Replying to LO29893 --
Fred, I like most of what you say. If for example MBAs were taught how
little we knew about building systems I would be very happy because there
would be a lot less assumed certainty. Perhaps we could have our
aforementioned centres of inquiry or ignorance rather than knowledge
excellence etc instead of all the posh vocabularies of management which we
sound so sure that we know how to practice living systems in ways we do
not
I also read in that we are saying that all organisations begin with a
founder or a few people and to expect that they would/should know systems
instinctively is a hope too far.
However, I think we have a bullet to bite. I wouldnt mind this haphazard
systems in our midst if they were fairly small and the ones that
compounded too many conflicts would wither without too much damage. But
that's not what globalisation has done. We now have superpowerful
organisations but their systems care is probably as random or
impoverishing as any other organisation. I believe we are coming to a
fundamental human or democratic right which impacts all our local cultures
around the world. At a certain size, organisations should be compelled to
pass through open conflict resolution and transparency testing, or have
their licence to expand beyond that size withdrawn.
There's a double bullet - namely how networks of organisations now
compound each other's traits. Unless we do raise our open awareness of
system of systems, the outlook that I see is extremely depressing
economically and socially. We owe our kids something better to look
forward to.
chris macrae wcbn007@easynet.co.uk London
Transparency System Mapping www.valuetrue.com
European Union Knowledge Angels Network at
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/angels.html
> Your question about breakdowns implies a previous connection. I don't
> know that any of those aspects of organizations were ever connected in the
> first place, except by chance and even then only rarely and incompletely.
> Organizations are, to my way of thinking, contrived systems. They have a
> structure and an architecture and a form and function that are at least in
> part of an intentional nature, that is, they are the result of someone's
> design and thus reflect someone's purpose (truth be known, probably many
> purposes on the part of many people). But our knowledge of such matters
> is extremely limited. We do not, as far as I know, possess the knowledge
> or the know-how to construct perfect organizations and keep them that way.
> We putter, we tinker and, occasionally, we get something right (i.e., it
> works as intended and there are no offsetting unintended consequences).
> And so we add to our store of knowledge and our stock of know-how. Even
> when we do manage to connect one or two or even a few of those aspects of
> organizations, our tenure is always temporary. Thus, no matter what we
> achieve, we are not going to be there to sustain or maintain it forever.
> Sooner or later, what has been done will be undone. What was learned will
> be forgotten or was never widely known in the first place and so it will
> remain lost or, at best, some day be discovered anew. That's not all bad.
> If all puzzles were permanently solved there would be very little for us
> to do.
>
> Your question also raises at least two others: How might we connect those
> things? What keeps us from doing so?
>
> Regards,
>
> Fred Nickols
> nickols@safe-t.net
--"Chris Macrae" <wcbn007@easynet.co.uk>
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.