LO and 'purpose' LO27933

From: AM de Lange (amdelange@postino.up.ac.za)
Date: 03/04/02


Replying to LO27904 --

Dear Organlearners,

Daan Joubert <daanj@kingsley.co.za> writes:

>There is no a priori definition of which parameters
>or factors have to be taken into regard by people
>when they evaluate 'the system'. They do so purely
>in terms of their own personal expectations, priorities
>and experiences of the system. From the perspective
>of the 'manager", improving the worth of the system
>would seem very much like trying to make the system
>behave as he himself would prefer to experience it
>from the 'outside', as someone who provides some
>material input or service for the system (Inputs), who
>works there or who supplies the funds that are used
>by the system (Resources) or who uses its outputs in
>some manner.

Greetings dear Daan,

Thank you very much for your insightful contribution.

Here is a story of a leader, a certain Mr K, who accomplished just what
you have articulated above. Mr K was for several decades the previous
principal of the secondary school where I self have taught during the
early seventies. Mr K had the next curious practice right from the
beginning of his principalship. Each day he would stroll for an hour in
front of the classes and visit several of them. When he entered a class,
he would merely say "Good day, go on working".

The first few years neither the pupils nor the teachers liked it. They
thought he was spying on them. But since he never reacted directly to
anyone in a class (except once) in terms of what he observed (good or
bad), or referred later to any incident in a class, they began to accept
it as an ideosyncracy of him. Meanwhile the ethos of the school developed
rapidly until it was foremost among the schools in our entire country.
Pupils excelled in academy, sport and culture. Parents thought the world
of Mr K and the school lacked nothing. Only death or retirement removed a
teacher from the school.

Then Mr K retired. The new principal was man who managed the school from
his office by means of test reports and audits. Every week each pupil had
to write a test in each subject. Teachers had to hand him reports on these
tests as well as other audits on school life. Within three years the ethos
of that school decimated. Most teachers or pupils would have moved to
another school if they had the opportunity.

My uncle, who was my mentor in authentic learning, also taught at that
school. When I began teaching in it, I also had to bear that immense work
load of those test reports and audits. My uncle often told me how
different it was under Mr K. Together we began to unravel the secret of
his principalship. I never knew Mr K so that I had to rely on my uncle's
observations and perceptions.

We came to the conclusion that Mr K used his observations during those
daily visits to the classes to adapt his own leadership rather than
responding directly to the persons involved. He was principally
responsible for the output of the school and he made sure by these visits
what these outputs were. Every change which had to be made, had to begin
principally with him at his leadership. This change he would then allow to
propagate spontaneously through the entire school and the community
beyond. He did not need test reports and audits to rule from his office by
enforcing his official powers.

>As an aside of perhaps some interest: At and I to
>some degree overlapped during our studies of
>Physics at the 'Potchefstroom University for
>Christian Higher Education', back in the 1960's.
>At that University ALL students have to sit through
>1 year of a broadly based philosophy course, and
>pass, and then a second year of faculty relevant
>philosophy.
>
>This seems to have rubbed off more firmly on At at
>the time and been more fertile, judging from his
>writings, while in my case the course and the way
>of thinking it espouses has taken much longer to
>grow roots.(snip)

Yes Daan, in those days the course was called A Study of Principals and
Methods (SPM). The PU for CHE was the only university in South Africa with
such a course. In the official register of the university's courses it was
shortened into Studium Universale. The SPM course was the brain child of
prof Henk Stoker. In my first year the weekly lectures were still given by
prof Stoker self at an old age. He did not use lofty philosophical
terminology. I enjoyed the SPM course because prof Stoker talked about
things which I thought of as a pupil at school, but had nobody to talk
with about them.

A couple of months before the end of the course prof Stoker was replaced
by a post graduate student in philosophy, perhaps for a health reason.
This student made the course dreary. He also set up the examination and
marked the answer papers. I was shocked that I did not pass the course.
But I suspected why. I answered the questions in everyday language rather
than dedicated philosophical terminology which the postgraduate student
used. Consequently I had to memorise the correct terminology during the
Dec/Jan holiday so as to pass the re-examination. That rote learning was
horrible. Were it not for the enjoyment during prof Stoker's lectures, I
would not have persisted with this rote learning.

I also enjoyed the second year's course in the science faculty focussed on
the philosophy of science. It was given by dr BC Strydom, a mathematician
who was self a scholar in the true sense of the word.

Yet many students hated or despised these two courses. They considered
them to be a waste of time or a conspiracy of a certain church
denomination to make converts out of them. Nevertheless, it had a definite
influence on most students who graduated from that university. I have met
dozens of them in the dozens of years afterwards. Most of them had the
peculiar habit of thinking twice about everything which they did. First
they would think technically and then they would think in a much broader
context -- the whole with its field. Jan Smuts would have said they are
thinking holistically. It is something which I can summarise with sureness
("identity-categoricity"), one of the 7Es (seven essentialities of
creativity).

