I see that Jan is beginning to come to terms with the possibility
that organisations think. I do say that corporations have an
intelligence of their own that is distinguished from the individuals
in it. Does that mean that corporations think? I'm not sure it
matters - particularly because most of what we call "thinking" isn't
very powerful. (I usually refer to it as "having thoughts".)
I think it's important to distinguish corporation from "organisation"
in these conversations. Otherwise the phenomenon we are attempting
to talk about and one of its particular forms becomes confused. (Of
course "organisations can think" because the brain/nervous system is
an organisation.)
At any rate, I think that all of the qualities attributed to
intelligence in my dictionaries and thesaurus can be attributed to a
corporation. This is not meant in an anthropomorphic kind of way but
literally. If in thinking this way, you see individuals as the
"cells" of a distributed intelligence (the only kind there is), then
it seems little different to the neurons or cells of the human system
except, possibly, for the intelligence of the individual cells in the
case or corporations and the lack of natural, inherited design of
their connections. I find it useful to assume that the intelligence
of the agents or cells can make up for the lack of wired in
connection. I also posit that the "wiring" is found in linguistic
patterns and is similarl in reliability (and unreliability) as the
neuron wiring in the brain.
Take decision making as an example of this - assuming that decision
making is an activity of intelligence. In a human being we say "I
have decided." Do we say that in the moment of deciding or do we say
it when we notice that we have decided? I suggest that the
"decision" emerged and we noticed at some point of that emergent
process that something had formed in our minds that we call a
decision. After all, we are not aware of the neuron activity, the
prelinguistic activity nor even the early formation of the
linguistically complete "product" until it is done.
I know of many corporate instances which match this. The corporation
decides things of great importance without being able to clearly
identify the specific process or individual by which the decision was
made. Some decisions have just been declared to have been made after
the fact. Some have been made "by the system" - say of multi
approvals with no dialogue between approvers. Some have emerged
from a meeting without a clear statement of decision or
responsibility. And yet the corporation acts.
Isn't it also accurate to say that corporations interpret data in
their own unique ways and, even when the individuals involved change
(and in the absence of specific written procedures), the same kinds
of interpretations are made and recognised to be that company's
style? And don't the written and habitual interpretations and
actions of a corporation become recognisable and yet not reside in
any individual but in code?
This is what I refer to as "strong speculation". That is, I'm
developing the area and exploring it and sharing my exploration. I
am not asserting or declaring it. I refer to it as "strong
speculation" because I am committed to the exploration and because
the exploration is producing results even thougy only "half-baked" at
this time.
> Date: 15 Nov 95 17:33:32 EST
> From: Jan Lelie <100730.1213@compuserve.com>
>
> Responding to Re: Organisational thinking LO3518
>
> Dear Ivan,
>
> Adding to the discusion on whether organizations think or not (they are,
> therefore they think) you wrote:
>
> " I think that "exploring the mentall model that organizations are living
> organisms" may help us understand the feelings created by large layoffs,
> for instance. In this case, the organization can learn to cope with the
> separation of many of the members. We may even learn to find alternatives
> to layoffs!
>
> I have experienced big losses in organizations. For instance,
> getting a member killed. Then we realize how an organization "feels," and
> how it finds ways to cope with those losses. .... . "
>
> Could you please tell me how this mental model helps? I only hear you say
> that people (underscore) think, feel, love, share, work, kill, help and
> cope, not always in that order, to which I agree. In my experience people
> tend to consider organisations as "mechanical", "without feeling or
> consideration". Now here in Holland people with jobs in organisation start
> to act as "in group", demanding pay-rises in stead of investements for
> more jobs for the job-less "out group". Etcetera. All these things are
> things people do, in an organized way. Isn't it rather paternalistic that
> organisations "think" and "care".?
>
> I've been strongly influenced by Max DePree's "Leadership Is An Art", (it
> has been posted to the Reading List, although it took some time). Thanks
> to your comment I started to browse again and I would like to quote from
> page 9:
>
> "(to understand corporate life) ... it is fundamental that leaders endorse
> a concept of persons. This begins with an understanding of the diversity
> of people's gifts and talents and skills."
>
> Perhaps there lies the key to my objection to the concept of thinking
> organisations.
>
> Jan Lelie
> 100730.1213@Compuserve.com
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk