Replying to LO29896 --
[Host's Note: I changed the subject line. It was "LO as paradise lost and
liberation" ..Rick]
Dear At (and Don):
It's always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank you for taking the time to
follow up and respond to the discussion Don and I are having. Still, I
sense there may be some misunderstanding of the points I've been trying to
make, although not by much. Let me try to be as clear as I can.
First, you say that "Mark thinks that a practice is by definition
incomplete..." What I was suggesting is not that "a" practice is
incomplete, but that "the" practice advocated by Peter is, or may be,
incomplete. Why? Because his body of practice is the 5Ds, and I do not
see a corresponding theory of how the system that the 5Ds are supposed to
enhance is presumed to function or operate. I may have missed it, but if
so I wish someone would point it out to me. Perhaps it's out there in
Peter's work.
This brings me to my next comment. Your said that "Senge took what i call
"tacit LOs" and described them by way of the 5Ds." Here you seem to be
saying that Senge's theory of the LO is expressed by his 5Ds. But that's
not true, is it? His 5Ds are a body of practice, not a set of descriptors
for how LOs operate. Practicing them (the 5Ds), according to Peter, will
help to foster and evoke OL, but there is a difference between
"disciplines" practiced by managers or workers as a way of stimulating
collective learning, and the manner in which the target system actually
learns. There's an important duality here.
Consider an example. If I wish to avoid locking my breaks while driving
on an icy surface, I may engage in the practice of pumping my brakes?
Why? Because my "theory of system" of how brakes work in automobiles
tells me that if I simply slam the brakes on and hold them in place, the
brake pads will lock against the disks, and the car will swerve out of
control. Thus, I have a "theory of practice" that is defensible in terms
of the corresponding "theory of system" to which is applies. My theory of
system is what gives me confidence that my chosen practice will actually
work. So I do not think Peter's 5Ds are in any way a theory of OL. They
are a theory of practice about how to enhance OL, which advocates 5
practices, or disciplines, which should be (according to Peter) targeted
at organizations as a way of evoking stronger OL performance. They are a
theory of practice, not a theory of system.
So this still leaves me unfulfilled with regard to what the theory of
system is supposed to be, that the 5Ds are supposed to have impact on.
That said, I very much like your discussion of LEC and LEP. I happen to
agree with it, and I subscribe to it without reservation. But I see it as
only a part of the theory, not the whole of it -- or at least, not enough
of it. Entropy production may be the underlying enervating force that
drives LOs (and everything else, for that matter), but it still leaves us
hanging in terms of not knowing what the characteristic dynamics, or
operating behaviors of OL happen to be. To say that a system is driven by
entropy production is not to describe its characteristic behaviors.
I, for example, hold to a view that describes the dynamics of
organizational learning in terms of a life cycle that is triggered by the
detection of epistemic problems by one or more agents, who then attempt to
solve them through a self-organizing (but regular) process of conjecture
and refutation. Here, I rely on a blend of CAS theory and Popperian
epistemology. My theory of practice then takes off from there. Thus, it
is 'grounded' in a clearly articulated theory of system. Insofar as I can
tell, the 5Ds are not.
The life cycle theory of system I refer to above can be viewed at the
following link:
http://www.macroinnovation.com/images/KnowledgeLife7.23.02.pdf
My theory of system may, of course, be wrong. But having one permits me
to advance a theory of practice that is tied to, and informed by, the
(theorized) behavior of the system my practice is designed to enhance.
If someone says, "Use this method and it will enhance your performance,"
but fails to tell me what assumptions they're making about how performance
happens in the first place, or leaves me unable to do so myself, I am left
with a sense of the arbitrary. No, a theory of practice must be grounded
in a theory of system. Else, how are we supposed to evaluate competing
theories? This is not too much to ask, I think.
For me, At (and Don), the distinction I'm making between and 'theory of
system' and a 'theory of practice' is crucial to this discussion. It's
fundamental to our issue. I suggest we try to agree on the meaning and
usefulness of those terms before we continue. Can we do that?
Regards,
Mark
AM de Lange wrote:
>Dear Organlearners,
>
>Mark McElroy <mmcelroy@vermontel.net> writes
>in reply to Don Dwiggins <d.l.dwiggins@computer.org>
>
>>>>The underlying theory of practice is, by definition, incomplete.
>>>>
>>>And will remain so, until it's no longer useful. (Which doesn't
>>>imply that it's not a good idea to have a theory -- just be sure
>>>to keep it watered and fed with nutrients from experience.
