Philosophy of Mgmt LO3055

jack hirschfeld (jack@his.com)
Tue, 3 Oct 1995 22:07:21 -0400

A couple of weeks ago I received the following message from Stuart Umpleby
at the GWU Center for Social and Organizational Learning. I asked him if
he would permit me to forward it to the LO list for comment, offering to
collect the responses and forward them to him. Please feel free to
respond to the list, to me directly, or directly to Stuart Umpleby at the
address below:

>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Stuart A. Umpleby" <umpleby@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Singer and CSOL
>
>Recently I sent a message to Wlad Sachs and Bill Smith inviting one or
>both of them to talk about the work of E.A. Singer, Jr. Both replied that
>they did not find Singer's work particularly interesting. I would like
>to explain what my motivation is. Perhaps then someone can advise me on
>a productive way of proceeding.
> Churchman and Ackoff both studied with Singer at the U. of Penn.
>(Sachs and Smith studied with Ackoff at Penn.) Churchman and Ackoff say
>that Singer's most important contribution was to focus not on cause and
>effect relationships but rather on producer-product relationships. That
>is, most of science aims to identify cause and effect relationships -- A
>causes B, B causes C, etc. The example given for a producer product
>relationship is the following: An acron can produce a tree but it does
>not cause a tree. Soil, sunlight, and water are also required.
> From this philosophical background Ackoff produced a series of
>methods or recepies for how to engage in effective management. It seems
>to me that management (and perhaps social systems in general) fit the
>producer- product model better than the cause and effect model. Consider
>the recent meeting of the Federal City Council. At that meeting several
>things came together -- capable people with personal connections to DC
>leaders, people with group facilitation skills, experienced citizens, DC
>leaders, and a sense of urgency. If one element were missing, not much
>would have happened. With all present, there is at least the possibility
>of positive developments occurring. Hence, effective decision-making
>based on an accurate assessment of the consequences of alternatives (cause
>and effect modeling) is a less effective model to use than one based on
>bringing together the necessary ingredients (producer-product).
> A second element of the puzzle in my mind is my long term interest
>in why faculty members in the School of Management believe it is not
>appropriate to use the ideas we teach in the classroom in conducting our
>affairs. There seems to be something about the way we conceive of
>knowledge which makes it unavailable to us. Perhaps a producer-product
>(habits) rather than a cause and effect (thinking) way of creating and
>maintaining knowledge would make it more accessible.
> Peter Vaill, a graduate of the Harvard Business School,
>frequently repeats the HBS orthodoxy that doing management and talking
>about management are not the same thing. He believes that trying to
>structure knowledge of management in the form of science will not only
>not be effective, but is probably counterproductive. I think a
>producer-product approach could be said to subsume a cause and effect
>approach. Paying attention to the observer (second order cybernetics) is
>one way of moving from a cause and effect model to a producer-product model.
> I think it would be fun to work with our doctoral students in
>trying to produce a GWU-SBPM philosophy and theory of management. I
>think it should take into account the three dimensions that Eric Dent has
>identified -- circular rather than linear relationships, holistic rather
>than reductionistic thinking, and persectival rather than objective
>observation. I also think it needs to go beyond a narrow conception of
>science while not being vague or elusive about the epistemology being
>used. In educating managers perhaps exercises or training and drill (or
>case studies) are more effective than discussions of various theories.
>If so, does our current understanding of the nature of knowledge
>(including second order cybernetics) help to explain why this is so?
> Hence, my question is, Can Singer's work help us to develop such
>a philosophy, theory, and pedagogy of management? What other authors
>should we look at? C.S. Peirce? I welcome comments.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>S.A. Umpleby, Dept. of Mgt. Science, GWU, Wash. DC 20052 USA
>tel: 202/994-5219, fax: 202/994-5225, e-mail: umpleby@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>URL: http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~umpleby
>

--
Jack Hirschfeld                    When two hearts become one,
jack@his.com                       who could ask for anything more?