Structure LO14634

Chris Norris (chrisn@ftech.net)
Sun, 10 Aug 1997 01:05:12 +0100

Replying to LO14621 --

> >From Thomas Benjamin (LO14590)
> "Value-added learning discoveries are spurred principally I believe through
> "downstructuring": a removal of organizational rules and policies such as
> job descriptions, arbitrary promotion policies, politics and so on prevent
> each individual employee from realizing their full potential."
>
> >From Mike Jay (LO14615):
> "... that if structure goes up and by that I mean increased policies,
> increased rules and more clearly defined roles..."

it seems to me that structure here is used in a reflexive way with
increasing or decreasing the structure (level II) of the structure (level
I). Perhaps another way to say it is that the constraints on possible
structures increase or decrease.

> >From Simone Maier (LO14607)
> "The topic which is most important to me right now is the question, how to
> evaluate learning processes..... ..........The tough thing about it is
> the question, how to relate mental and organizational (structural and
> behavioral) processes to material and energetical performance...."

I don't really understand this extract

> >From Doc Holloway (LO14612)
> "I believe that adult behavior is changed most fundamentally through the
> process of discovery. Experience is the great teacher..... ......Rather
> than emphasize the relationship of process to performance, I hope to
> facilitate people's discovery of human and organizational principles that
> focus on pattern, process and structure. I think that a holistic learning
> experience can stress intrinsic motivators for behavioral
> change--and influence sustainable performance."

I would add components to structure, process and pattern. Then this is the
most straightforward for me. Structure being the constant relations
between components (possibly dynamical constants). Processing being that
which changes either the components of a structure, the structure or both.
Patterns being abstractions of processes or structures (e.g. a hierarchy).

> In the earlier years of my journey I learned about structure from Robert
> Fritz. The story in the beginning of his book "The Path Of Least
> Resistance" -- about the cow paths in old Boston being the structure
> generated by the cows which subsequently guiding their movement -- has
> always stuck with me.

Another example of structure at two levels. The path is a spatial
structure. The output of a process (walking producing a path) being it's
own input and thus providing a feedback structure.

> When exposed to these learning techniques, people say "wow, they're
> unstructured." I think I know what they mean and how they are feeling,
> but the word "structure" in that sense does not seem right to me any
> longer. Often they mean "un-tethered," "unfamiliar," "less rigid," "fewer
> degrees of freedom," and so on. In Thomas' and Mike's postings -- I agree
> wholeheartedly with their thoughts, yet the use of the word "structure" in
> that context again is troubling me. Troubling me because I am seeking a
> different language, perhaps, that is compatible with the Robert Fritz/IA
> line of thinking. And probably because that particular use of the word
> structure is beginning to get in the way of communicating when we begin to
> look at the organization of open, living self-organizing systems. (Doc
> refers to pattern, structure, and process as Capra does).

structured and unstructured for who and at what level(s)? the recipient
may not perceive a structure and therefore from their predictive point of
view anything may happen. You may not structure the content say and again
anything might come up at that level but you do structure the process and
therefore are able to adopt an approach such that "both the physical
aspects and the human elements of an organisation are combined into a
composite structure that determines the path of least resistance."

> Emergent learning environments, I believe, are "differently" structured,
> rather then "unstructured." Many people refer to them as higher forms of
> structure -- or manifestations of higher complexity where complexity would
> mean degree of inter-relatedness and ability to live/adapt/evolve.

so for me it is not the case that an environment *is* structured but
rather that it appears (un)structured in different ways for different
people. The component-structure-process way of thinking is relative to
what you take as component. The trampled footprints as components make a
path structure. Then that structure (at another (higher) level if you
like) becomes an output component of a walking process that because of the
structure of the walking is also an input.

> What do you think? How can we talk about new and unfamiliar "structures"
> without meaning that they are confining, limiting, and contain fewer
> avenues of choice for individuals?

the structure of the walking process both confines choice at the higher
level once the path is formed but leaves open the choice of where the path
should be set up. It seem to me that part of the meaning of structure is
that it specifies what is fixed. However if you move to a "higher level"
structure then it can leave more room for choice lower down. Or if you
simply switch to a different structure "at the same level" then the new
may increase or decrease choice compared to that which it replaces.

Regards,
Chris

-- 

Chris Norris <chrisn@ftech.net>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>