>>>Once it stops growing, it won't be good for much. For even
>>>better results, plant it near other theories so they can
>>>cross-fertilize and give birth to vigorous hybrids.)
>>>
>>Come on Don, what theory? I'm asking what it is, not whether
>>it needs watering or is permanent. It's not incomplete, it's
>>missing. Water what?
>>What is it?
>>
>
>Greetings dear Mark and Don,
>
>I have followed the dicussion between you two closely. Mark wants a theory
>for a Learning Organisation while Don maintains that the 5Ds (five
>disciplines) are sufficient to describe the practices of a LO. Mark thinks
>that a practice is by definition incomplete while Don thinks that a LO
>should in the first place be nurtured. Please correct me where i am wrong.
>
>I want to present another viewpoint so that we can have a dialogue rather
>than a debate. It may seem for some length that i am taking somewhat side
>with Don. But eventually i will show that i also take somewhat side with
>Mark. In short, what i intend to do is to go beyond "either/or" thinking
>to "and/and/and/...." thinking. So please bear patience with me.
>
>Let us think for a while of a Learning Organisation (LeO) as a Living
>Organisation (LiO) like Arie de Geus did. Using the 5Ds to characterise
>the LiO would be a wierd excercise since so little of these 5Ds figure in
>what we know about living organisms. This means that we will have to find
>another set of disciplines to characterise a LiO, disciplines much like
>biochemistry, physiology, ecology, etc. Should we then try them to
>characterise a LeO rather than a LiO intended for, we will again have a
>wierd excercise since so little of these LiO disciplines figure in what we
>know about learning humans.
>
>The above does not mean that learning and living are incompatable. It
>rather means that we know too little of both learning and living to make
>sense out of what seems to be wierd descriptions knowing only the one. My
>own experiences with "tacit LOs" are such that i will dare to claim that a
>LeO and a LiO are one and the same thing. But let us stay with the
>assumption that a LeO is a LiO. The converse may perhaps not be the case.
>
>When i look through the window of my office, i see a lot of living
>organisms -- people, trees, birds, etc. Now think of a tree. It lives
>without me having a theory for it. When the rain stays away, it shed its
>leaves. This is an observation and not a theory. When i give it water from
>a well so that it keeps its leaves, this is a practice and not a theory.
>But when i begin to study what happens to the water in a tree and why it
>is needed, i begin to make use of theories which will have to be verified
>empirically. Meanwhile in a drought like the one which we now have in the
>northern parts of our country and the countries north of ours, we have to
>try and keep the trees important to us alive with precious little water.
>Theories will not keep the trees alive.
>
>I think it is the same with a LO. Senge took what i call "tacit LOs" and
>described them by way of the 5Ds. Unfortunately, "tacit LOs" are not as
>abundant as we think, perhaps less than 1% in each kind of organisation.
>It makes me think of the drought. A few trees of some kinds still have a
>few leaves on. Their roots go deep enough into the soil to suck up a
>little bit of moisture still available. They are the LOs while the rest of
>the trees are OOs (Ordinary Organisations). They are not dead, but they
>have stopped with their major activity, namely to produce new tissue. The
>new tissue of a LO, thinking of it as a tree, is shared knowledge in a
>spirit of "ubuntu" or "kharma". This spirit involves all members of the LO
>as well as the rest of the world in contact with it -- live and let live
>with respect.
>
>The serious question now is:- can we make LOs more abundant by merely
>applying the 5Ds as a sort of theory? I do not think so, especially when
>we do not know that the emergence of an OO into a LO has to be
>spontaneous! Trying to force/command/manage/entice an OO into a LO will be
>a sure recipe for disaster. We rather have to encourage practices in that
>OO which are characterised by the 5Ds. These practices may be far too few
>and feeble, but slowly more will appear and each will become stronger.
>They will be needed for the OO to emerge into a LO. But something else
>have to catalyse its emergence. In terms of my own experiences with "tacit
>LOs", it is an "unconditionally together hanging". Perhaps other kinds of
>events will also catalyse it.
>
>In an appendix to The Fifth Discipline Senge describes in a rather
>telegraphic style how eleven essences occur in the 5Ds. Perhaps it is a
>good thing that Senge did not focus too much on these essences. People
>usually confuse essences with theoretical entities. They are not. Husserl
>actually developed phenomenology with its essences to extend our systems
>thinking where theory/application fail to bring any understanding. To make
>a theory out of a tree en then to apply it to get a tree is senseless. But
>to determine the essences of a tree can help us to understand its
>behaviour.
