This thread is a branch to the discussion of Complexity and Values, and
begins with LO8116. . .
> This object-oriented approach has been mentioned before: could you
> explain some more, how to do it, applicability etcetera?
> [I hope you're not going to say it's your own application of OOP
> because I'm not a programmer [although I understand the basics of
> BASIC and HyperTalk [SmallTalk derivative], but if it is I'm sure lot's of
> us would like to hear it... thanks]
Arthur,
I didn't write a OO application do this. At one point I was a software
developer, and used C++ to develop some applications. . .however I haven't
written a line of code in over three years and I have no intention of
doing so again.
It's too complex a thing to describe in a single message (other than the
fact that I used OO to structure my values), but I'll put an example of
what I'm talking about on my homepage soon (I can't commit to when as I'm
extremely busy -- but I'll post a message when its ready to go).
A couple of observations: People rarely think deeply about their personal
values until they experience a conflict between one or more of them -- for
instance, if a person where to say they value honesty but they encountered
an opportunity to prosper by being dishonest then there is probably
(hopefully) going to be a serious examination of their value system.
Certainly if a person does not question their values in this scenario, and
they engage in dishonest behavior, then one would have to question whether
they really valued honesty or not.
I think the same thing is often true within organizations -- values are
tacit, informal, and integrated into behavior, and they're rarely
questioned or discussed until one or more conflict. It is often painful --
and frightening -- to have to work through the process of determining
whether a "value" or a "network of values" should be preserved or
discarded. Our identity -- as individuals and as organizations -- is
closely linked to our values, and therefore a reexamination of our values
implies a reexamination of who we are -- individually and collectively --
and therefore makes us feel threatened.
The interesting thing about this theory is that values seem to be rather
fluid -- they come and go according to the way we perceive, integrate,
interrelate, and communicate with the world around us. I believe there are
two types of values: Primary values, which are the expression of who we
are, and what we aspire to become -- they are tightly integrated with our
identity. And then there are peripheral values, which are not nearly as
important to us, and which can be easily changed as we learn to see
reality more clearly.
I've experienced changes in both types of values, and frankly when my
primary values have changed (something that happens very infrequently) it
is a frightening experience -- almost emotionally cataclysmic -- until I
work through the implications and learn to adjust. I don't feel threatened
or intimidated by changing my peripheral values, as that seems to me to be
one of the ways we learn and grow.
Any comments on from other people?
--Benjamin B. Compton ("Ben") | email: bcompton@novell.com Novell GroupWare Technical Engineer | fax: (801) 222-6991
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>