In reading your thoughts on organizational "consciousness", I was both
impressed and challenged. Impressed with the thought because it expanded
my mental model of how organizations react to information and events.
Challenged because I now had to position this structure with respect to
the concept of organizational "culture".
My best shot at this is that organizational consciousness (OC) is the
formal way that a group structures itself. For instance; how to deal
with suppliers, purchasing role, the product development process,
performance apprasials...Left brain stuff, if you will.
Organizational Culture (OCul) are the underlying unspoken assumptions
that are used to implement activities. For instance; all purchasing
activities should happen in purchasing, product testing is the only way
to insure quality, management span of control should be no larger then
ten...Right brain stuff.
Organizational flaws can be found in both OC and OCul. Learning
organizations should be aware or have access to resources that can help
them identify ideas in both areas, at the same time.
What do you think?
From: James Moore <zoiho@acy.digex.net>
On Thu, 16 Feb 1995, Tobin Quereau wrote:
> Replying to LO125:
>
> I like the thread of discussion here concerning energy, organization, and
> systems. As I read some of the comments, they are leading me--organizing
> me?--to another level of consideration. Perhaps it is not the energy that
> organizes _or_ the information, but the "consciousness" (for lack of a
> better word) within the "system" which responds to both.
>
> I realize that the notion of consciousness is applied only to humans in
> many people's perspective. The thought that it might be present in some
> form throughout the whole of the cosmos usually doesn't show up except in
> religious or spiritual contexts. I just know, however, that energy itself
> can impact the "system" I call my "office", but rarely introduces
> "organization" (in fact, most often the reverse!) and information itself
> manages only to pile up with amazing rapidity into random stacks of
> processed wood pulp and dust. Such organization as does occur comes only
> with the _awareness_ that I can no longer function under the circumstances
> and simply must begin once again to re-organize the mess.
>
> I know this facetious example does not account for the fact that the
> "mess" is just another form of organization, or that the information I
> receive from such places as people, books, and listservs does help me to
> come to the conclusions that it is time to get "organized" again. The
> essential presence of the "consciousness", however, is what impacts the
> process most, neither the energy or the information alone will produce the
> increase of complexity and learning which drives the system to continue
> and to grow.
>
> Are we really looking at the continuing flow of "consciousness" as
> suggested in ancient spiritual traditions and modern philosophers,
> theologians, and scientists such as Teilhard de Chardin, Rupert Sheldrake,
> David Bohm, and others when we address the issue of learning
> organizations? I like to think that we are. If the "learning" that takes
> place in a tropical rain forest, on a city playground, and in a global
> network of electronic signals is all connected, then maybe there is hope
> that the whole process will continue in spite of our meager abilities to
> understand it. (It also makes my 7+ years spent as a pre-school teacher as
> relevent to my current job as they seem to be to me!)
>
> I know this has meandered far afield from the thread to date, but I'd like
> to know if there are others who find these speculations of some value at
> least. I know it makes my life more rewarding to play with such notions.
>
> Tobin Quereau
> Austin Community College
> quereau@austin.cc.tx.us
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Michael McMaster wrote:
>
> > Reply to: LO90
> >
> > My response to "energy flowing through a system tends to organise it" is
> > that energy flows don't organise anything. In my very limited
> > understanding, energy flows are also subject to entropy. What isn't
> > subject to entropy, what creates neg-entropy, is information. Information
> > is what organises.
> >
> > --
> > Michael McMaster
> > From: Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk (Michael McMaster)
> >
> >
> >
>
>