>
>The same with learning. Dozens of theories for the learning of individuals
>have been proposed. But up to this day not one has been verified
>completely, nor can one of them be used to explain all facets of an
>individual's learning. Thus the theory/application route for managing the
>learning individual has to be extended into something else. Husserl's
>phenomenology helps us to some extent. Should we not expect that it will
>be the same for a LO?
>
>Let us contemplate the topic once again. Is the LO a lost paradise? How do
>people consider the organisations to which they belong -- paradises or
>chambers of horrors? Look, for example, at the letters section of a daily
>newspaper. Letters appear regularly in which readers complain about an
>organisation in some walk of life. It may very well be that some readers
>have a negative outlook on life. But it also may be that many readers long
>for positive actions in such organisations. Why do they have such a
>longing?
>
>I think they have had experiences of "fleeting LO practices" in the past
>or perhaps even belonged to a "tacit LO" for some time. It is these
>experiences which make them long for a better dispensation in their
>organisations -- or to put it stronger, to become liberated from their
>chambers of horrors. Will theory/application do it? I do not think so. The
>complexity of a LO is too much for most to be managed by the
>theory/application route. It may very well become self a chamber of
>horrors from which they want to be liberated.
>
>Allow me a simple example. A chemist who really wants to be a "wizard"
>with chemistry, has to have a profound knowlegde on chemical
>thermodynamics. Chemical thermodynamics is perhaps the most complex
>discipline in all natural sciences. However, for almost all chemistry
>students the course(s) on chemical thermodynamics is nothing but a chamber
>of horrors.
>
>Why is chemical thermodynamics so complex? Because it is study of how LEC
>(Law of Energy Conservation) and LEP (Law of Entropy Production) pervade
>every facet of chemistry. Why this pervasion? Because LEC and LEP are the
>only two phenomenological laws among all the many laws of nature uncovered
>so far. There is not a natural phenomenon in which LEC and LEP do not
>operate. They are essential to all natural phenomena. It is Nobel prize
>winner Ilya Prigogine's thesis that they are even necessary for natual
>phenomena to emerge, expand and sustain themselves.
>
>Although LEC and LEP are laws, tracing their action through all phenomena
>of nature becomes a theory which has to be verified empirically. This
>theory is called Irreversible Self-Organisation (ISO) where
>"irreversible"="entropy production". ISO is such a complex theory that few
>are able to comprehend it and apply it effectively. It takes many years to
>master and requires a thorough knowledge of many subjects like
>mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and biology. But it can be done
>as a handful of scientists have shown. Think of the beautiful book The
>Self-Organising Universe by Erich Jantch.
>
>The problem with applying ISO to human learning is that although it is a
>natural phenomenon involving the human body, it also has an abstract,
>cultural dimension which involves the human mind. Thus we will have to
>show empirically that LEC and LEP also apply to abstract systems. This is
>far more complex than most people's wildest guesses as i myself have
>discovered by accident. But knowing theoretically how LEC and LEP operate
>in the abstract world and acting accordingly have benefited me immensely.
>I have been able to help people caught up in their chambers of horrors for
>whom others have given up all hope. But i also had failures, each new one
>making me more cautious than before.
>
>Perhaps LEC and LEP is not the core of the theory which we search for. But
>i strongly suspect that whatever that theory will be, it has to have
>evolution in itself by developing towards the TOE (Theory Of Everything).
>It will also have to accomodate phenomenology. When i think of all things
>which have been learned by all humans so far since time immemorial, then
>the theory which we search for so as to apply it in managing Learning
>Individuals and Learning Organisations ought not to fell much short from
>the TOE.
>
>What is it which makes humankind so unique among all living species, so
>much so that humans often consider themselves superior and separate from
>the rest of life? Is it the ability to perceive and contemplate phenomena
>or to think theoretically and act accordingly? Think of the globe. It has
>continents and oseans on it and a molten core inside it. But when we want
>to map its surface and whatever is upon or below it, we need two poles on
>it opposite to each other. For me the two poles of human nature will
>always be creativity and love. Between it fits everything of human nature.
>It is when we lose sight of one or both these two poles when our maps get
>so distorted that we become a shame to the rest of all living species. It
>is for me the same with organisations. In every LO these two poles are
>needed in order not to get lost and so lose that LO.
>
>With care and best wishes
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
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.