Susan Heath field asked
>I am curious where the author finds the measuerement of or support for
>this statement: that "people universally seek belonging to some community
>and assume some responsibility to support that community." This action
>indicates that there is a universal value in community.
Although my educational background and major employment for years is
electrical and electronic engineering I find wealth of material pertaining
to leadership and organizational behavior in anthropology. I will deny
any real depth of understanding of the discipline of anthropology and
would ask for comments from those that have this depth. With this bit of
pardon my ineptness:
The history of our species and of closely related species is one of
gathering together into communities with each individual member
contributing to the community. In the beginning these may be simply
families but soon groups of families (tribes) were formed. This affinity
for seeking other people continues.
Youth gangs, professional associations, political parties... this list,
are all manifestations of communities of people gathering and contributing
to the community. There is some payback to the individual for their
contribution.
For me in this instant case it is to be forced to contemplate my position,
to be challenged to think about communities. For which I thank you Susan.
In my experience there are 'breaks' in the organization of communities
with respect to the number of people involved. I attribute (without
juried confirmation) the breaks to the ability of the members to maintain
the level of relationships needed to support the community objectives.
Perhaps other list members can confirm or deny (I'd welcome both) these
thoughts.
For short term (six months or less) highly focused intensive work teams of
six or less seem to be most effective. These people seem to become self
supporting of each other, they are highly mutually empathetic.
For long term (years) success in moderately focused work, groups of about
130 seem very effective. From some of my anthropology reading this seems
to be the size of villages at which they begin to separate into two
villages. In America I have been a part of two businesses that, when we
reached this size we had to become more formally organized. It seems that
at this point it is difficult for an individual to maintain a 'trusting'
relationship with all of the other members of the community.
I think that there are other size considerations in organizational
development terms. However, I think that for establishment of Learning
Organizations this may be enough for now. I think that a learning
organization is dependent on establishing and sustaining mutuality
trusting relationships. My logic then leads to a practical limit on a
learning community of about 130 people. An extension of this logic is
that organizations of more than 130 people should consist of several
overlapping learning communities.
--bhobler@worldnet.att.net Bill Hobler
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>