After prof Stoker retired, the SPM course of the first year was renamed
into Inter-faculty Philosophy. Only much later did I realise that SPM was
more than its loftier name Inter-faculty Philosophy. It was also a
Trans-faculty Philosophy. It fostered transdisciplinary rather than
interdisciplinary thinking. That is why its official name Studium
Universale was so fitting. It did not only cover the relationships between
wholes, but also the holes (lack of wholes) between them resulting from
too little wholeness.

I now realise that prof Stoker was very sensitive to wholeness
("unity-associativity") and otherness ("quality-variety"). He would often
use the principle "unity in diversity" to explain how a certain situation
should have evolved. For example, he would argue that this principle
necetates both on the one hand analytical and reductionistic thinking
while on the other hand integral and expansionistic thinking.

It is interesting that in his book "Beginsel- en Metodeleer" (Afrikaans
for SPM) he often uses the name "eenheid"=unity for wholeness, but never
the name "heelheid"=wholeness. For should he have done so, this would have
been a blunder in PC. Jan Smuts, one of our former prime ministers, used
the terms whole, wholeness and increasing wholeness in his book Holism and
Evolution (1926). The ruling National Party (explicate order ;-) and
Broeder Bond (implicate order ;-) considered holism as the greatest danger
from within against their ideology and policy better known as apartheid.
Jan Smuts was their enemy number one. The Potchefstroom University was a
NP-BB fortress and would never accept the use of "heelheid"=wholeness.

The book "Beginsel- en Metodeleer" is unusual for paying so much attention
to mental processes (methods). We in South Africa were usually overwhelmed
by philosophical ideas coming from Europe, extensively presented as
"beings" (structures, principles, ontology). Few philosophical ideas from
America filtered through to us. Some of these ideas from America were of a
"becoming" (processes, methods, ontogeny) nature. I became aware of the
"becoming" ideas of American thinkers like Franklin, Peirce, Whitehead and
Dewey only after my formal university training. But the book "Beginsel-
en etodeleer" actually helped me to search for them, even though not
mentioning them by name.

When I began to work at the University of Pretoria, I began to discover
how different the courses in mathematics, physics and chemistry were to
those presented at the University of Potchefstroom. Only then I began to
realise what profound influence this Studium Universale had even on the
presentation of the subject sciences. There was much more consilience (to
use a term borrowed from OE Wilson) in the courses of the University of
Potchefstroom. Today I am grateful that I studied at the University of
Potchefstroom and not any other university.

Today I would recommend such a SPM course for any university. Sadly, few
universities in the world have anything even close to it. A few months ago
I stumbled in an Internet search upon a remarkable essay by the chancellor
of the University of Massuchussets. It URL is <
http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/scott/papers/geneds.html > Thinking of
what this chancellor has in mind and what we experienced already forty
years ago, I think that we were indeed privileged.

>In practice, though, decision making of necessity
>becomes very much a Team exercise. But that is
>another tale - it took me a long time to turn the
>concept of a normative manager into something
>that is both simple and practical. And this caused
>me to understand why the "Do unto others . . "
>directive found no easy home in formal business.
>[With respect to this discussion list, my concern is
>more with the philosiphical concept of "improving the
>worth of a system' as an overriding objective for any
>organisational system, than the mechanics of how to
>implement this in practice.]

Daan, in principle and in practice I agree with your concept of Normative
Management (NM). In practice, for example, I try to deal with a business
which runs clearly according to norms, even should it cost me a little bit
more. It would usually turn out to be a small or family business in which
its members do not get lost in a faceless mass of workers. When I have to
deal with a large faceless corporation like a bank or a supermarket chain,
I often experience some resent at the lack of norms. I have learned not to
judge the workers who lack such normative action, but rather try to
picture why management allowed actions to lose their normative value.

I write in "in principle I agree" because it becomes increasingly
difficult to establish norms in any society or organisation when it
changes rapidly towards greater complexity. In the past societies and
organisations used some or other code of practice (codex practicum). This
codex was invariably established by a slow and time consuming process of
defining and refining the various norms. In a fast changing environment
these traditionally slow processes lose increasingly track of complex
changes in the system and its environment.

The problem of Normative Management (NM) is thus not any more one of only
WHAT are the norms to be adhered to, but also HOW to define and refine
those norms. In other words, the essentiality liveness ("becoming-being")
has to be taken into account. Furthermore, in the past of slow and simple
changes an organisation could focus solely on itself in defining and
refining its norms. But in the future of rapid and complex changes in both
the system SU or environment, norms (or the lack of them) in both the
system SY and its surroundings SU have to be taken into account. This
points to the essentiality liveness ("identity-context").

I can continue discussing the other five 7Es (seven essentialities of
creativity), but the point I wish to make with the discussion of two of
them above, is that we have reached the epoch in which we will have to
react consciously of what constructive creativity involves. We are now
entering the "adulthood of human creativity" and we will have to live
accordingly. This means that after all the mechanics of steeing up norms
becomes important.

