Unorganization Philosophy LO16148

Mike Jay (Quarterback@classic.msn.com)
Mon, 8 Dec 97 00:06:28 UT

Replying to LO16128 --

On Saturday, December 06, 1997 8:32 AM, Simon Buckingham wrote:

>We are all disabled, we are all going to die, and the imperative for each
>of us is to do all we can with our interests and talents (lifestreams)
>whilst we are alive to help ourselves and others.

Simon,

I am posing my inquiry to you not in disagreement but in reaffirmation.

The statement you made above--clearly sets the stage--is an assumption
dealing with your (and my) cognitive map of reality and an explanation of
the meaning of life. In order to derive the conclusions of your higher
order of beliefs in unorg, one must (or so it seems) subscribe to this
"zero-order" belief:

"imperative for each of us is to do all we can with our interests
and talents (lifestreams) whilst we are alive to help ourselves and
others."

I'm not so sure that people will do that and basically if they don't it
nullifies--in my view--a large part of the unorg philosophy. I've noticed
that most of your posts assume reality to be as you see it, rather than
perhaps how it is? Of course, I see no problem with this until you
present unorg as a unified theory.

I still think this is where ALL of us are making mistakes. We are taking
a "good" paradigm and extending it to places where it loses its
effectiveness. (Who said that strengths amplified become weaknesses?) We
are living in an age where the mechanical/command and control structure
has been extended perhaps as far as it can go and in some cases it has
become a weakness--as you and Cliff point out. I believe that unorg will
work in some places better than anything else I've seen and if that is the
acknowledgement you seek--you have it from me. <little good that will do
you<g>>

And if Cliff thinks that the living org model works--it does--and like
unorg it is very effective, possibly more effective in our real time fast
companies, yet it in itself is destabilizing because it rests upon
foundations which are not widely accepted among organizational
constituents. That doesn't make it any less desirable, but it does tend
to make it ineffective...

In being an intuitive model developer myself--as there seems to be a
confluence of such on this list as well as a couple of others--we all seem
to be buying into our own reality and attempting to "extend" that ad
infinitum.

There have been several who have spoken of the need for what works, rather
than what is right and that is where I believe we can make the most
progress in organizations. Why try to make the shoe fit? Why not go in,
figure out how the shoe needs to be used and what will be required of the
people wearing those shoes and then being the "shoemaker" who has access
to an infinite variety of materials, construct a shoe that will wear and
perform--of course considering the fit?

I realize that the metaphor "smells" of antiquity, but what is working is
what we need to do and it seems to me to be quite situational. If
leadership can have over 850 definitions (Bennis/Nanus, LEADERS) then
there is probably room for quite a few views of reality...<g>

mike
http://www.leadwise.com/microcasts/microcas.htm

-- 

"Mike Jay" <Quarterback@classic.msn.com>

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