Replying to LO30077 --
Dear Organlearners,
Malcolm Burson <mburson@gwi.net> writes:
>Nick, I would agree with At in LO 30050, and would add
>a few thoughts in brief:
Greetings Malcolm, and Nick,
I wanted to explain my advice, but feared that the explanation would dwarf
the advice. Allow me now to give that explanation, for what it is worth. I
know that it involves some concepts which will be difficult to understand
for many fellow learners. In that case the explanation is worthless, but
perhaps the advice not.
A LO has to emerge spontaneously.
Most people have some notion of what spontaneous means. But I think more
is needed here. The technical definition of a spontaneous change which had
been given by Gibbs in the nineteenth century is still for me the most
powerful up to today. Allow me to explain it once again, knowing that it
will still be nebulous for many fellow learners.
Any change (indicated by /_\) in a system is spontaneous when the
"free energy" F of the system decreases. In other words, the change in
free energy has to be less than zero. Mathematically:-
/_\F < 0
(The sign < indicates "smaller than".) The expression means that the
system has to draw upon its own energy for any spontaneous change.
But what is the "free energy" (two words, one concept) F of a system? All
systems, material and mental, have lots of energy called the "total
energy" E. However, most of that energy is locked up in maintaining the
organisation (make-up) of the system. The remainder is the "free energy"
F.
What has this to say for the workshop you intend? Do not try to upheld,
save or conserve the present organisation in the workshop. Also do not
allow a particular participant to force his/her views on the others. The
more it is done, the less the free energy available for any organisational
change. Rather allow each participant's mind to wander over as much as
variations as possible. The free energy thus released by all participants
will enhance their capacity to change for the better.
It is also necessary to look at non-spontaneous changes. In this case the
free energy of the system will increase. Mathematically:-
/_\F > 0
(The sign > indicates "greater than".) It is impossible for a system to
change ON ITS OWN non-spontaneously. Yet the system can undergo
such a non-spontaneous change when the condition
/_\F < W
is satisfied. Here W symbolises the work exchange between the system
and its surroundings. Since /_\F is positive, the work W must also be
positive and even more than /_\F. Positive work means that work has to
be done ON the system to increase its free energy F.
What has this to say for the workshop you intend? Whenever you and your
friend, and perhaps some managers not part of the project, have to work a
lot trying to save the project, it is most probably doomed not to succeed!
This seems to be absurd, but it is the actual key to success of all great
agents of change.
A spontaneous can always be organised to deliver work. In this case
the formula
/_\F < W
still applies. However, since for a spontaneous change
/_\F < 0
the work W may be negative too. Negative work simply means that the
system work upon its surroundings while changing its organisation.
What has this to say for the workshop you intend? When the participants
want to do things, even when unusual or seemingly reckless things, allow
them by all means to do so. Keep your fingers crossed and pay attention to
how they change the organisation through their work. Perhaps, to be on the
safe side, allow them first to plan changes rather than actually making
them. But please be consistent. If these planned changes turn out to be
sensible, promote them also to happen. Nothing destroys free energy so
much and so fast when good plans hit the solid wall of resistance.
I recently helped four "LO cells" to emerge in an organisation. My
greatest task which taxed all my wits was to ensure spontaneous changes --
to promote "self-work" and to prevent "outside-work" by "higher powers".
These "LO cells" are now operating satisfactorily. But the strange thing
is that the way they operate, is a mystery to the larger organisation.
Fortunately, the larger organisation do not perceive them anymore as a
danger to itself. Furthermore, other members of the larger organisation
now begin to show genuine interest in these "LO cells", how they are
organised and what they do. I expect that in not many moons an avalanche
of "LO cells" will proceed, thus making the larger organisation itself
also a LO.
I get increasingly convinced that when trying to transform an organistion
into a LO, one has to "hunt with willing dogs" (an African saying). For
example, to challenge a "human eater" lion with unwilling dogs, is to
tender for death self. When needing such dogs most to draw the lion out of
its shelter while not paying attention to the hunter, they simply flee
away and leave the hunter to the devious attack of that lion. The
consequences are usually fatal to the hunter, serving the lion another
meal.
Guess what is the difference between a willing and unwilling dog? The
willing dog needs but a few words to start hunting while the unwilling dog
has to be kept incited with many shouts all the time.
With care and best wishes
-- At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South AfricaLearning-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.