How did these traditionally slow processes of defining and refining norms
worked in a simple and slow changing world? Usually some reference text
rich in norms were studied to identify the norms needed and perhaps to
adapt them for the situation at hand. In many cases this reference text
would be a sacred scripture like the Bible, Koran or Veda. In the
remaining cases it would be a philosophical treatise like that of
Aristotle or Lau Tze Tsu. In other words, in most cases past external
sources of information rich in norms were used. The WHAT norms ("being")
were derived from them.

But HOW did these sources of information rich in norms came into existence
themselves? History shows that many were compiled from older sources.
Religious people consulted older sacred texts and philosophers consulted
older philosophical treatises. But this process of delving ("data mining"
;-) into the past cannot keep on indefinitely. For example, finding older
texts and translating them become increasingly difficult. However, most
importantly, somewhere in the past original texts were articulated. Going
beyond them as first texts is to go into the tacit dimension of knowing
where no articulation exists.

Thus we have to focus on HOW do we get tacit knowledge of norms. This is
where authentic learning (with personal knowledge a-la Polanyi as its
integral outcome) enters the scene. Normative management in a vast and
complex changing world without a clear knowledge of authentic learning is
impossible. It is like trying to cross the high seas without knowing how
to sail a ship.

What often strikes me when dealing with a small or family business, is the
much higher degree of authentic learning in them than in large corporative
businesses. In such large businesses rote learning is used as the most
important means to homogenise and hegemonise it. This "do as you are told"
ends up in faceless mass of workers lacking seriously in creativity. The
small business will usually try to satisfy a client's needs with a
creative solution, bearing norms in mind. The large business will usually
sell predetermined solutions based on its own corporate identity. This
corporate identity is like using specific nets to catch only those fish
which ensure a high level of income. If others buy a ready made solution
not fit for them, then it is just the bad luck of business.

The level of fragmented, reduced, analytical and linear thinking have
reached such proportions that for many it becomes impossible to even say
WHAT norms are, what to say of HOW to obtain them. I personally think that
norms have to form human behaviour so that it becomes acceptable to other
humans. Is this not what the Golden Rule ("Do unto other as ...") means?
So what faculty (like love, faith, character, knowledge or creativity) of
the human personality is responsible for a well formed behaviour?

Identifying one such a faculty and then leaving the rest out of the
picture is already a step into fragmented, reduced, analytical and linear
thinking. But identifying one or perhaps two such faculties while
considering the rest as the context is not such thinking. For me normative
behaviour stems from character and not faith as many others would claim.
Do you remember that it was one of the problems we already experienced at
univeristy. Faith gives "flavour" (categoricity) to norms, but not
"substance" (identity). The identity of norms flow forth from the
character of a personality. Here in South Africa we have to live with a
rich diversity of religions. I have often observed how people from
different religions have much the same character and thus normative
behaviours. Their religion merely influence the categoricity of their
normative behaviour.

Daan, as for my own viewpoint on character, please have
some or other time a look at
"The Fractality of Character. LO27006"
< http://www.learning-org.com/01.07/0087.html >
As for my viewpoint on the broader context of norms, please
have a look at
"Work and Free Energy -- The Dance of LEP on LEC
LO25369 -Part I"
< http://www.learning-org.com/00.09/0099.html >
"Work and Free Energy -- The Dance of LEP on LEC
LO25370 -Part II"
< http://www.learning-org.com/00.09/0100.html >
"Work and Free Energy -- The Dance of LEP on LEC
LO25371 -Part III"
< http://www.learning-org.com/00.09/0101.html >

Hendrikus Grotius played an enormous role in articulating the normative
dimension of jurisprudence of western civilisation by taking into account
both the classical and medieval civilisations. The paradigmatic difference
between his learned works and my humble attempt "The Dance of LEP on LEC"
is that I in terms of spontaneous, constructive creativity I try to prvide
a basis from which to decide which norms should be seeked.

Please bear in mind that this "Dance of LEP on LEC" is an
extension of a much earlier work
"Primer on Entropy - Part I LO19979"
< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0265.html >
"Primer on Entropy - Part II A LO19986"
< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0272.html >
" Primer on Entropy - Part II B LO19987"
< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0273.html >
" Primer on Entropy - Part III A LO20018"
< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0304.html >
" Primer on Entropy - Part III B LO20048"
< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0334.html >
"Primer on Entropy - Part III C LO20049"
< http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0335.html >

I mention this primer because your training in physics was very much like
mine. You and I were overwhelmed in courses on thermodynamics and
statistical physics in which the "being" of entropy "indicating chaos"
rather than the intricacies of "entropy production" as "becoming" was the
focal point. It took me a lot of experiences and will power to free myself
from this ontological status of entropy so as to understand the
"one-to-many-mapping" of "entropy production".

Daan, thank you very much for all your input in reviving the normative
dimension of management. And if the citations to my own thinking
intimidates you, just ignore them. What is important is that we should
also learn together as a team and not merely I and you each on our own.

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.