general. And that scientific findings,
even those which at the moment appear the most advanced
and difficult to grasp, are meaningless outside their cultural
context. A theoretical science unaware that those of its
constructs considered relevant and momentous are destined
eventually to be framed in concepts and words that have a
grip on the educated community and become part and parcel
of the general world picture -- a theoretical science, I say,
where this is forgotten, and where the initiated continue
musing to each other in terms that are, at best understood
by a small closed group of fellow travellers, will necessarily
be cut off from the rest of cultural mankind; in the long run
it is bound to atrophy and ossify however virulently esoteric
chat may continue within joyfully isolated groups of experts."
End Quote
I work in the same manner as you seem to be doing. But I think that the
WHOLE environment in the case of our LO-dialogue is the globe, Mother
Earth, with all its learning peoples, past, present and future. That is
why I often paint lengthy rich pictures. I know that many fellow learners
dread them while others simply delete them, but sometimes I do keep my
replies short and to the point. My reason for doing it is the very 7Es
(seven essentialities of creativity).
Take sureness ("identity-categoricity") as example. Each of us has a
changing identity. But exactly what is this changing identity? Only when
each of us walk through all the relationships which each of us have with
our whole environment, will we know for sure. I know of many fellow
learners who have become more surer of themselves by having walked with me
through the rich pictures which I have painted. I have many personal
letters from them witnessing to this. The point is, "increasing sureness"
is at stake, not "sureness on" or "sureness off". That is of the past, at
least for some of us.
>Once the specific factors for a given situation have
>been identified, the manager can decide which factors
>can be best improved, and the effect of negative
>factors reduced, to result in a higher rating for the
>system. This applies to the organisation as a whole
>or to any unique part of one.
I am in danger here of using the quote above out of its context.
Obviously, the manager has to decide because that is his/her job. But for
me in the LO, otherwise than in an OO (Ordinary Organisation), the manager
merely decide in terms what all the members have already decided, directed
by the Five Disciplines in action. This issue on who decide(s) is one of
the things which makes a LO patently different from an OO.
>Let me leave it at this - for the time being - to see
>what comments follow.
>
>Thank you for providing IMHO a suitable forum to
>air this for the first time.
(Snip)
>Apologies for a long post
We rather have to thank you for making us aware once again how important
the ultimate "purpose" (substitute anyone of its synonyms here) of a LO
is. I myself often stressed that in such a purpose we need enough "free
energy" to sustain it.
Yes, the "learning atmosphere" of the forum did not switch ON
instantaneously, but we are working on its fractal path from OFF to ON,
gaining in "free energy" all the way by doing the thing.
Please be patient should you not get any feedbacks. A lot of fellow
learners are above their heads in trying to keep their system(s) together
in shape and health. Thus they do not have the time to respond even though
they want to. Perhaps it is time for them to seriously consider the LO to
give them more time for learning.
As for the length of your contribution, I did not mind at all. Mine are
often very, very long. Sometimes I remember to remind fellow learners to
use the ESC key to escape it. But even ESC now also means something else
to fellow learners because there are five of them ;-) What I did in this
reply was to use one of them known as "exemplar exploring" with your
maginificent contribution as the exemplar. (ESC= Elementary Sustainer of
Creativity)
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.