The concept of integration and synthesis rather than e.g. compromise
is an interesting one to me. Sounds a great deal like the
transcendent function of the psyche. This is something of a
simplification, but it essentially involves "holding the tensions"
long enough for something new to develop from opposing forces. This
is different than simply taking different ideas and putting them
together to, for example, resolve a problem. Like others have
indicated already in this thread, I think the results are better,
clearer, stronger, than through consensus, and generally seems to
generate greater commitment with those people involved.
In an infant-framework I'm working on for conceptualizing organizational
learning and development, transcendence plays a critical role in
whether or not an organization, like an individual, develops (in the
directional, "towards something better" sense of the word).
One of the problems with this, however, is that it takes longer to
e.g. make decisions or resolve problems when it is synthesis,
integration, or transcendence we work towards. It's usually less time
consuming to simply make a democratic decision, or even a
decision-by-consensus. As things are within the traditional workplace
today, I'm not sure most places are, or would be, willing to take this
time. It doesn't seem to be a process that can be forced, but only
nurtured, leaving it and returning to it perhaps over time. Skilled
facilitators, though, I think can help move these efforts along
considerably.
Many questions come to mind, though, when I think of all
of this, like Is this a "practical" way to make decisions? Does it
work better in some cases than in others? Are there ways to speed up
the transcendent function? Holding the tensions, working towards
integration or synthesis, is also not a comfortable process, and that
may be particularly difficult in a society that typically backs away
from conflict, disagreement, and discomfort and encourages conformity
and "getting along."
But given that more and more organizations are unsatisfied with
simply maintaining the status quo, I think many organizations--perhaps
especially LO's--are coming to understand some of this dynamic, and
may even be deliberately "slowing things down" so that transcendence
can occur. I wonder sometimes if this isn't one reason those informal
networks talked about on this list are so often very strong and effective;
because of their lack of formality, there may be a greater willingness
or ability to hold the tensions between different options for action, to
"let things simmer," until the boundaries between them are dissolved and
something new emerges.
Terri Deems
--tdeems@unlgrad1.unl.edu (Terri Deems)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>