Continuing with the electric circuit analogy...
A "resistor" impedes the flow of current. In the simplest case, to
increase the flow you must push harder (more voltage) or reduce the
resistance.
But there are other things to consider, and I am wondering how they apply
and can help our thinking.
1) Adding Resistance:
If you put two equal resistances (resistors) in series -- the flow must go
through each in succession -- then the total resistance is doubled.
However, if you put the two resistances in parallel -- the flow can divide
and go through both simultaneously -- then the total resistance is reduced
to half the original value.
In the latter case, introducing resistance actually increases the flow.
2) Impedance:
For non-steady-state flow (dynamic current flow), the blockage of current
cannot be described by simple resistance alone as in the case of steady
flow. Instead, "impedance" is referred to -- impeding the flow.
In the dynamic, or unsteady case, flow can be impeded by two devices that
store energy. As they store (or release) energy, they impede the flow.
One does so in proportion to how fast the flow is moving and the other
does so in proportion to how fast the flow is changing speed.
So what? --
Well if the flow is moving very slowly, only the resistance contributes to
the impeding of the flow. But if the flow begins to move fast, or if
there are rapid fluctuations in the speed/direction of the flow, the other
impedances begin to dominate. They do not become apparent until change
becomes rapid, or change accelerates.
Learning about the dynamic nature of the flow impeding "devices" in an
organization is essential to understand how change is resisted. How can
we add resistance to increase flow (change)? Who/what impedes change only
when it becomes rapid? Who/what impedes change only when it changes
direction or rate?
When you drive down a bumpy road in your car, the mechanically analogous
system is at work. The tire, the shock absorber, and the spring are the
mechanical equivalents of the electrical example. You would never think
of taking the spring out of your car -- or removing the shock. Instead
you play with different combinations of tire/spring/shock to tune the
system for your style of driving, the speed, and the bumpiness of the road
(ST?).
Another example:
Suppose two colleagues had never seen a swing before. One sits on the
board and says to the other "raise me up as high as you can." If you
simply try to raise the person on the swing up as high as your head, it
takes tremendous effort, if it's possible at all.
But if you begin to introduce small pushes, the person on the swing can
begin to reach extreme heights. You notice that you cannot achieve this
motion unless you push at the "natural frequency" of the swing. If you
push more often or less often than the swing "comes by," the push is
detrimental.
If organizations have "natural frequencies," then could we be systemic in
our understanding of how to push them -- to give height to their swing?
We need to push synchronously, or "design" different natural frequencies.
Or....
What if the organization is not resisting at all (or as much as we
thought)? What if our perception of resistance is the result of a static
view of the organization? And further, if we allow the system to reach
full dynamic motion, we can synchronously interact with it and tune it?
The storing and releasing and trading of energy/motion is the essence of a
dynamic system and the essence of the ecology of a living organization.
End of pondering.
I guess you might call this (no disrespect intended) "Leadership and the
Old Science."
John
--John Dicus | jdicus@ourfuture.com CornerStone Consulting Associates | http://www.ourfuture.com Growing Learning Communities Through Whole System Processes 2761 Stiegler Road, Valley City OH 44280 800-773-8017 | 330-725-2728 (fax)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>