What is leadership? LO22068

Winfried Dressler (winfried.dressler@voith.de)
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:41:44 +0100

Replying to LO22032 --

Eugene Taurman acted as a catalyst on my thinking about scientific
thinking, on the bit of chaos in which I have fallen, when Rick included
"convergence" into the picture.

>I have found it is easier to have a discussion about the process of
>leading than it is about the methods of leading because the methods >areas varied as the people on earth. When we mix them it is very >confusing.

At de Lange wrote in Scientific Thinking LO22027

>As I now understand it, the three stages observation, speculation and
>falsification are essentrial to the scientific METHOD.

I think that Eugene has a point and I would prefer to speak of the
scientific PROCESS. At, how do you think about it?

As soon as I switched from the term scientific method, which was
continuously puzzling me for some days now, to the term scientific
process, I got a vivid (hopefully not too simplistic) image in my mind
(feeding on some of the free energy provided by the motor-brake-wheels

There are two processes to be distinguished:
a) the scientific process consisting of observation, speculation,
falsification (how the wheels turn)
b) the creative course of time, consisting of a meandering of the
scientific process between divergence (chaos of becoming, high entropy
production) and convergence (new emergences growing to maturity) (how the
car moves).

Here is the metaphor, which I offer:

I == car (the deeper the creativity, the more inclusive becomes the "I")
scientific process == wheels (triangle? round?)
entropy production == motor (that, which is dangerous without the cruise control system)
essentialities == cruise control system (that, which is useless without the motor)
creative course of time == the road I take
divergent mode of driving == exploring the landscape
convergent mode of driving == arriving, knowing to come home
immergence == getting lost - leading to a standstill without arriving
free energy == fuel (the station is at home)
relativity with respect to equilibrium == time to build a house

LEADERSHIP == driving the car (personal) or bus (public)

requires BOTH:

Scientific thinking == input to the cruise control system from the wheels
- knowledge on how to move


Intuitive thinking == input to the cruise control system from looking at
the landscape - knowledge on where to go to.

Take it as an attempt to connect simplicity and familiarity.

>However, familiarity and simplicity are two different things. The theory
>of "deep creativity" is actually simple bearing in mind the immense
>complexity which it covers. It requires the concepts of "entropy
>production", "free energy", "relativity with respect to equilibrium",
>"content/form" (of which "systems/organisation" is an instantiation),

Is there anybody willing to catch the ball "intuitive thinking" as a
complement to scientific thinking?

Liebe Gruesse,



"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>

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