Replying to LO28488 --
Alan Cotterell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>I think I simply have a different way of viewing danger
>to most people. Next weekend I will be racing my Norton
>motorcycle at the Seniors Road Race Meeting at Mount
>Gambier in Victoria.
Greetings dear Alan,
Wow, two motorcycle racers on our LO-dialogue, you and John.
I think its the same with me. Chemists think in a certain way about risks.
My first opportunity to change my outlook came in the late sixties. I had
to determine the water allocation for an irrigation in an entire valley.
It took two years of hard work.
I decided to bring also irregular rainfall as a risk factor into my
already complex calculations. It is not just allocating more water equal
to that which may not precipitate as usual. One has to bear in mind that
in dry periods the water evaporation from soils and the water
transpiration of plants also increase.
Soon afterwards i again had to change my outlook on risks. I stepped on
the toes of a secret society without knowing it. All sorts of offences
were launched at me. I had to learn of secret societies and how they
operate to minimise the risks and to make me appear as litlle pion which
they can forget about.
Several years later my desert excursions began. Once again I had to change
Today I would say that any change involves a risk so that we must
anticipate and minimize its risk in advance.
>You might think I'm a bit dangerous, however, my
>efforts have I suggest, played a part in reducing
>fatalities in Vic.
>When I suggested helping workers to self-manage,
>I wasn't joking, it is achievable and worthwhile.
Dear Alan, I specifically tried to avoid implying that you are a danger.
But fellow learners ought to know that chemists are "change agents". So
long they do it in their little flasks in a laboratory, they are docile.
But as soon as they do it in the big flask (organisation) in society, they
pose a special risk to anyone who want things to stay as they are.
I also never tried to joke about your suggestion, although I was in a
jovial mood because of Rick's timely comment. I myself firmly believe in
the devolution of management so as to obtain self-management as far as
possible. It is an outcome of my understanding of irreversible self-
organising systems. But this self-management requires the knowing which
comes through authentic learning.
>I suggest there is potential for major productivity
>gains in going down this path.
I shall go much further than suggesting it. A self-organising system
wastes free energy F far less than one which has to work through a
hirarchial management structure. I use "waste far less" here rather than
saying "far more efficient" because of how efficiency is defined.
When someone breaks rocks with a hammer for every minute in a work day
such that nobody can improve on the volume of broken rocks produced, such
a person works most efficiently. But to con- vince that person to do
something else (even by direct command), training him, supervising him,
etc., takes a lot of extra free energy. All this free energy will become
unnecessary if that person could do the convincing, learning and
evaluating self. That person will use much less free energy doing all
>Hope you enjoyed the 'Labour Management' web site.
Yes, especially watching the mind of a chemist thinking of many things
rather than selling one treasuremap with little thinking.
With care and best wishes
At de Lange <email@example.com> 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.