Dear LO'ers,
What binds a (learning) organisation?
This question is specific, the more general question
"what sort of relationships/bonds/links could be distinguished in our
world?" and "what makes something a whole?"
plays a couple of weeks in my mind. I realised that it is a complex
subject, the subject itself, but also its implications and relationships
with other subjects such as wholeness, fruitfulness, umlomo and the
creativity of the mind. In the background play also matters like internal
and external factors and form/content a role. I am not sure what is wise:
just let this contribution stop with the above questions and thus giving
you the oportunity to create your own thoughts, or start with sharing my
thoughts with you (and thus possibly influencing your mind flows). I
decided to do the latter and try to translate my thoughts on the general
question and later on the more specific one. However, I hope that you
still are able to think independently on this subject. I need your input!
Let me start.
I was trying to create a picture which was as complete as possible. That
means that my thoughts meandered from mechanical constructions to natural
sciences, behavioral sciences, nature and human societies.
I soon realised that one could distinguish some main principles:
- mechanical
- dynamical
An example of a mechanical relation is a bolt and a nut, or the paper clip
bundeling a couple of sheets of paper. A dynamical example could be the
compass needle and the magnetic field of the earth, or the solar system of
sun and planets.
Another aspect of relations and links is the (semi)permanent character
(eg. a living organism with its surroundings), or a temporary character
(eg. a biting moscito on your skin).
And as a third aspect, the mobile relationship (wheels of a train on
rails), and the fixed relationship came in mind (the engine fixed in the
locomotive).
In other words, a relationship could be loose or tight (physical contact)
and sometimes an extra device is in play.
I think that we could systemise the whole subject. I will call both sides
of the relationship A and B. If the relationship is mechanical (Rm) an
extra device may be present or not. I call this device L (the link, as in
a chain). The device itself is of course part of the more complex
relationship A+L+B. Thus the two related sheets of paper A and B are
linked by the paperclip (L). All three form a new realationship.
The dynamical relationship (Rd) is characterised by involved forces. The
character of the relation North Pole-compass needle is the magnetic force
of earth's magnetic field. I call this type of invisible bond F. Thus this
Rd could be expressed as A+F+B. However, this simple expression has some
disadvantages which I will try to explain.
If we revisit the Rm of the paperclip A+L+B we may conclude that also in
this relationship a force is involved, namely the tension of the metal in
the paperclip binding the two sheets of paper together. Thus, the simple
conclusion of the presence or not of a force is not enough for a clear
distinction between Rm and Rd. I came to the conclusion that the
difference between the two lies in the fact the in a Rm an EXTRA FORCE IS
INTRODUCED, whereas in a Rd the relation F is present WITHIN A and/or B.
Therefore, A+F+B should be Aforce+Bforce, or something like A+(F) B. The
difference between the bolt-nut relationship and the wheel-rails
relationship is therefore clear: bolt-nut is Rd (although no visible extra
device is present), where the tightening force is introduced, whereas the
Rd between wheel and rails is the gravitational force defined by the
masses of locomotive and earth (rails).
We may therfore conclude that the L in Rm is introduced from outside,
whereas the F in a Rd is present within A and/or B. Another conclusion is
that a Rm is in principle TEMPORARY, whereas Rd is PERMANENT (as long as A
and B exist).
Sometimes the F in Rd is a complex combination. First of all one should
realise that a force is a vector with a direction and a magnitude.
Usually, in a Rd the F is directed from A to B (not necessarily a straight
line). But F could also be rejective or attractive. And in a Rd a
combination of forces could be present. For instance, if F is only
attractive, A and B should be in contact with each other (because F is
always present, as long as A and B exist). If A and B are not in contact
with each other, ther must be another force involved (for instance
resistence). In the sun-earth relationship, where sun and earth are not in
contact with each other F must be more complex the just the Newton
attractive force between the two bodies. Indeed, the centripetal force of
the earth's rotation is the rejective force which balances with the
gravitational attraction. But also this centripetal force is present
''within' A or B.
If we consider the three phases of matter - gas, liquid, solid - we easily
could conclude that the F in either of these Rd's is composed of at least
two forces. One is attractive, 'binding the molecules together, the other
is rejective. In a gas this rejective force is larger, diminishes in a
liquid and is near-zero in a solid. The same is valid in the bird flock
(discussed some years ago on this list). Here too, at least two forces (an
attractive and a rejective one) must be present. The more 'fluid' a
relation is, the greater the rejective force is in respect to the
attractive force.
With the flock of birds, I now come to the behaviour of living creatures.
The formation of groups is a common feature in nature. Herd-instinct is
everywhere. This is certainly a Rd, hence forces are involved. Forces
within the creatures. One might be the fact that all these creatures know
that together is more than the sume of the parts. Migration of eg. buffels
and wildebeests (thousands and thousands are grouped together) is much
better to do it in a group (group dynamics). There is also something else
- a better protection. A group is less vulnarable than an individual. Is
this latter force (the force of fear, induced from outside) a introduced
force, and therefore belonging to the mechanical principle? I don't think
so, because the fear is inside the individuals of the group. Since the
herd becomes not a merged mass - individuals are still there, like the
molecules of a gas or liquid) - there must be also a rejecting force
between the individuals. Possibly it is the rejection of individualism and
longing for freedom.
Possibly, these forces play also a role in human organisations. What is
the extra element or force in a LO?? The common goal? The limited space of
the office and building (a mechanical element), like the walls of a
prison? In a human organisation individuals could leave or come in. A LO
could grow or decline or disappear. There is certainly a temporary aspect
involved. I am still not sure what character all the possible
relationships are that define a LO.
I leave it to you, dear reader to think of the binding factors of a human
organisation and in particular a LO. I was also thinking of a marriage in
this respect.
Looking back to what I have written so far, I think that some factors are
touched which could define a whole. If we try to search for answers in
relation to wholeness, we should think of relationships.
I have written of rather physical relationships. What about mental
relationships - associations? I think it has to do with commonness, or
certain differences between A and B. Commonness could lie in the form or
in the content. If I think of the relationship (association) between an
human organisation and a motor, I think of the commonnesses of the
processes involved. It is an invisible link which I have introduced. Which
I have INTRODUCED, so it is temporary and mechanical. Or is there
something within the two related subjects A and B which connect them?
You see, I have still several questions. One burning question is not yet
touched. It is the function and character of what At de Lange calls
'umlomo', or mouthpiece. The umlomo which brings A and B together. I think
that At not has thought of something physical, like the link of a chain.
But possibly he has associated the umlomo with a catalyst such as in a
chemical reaction. Is a catalyst like the paperclip?? Or creates or frees
the catalyst some force(s) which is in potential present within A and/or
B?
And is with the introduction of this catalytic umlomo the distinction
between an introduced foreign element and the forces within still valid?
I am curious of your reactions and thoughts.
Leo Minnigh
--leo minnigh <minnigh@dds.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.