At 12:54 PM 9/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I probably missed the connection to Kauffman, but I am quite confident
>that if each part of the organization -- as parts of organizations are
>commonly understood -- does the 'right thing' for itself, that it will be
>very unlikely to result in the 'right thing' for the organization as a
>whole.
Here's an example that may or may not work -- I'd like feedback. I'm
thinking of using in the book I'm working on.
In 15th century Europe, society as a whole (the organization) faced a
dilemma. The generally accepted model of the universe called for an
infallible Pope at the highest human level of the Great Chain of Being.
The Pope provided a direct link to God, so that He could remain in
constant, direct control of all things. The latter was absolutely
necessary to avoid chaos, since the concept of self-regulating systems
barely existed. However, the Popes had become deeply corrupt, seeking
power, wealth and decadent living, while taxing the people of the Holy
Roman Empire excessively, under the pretense of selling free passes
(indulgences) from sin for the living and Purgatory for the dead.
The weapons industry was developing new metallurgy to make better weapons,
which was helping to destabilize feudalism by taking the fighting
advantage away from knights. Since the invention of the stirrup, a
millennium earlier, mounted riders had the advantage of leverage and the
ability to wear heavier armor. Because ownership of horses required land,
the stirrup had transferred warfare from the poor to the wealthy, creating
the nobility that created and supported the hierarchy that kept the Pope
in place.
Meanwhile, in Mainz, Germany, Johann Gutenberg was trying to solve a
different problem -- how to create metal type that could be moveable and
withstand the repeated impact of his printing press. His goal was to make
information less expensive to reproduce. The advances in metallurgy
provided Gutenberg with a key technology (his third innovation was
oil-based inks).
In 1517, as Luther's theses spread over Europe faster and farther than any
information ever had, it became clear that the printing press would be the
weapon that would destroy the hierarchy of power by creating public
opinion, which enabled self-regulating models: the scientific method,
capitalism and democracy. The effects of better metallurgy would change
warfare, but its greater influence would be in the invention of
self-regulating machinery, which sparked the Industrial Revolution.
So... The weapons-makers and Gutenberg (who died bankrupt, his invention
seized by investors, after refusing to release his product until its
quality matched illuminated manuscripts, which it never did) each were
trying to solve "their own" problem. But when they succeeded, they changed
the other's problem. Together, they contributed to the "organizational"
goals of reformation and revolution, of which they probably aware only in
the vaguest way.
As an aside, perhaps this makes it clear why I'm subtitling the book "The
Co-evolution of Technology and Thought." Self-regulating models in
science, economics and government co-evolved with self-regulating
machinery.
Nick
--Nick Arnett <listbot@mccmedia.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>