On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Scott R. Cypher wrote:
> Each level has a different
> responsibility/purpose based on its functional role, and that function
> role is directly related to the interdependence.
I guess these purposes could be mapped out with IM's "intent structures".
[Host's Note: I think "IM" is "Interactive Management," see John Warfield
and A. Roxana Cardenas, _A Handbook of Interactive Management_, Iowa State
Univ Press. ...Rick]
> If we accept this proposition to be true, then I wonder how
> often, in a re-organization, is objective interdependence a decision
> criteria. From what I've seen, most individuals are unconscious to the
> concept of interdependence in relation to how they manage their
> organizations.
So, interdependence = flows of communication between members? If so, then
the quality of communication between members determines the quality of
interdependency and contingency?
I saw an article in HBR sometime between Sept. 93 and Apr. 94 which showed
communication flows between members of a group. Could the members of the
group that had relatively higher flows of communication form a
second-order grouping?
____________________
I think that future organizations will select their prospective members
based on first-hand demonstrated abilities rather than second-hand
demonstration of communication ability within organizational contexts.
First-hand demonstrated abilities could be shown in conferences, trade
fairs, open meetings, electronic conferences, ability to write web pages,
etc.
Second-hand information would be personal references, resumes, previous
work experience, degrees obtained, etc.
Andrew Moreno
amoreno@broken.ranch.org
--Andrew Moreno <amoreno@broken.ranch.org>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>