Robert Bacal "worknews" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>I think probably a lot of reasons, but one that I think affects areas
>such as Deming's work, or LO's etc is the language we use. It is
>hard for me to conceive of a manager who would not throw
>someone out on their ear at the first hint of the kinds of language
>> How do they do it? For example, some of them dogmatise
>> their model into a fixed version. It means in terms of the
>> essentiality liveness ("becoming-being") that they take the
>> 'becoming" out of the model. Others assume that their model,
>> based om a small part of reality, can be applied to a much
>> greater part of the whole. It means in terms of the essentiality
>> wholeness ("associativity-mondaidity") that they deny the
>> associative pattern in jumping from the part to the whole.
Let me try again to reformulate what I was trying to articulate.
Winfried was asking why it is so difficult to convince managers to
participate in modeling systems. I replied that some authorities on
systems theory inhibit (through their theories and models) the
creativity of those who want to model systems. Then came the paragraph
which you refered to. I will try to articulate it better. I wrote in
the context of the essentialities
liveness ("becoming-being") LO17651
wholeness ("associativity-monadicity") LO18276
How do these authorities inhibit the creativity of the would be modeler?
Some of them advocate a fixed model which does not provide for changes to
the model. It means that the model does not harmonise "being" and
"becoming" because it has too much being and too little becoming. Hence it
cannot promote liveness which is essential to all living systems. Other
authorities assume that their model is generally applicable whereas the
model actually applies only to specialised systems. Such a jump from the
special to the general is unqualified because it does not take the
associativity pattern of wholeness into account.
>If the things we are trying to explain to managers MUST use this
>kind of language, then there isn't much hope. If we can translate
>them into language that is familiar to those we work with, then
>there is a chance.
Deming and Senge created new uses for language to facilitate the
management of systems. The process did not stop at Deming and Senge.
According to them (Senge=learning organisation, Deming=profound learning)
the main task of managers is to guide the learning of those who they
manage. However, the thread ("which came first?") indicates that we have
now proceeded one step further by enquiring about the relationship between
learning and creativity.
If you are not satisfied with my second attempt above, please try to
articulate it in a language which according to you managers would
understand. I would appreciate it very much to learn from your attempt
rather than being thrown out on the ear.
At de Lange <email@example.com> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <firstname.lastname@example.org> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>