Are Organizations Alive? LO16300

Richard C. Holloway (learnshops@thresholds.com)
Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:10:31 -0800

Replying to LO16291 --

Dr. Steve Eskow wrote:

> There is an interesting--to me--phenomenon at work in the discussion of
> whether organizations are alive.
>
> A number of discussants insist that the question of no interest and
> importance--and then go on to discuss it at great length, exactly as if it
> were of interest and importance.

---snip---

> I do not find the "living organism" metaphor useful. I find that it raises
> more questions than it answers, and the questions it raises are not
> productive.
>

I can't speak for others, but only for myself. The concept of living
organizations is significant and worthy of study. Using it as a practical
metaphor for teaching is indeed complex, awkward--and may have little
value when used as a metaphor. I would encourage you to avoid using it in
this regard.

I consider that thinking of complex organizations (and I'm including every
possible form of human organization within this context) as "living" is a
significant shift from the mechanistic, reductionist perspective that I
was encultured in. The people who have influenced my point of view
includes Ortega y Gasset, Maturana, Capra, Drucker, and contributors to
this list (At de Lange, Cliff Hamilton, along with others).

When I consider how critical the five living principles are to
organizational "life," and how organizations exhibit what Capra calls the
criteria of living systems, it facilitates my adopting this concept as a
fundamental part of my belief system. But, I'm not evangelistic, or
intent on "spreading" the word. I simply am not interested in arguing
about these thoughtful and deliberate ideas that I've been developing. I
am, though, always delighted to share them for examination, and to wrestle
these developing concepts with others. Now, why do I think that this,
what I prefer to think as a paradigm shift, is important. Ortega y Gasset
described this shift in 1958, saying that "all those initiating principles
of the modern age now find themselves in a state of crisis. There are
many reasons for surmising that European man is lifting his tents from off
that modern soil where he has camped these three hundred years and is
beginning a new exodus toward another historic ambit, another manner of
existence." He saw Galileo and Descartes as the passage for the
renaissance crisis--and the beginning of modernity--the source of
mechanistic and reductionist logic.

Capra, while making similar points, includes the figure of Newton and
completes this magnificent triad of bright and inventive genius that
ushered in this modern and mechanistic era. Western culture--and, as a
result, much of the world--has been living under the shadow of this
Newtonian metaphor of God the Clockmaker ever since.

The concept of our biosphere as a sentient being is not radical or new.
It is an ancient one, which was lost during the crisis of modernity. The
idea that communities are alive is not new, either, but it doesn't fit
very well within the clockmaker paradigm. The replacement or substitution
for organizations in lieu of communities is a technological, and modern,
phenomenon. Identifying "complex" organizations as living organizations
is not a great leap for me now, but I understand the wrenching feeling
that might accompany this conceptualization.

Now, why is this important to me. If organizations "believe" that they
are (or could be) alive, and respect themselves as organisms, then they
can consciously choose to develop those living characteristics which are
most underdeveloped. They can choose to be more alive, more dynamic, more
"adaptable, sustainable, flexible, individualistic and integrative."

So, whether it's a metaphor or paradigm, there seems to be little trouble
in using the above words as metaphors for organizations. Would a
professional football team play better if it were continuously adaptive?
Does a basketball team perform better over the long season if they're
sustainable and flexible? To continue the sports motif, will the baseball
team that promotes individuality and integration (teamwork and individual
skills?) realize their "flow" more frequently? These are the five living
principles in metaphoric action!

With the realization of life as emergent over machine--there may be a
chance to improve the respect for the fragility of life--of this planet,
of our species--among all people. Actually, there are a lot of activities
in which we can collaborate with one another as living members of living
organizations--but, there are only so many clocks we can make--and only
one thing which a clock can do, and that is to measure our
single-mindeness and passion for linearity.

So--that's my apology for living organizations, as weak and shallow as it
may appear . . . but, Steve, it's not only a tool (useful, but mechanistic
still), but more importantly, it has become a way of being.

regards,

Doc

-- 

"Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't have to experience it." --Max Frisch

Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Your partner for workforce development Visit me at http://www.thresholds.com/community/learnshops/index.html Or e-mail me at <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com> Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2361 Phone: 01 360 786 0925 Olympia, WA 98507 USA Fax: 01 360 709 4361

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>