Re:plying to LO28867 --
Dear re:aders, leaders, dear At,
At asked: "All members of the organisation from the bottom to the top
should prevent their creativity's to become destructive. But how?" in a
message about individuality vs organisation. En passant you mentioned
opportunism, leadership and learning.
The "how?" is already happening, we're in the middle of it. We just do not
see it, because it is bigger then both of us and bigger then you and me
together. When you look at the paradoxes and construct the system's
archetypes:
No creativity without destruction: all change is predicated on
destruction; No groups without opportunists - isn't everybody, aren't we
all, even on this list, in a group just because of the opportunities it
supplies -; No individuation without others: we can only discover who we
are in the mirrors that others supply us.
No leadership without learning to deal with resistance - against
leadership, amongst others.
No action without reaction: only suspending reaction for sometime - tension -
might be the only feasible path to creativity.
No independency without dependency: who is more independent, the US
governement or a terrorist organisation? Who would we be without the
other? No re:ward without ward (= value, goods): and i think that the big
issue here is the time scale involved.
Should i, you, (s)he get a reward for short term results, medium term
results or long term results? In the Enron case, (the abuse of power ;-))
short term results were towering high, medium term results - were we are
now - seem disastrous. Are there rewards now for the people who have
warned us and tried to prevent this collapse? No, off course not, they
have their reward: the were proven right. And the long term results may be
beneficial for us all. In the long run, Enron is just a case, a milestone
in our development as a peoples.
We still have a paradoxical learning strategy based on denying the
existence - or trying to solve - paradoxes. The only way we seem to be
able to learn is to now and then create manmade disasters - wars,
pollution, epidemics, starvation. As we started to become aware of the
paradoxes that govern our existence during the "Enlightenment" - (in
Dutch: "oplichting" ;-)), "I think therefor I am", you might want to start
counting the manmade disaster from that point. At that point, we started
to become aware of a split between the individual and the group. The
difference was already there, but it went rather unnoted, like a small
cloud in a clear blue sky. It - the noticing - lead to a lot of fights for
(in)dependence. Taking big strides now. Many thought that W.W.I - the
Great War - would be the end of human conflict. Many thought that W.W.II
signaled the end and many will assume that W.W.III will terminate our long
term sufferings. Well, it will, but only when you die. We're living in a
era were short term opportunism through mechanisms of destruction create
long term prosperity, but only in the very long run. And not for us, but
for the ones that will come later, who'll come after us.
Why is this? I think because we're prewired - in our head - not to notice
the backgrounds, are unable to sense our unconsciousness, are ill prepared
for the paradoxes that surround us, cannot see how our past developments
prevents us from noticing certain things that have become necessary, do
not hear warning signals as we lack the inner ears. Information overload.
Evolution never consiously strove for consciousness. No man, no plan, no
canal. There were never instructions, a manual with a warning like
"batteries not included" or a warranty clause. And still, we were, here it
is, there you'll be. "Humans are delivered as is". That's why - in my
opinion - we had to make up all kind of stories about who we are, where
we've come from and where we'll be going. And at the core of these stories
are the metafores that inform us of the paradoxical paradise we're living
in: knowledge brings responsibilities, attachments brings sorrow, we're
living in dreams etc..
All our systems of survival, our cultures, are just that: a system for
survival. Opportunism - short term rewards, leading to more offspring than
the other ape, the proof of the pudding is the eating - made us what we
are. And slowly, with leaps and bounces, we're starting to acknowledge
the lifes we live, the live we've been given or - depending on your
personal view - the life you lead.
In my copy of Smith's and Berg's Paradoxes of Group Life there is a large
! on page 153:
"... drawing special attention to the fact that, although there is minimal
discussion of conflict in the literature on internal group processes, in
the literature on relations among groups, there is little discussion of
anything other than conflict." (Italics by the authors).
There is no doubt in my mind, that we - habitually, out of habit, have
learned to - export, project our internal conflicts, desires, wants, needs
on others. Perhaps it is even the only way to learn. We do not like what
we sense but, as we need a group to survive (and do not want to bite the
hand that feeds us), we, the groups project their conflicts on others.
This reinforces the group (and the groupthink), so it worked well. This
has worked so well, that lately there is only one - large - supergroup
left. One group of groups, that is still working on its internal
conflicts, desires and wants. Just give it some thoughts, some time. We'll
manage and in the end our leader will follow.
Take care:,
Jan Lelie
facilitator
AM de Lange wrote:
> I think that it takes leadership to identify the opportunists in the
> organisation as well as those suffering by it. It takes leadership to
> curtail the opportunists and restore or even improve the creativity of
> those who suffered. If the management team does not have such leadership
> or is opportunistic itself, there is little hope of getting such an
> organisation out of its destructive mode. Sooner or later that
> organisation will die off.
>
> I personally think that prevention is better than cure. All members of the
> organisation from the bottom to the top should prevent their creativities
> to become destructive. But how?
--With kind regards - met vriendelijke groeten,
Jan Lelie
LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development mind@work est. 1998 - Group Resolution Process Support Tel.: (+31) (0)70 3243475 or GSM (car): (+31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl info@mindatwork.nl
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.