On 19 Apr 99 at 9:03, Steve_Kelner@cqm.org wrote:
> Aren't we getting a little testy here? The point has been made (and
> indeed I made it earlier with little such response) that all action,
> group or otherwise, can be broken down into its individual
> components, that there is no entity that exists independent of its
> components.
That's actually an arguable point. It could be possible to argue that an
organization can exist in such a way so the individual parts can be
replaced by other individual parts with no impact on the actions or
outcomes of the group. This would be the case in the old factory type
model.
Similarly, it can be argued that no action in a group or organization can
contribute to the organization's stated or implied goals unless the
organization exists. (ok, a rather stupid point).
That does not mean the whole cannot be greater than the
> sum of the parts, especially in terms of output rather than process;
> it does mean that the unit of analysis can be --and indeed, should
> be--at the individual level. Or so I interpret it. I had not
> thought this to be a controversial position.
I suspect the controversy is around the details of Fred's assertion, and
its extremeness. It is not consistent with the way we use collective nouns
in language. It is not consistent with the legal issues I (and others)
have mentioned.
It is not consistent with several social science disciplines such as
sociology or social psychology which look at group behaviour. Neither is
it consistent with the notions of organization culture, etc.
None of that makes Fred wrong, of course, but controversial, yes.
> You cannot play baseball to a minimum standard without nine players,
> each of whom has a particular set of skills required to operate.
> But it is as reasonable to describe the unique combination of nine
> as it is to talk about "the team" as an entity. People talk about
> the Miracle Mets and other kinds of successful teams (e.g., the
> Beatles, certainly a case of the whole being greater than the sum of
> the parts) as a single being, but of course they would not exist
> without their components. The disadvantage of using the group as
> the unit of analysis is that it is far less possible to learn from
> it--the output may be as a group, but the means to reach that output
> are not.
Can't buy that. I think that's more of a bias on your part than a reality.
It happens to be a bias I share, because my background is in psychology,
but I think it is overstated here. While you can say that the Beatles
would not exist without the four members (interestingly you don't mention
the two "non-beatles" who were replaced), none of the four members is the
same as the beatles, and none would have produced the same thing on their
own.
So, not only does our language recognize that "abstractions" can do
things, but one cannot understand the product (music) without considering
the Beatles as a single collective actor.
Robert Bacal, author of PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,(McGraw-Hill). Details at
http://members.xoom.com/perform and http://members.xoom.com/cooperate.
"Performance management - about people and creating success"=
Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm
--"worknews" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>