Rol, I think we need to maintain a distinction between human
influence and human control.
We have something to say about human systems but we do not have
control. This is a way I've found that works for managers. It is
not any use to say, "We can't do anything but observe."
If this were true, then it still wouldn't help. I think,
fortunately, that we have something to say but that doesn't take us
all the way to control.
If the systems - or the universe - is chaotice - then we don't have
anything to say. If it is complex, adaptive and emergent, then we
can have a great deal to say. But we don't have control.
This either/or dichotomy is part of our problem. We speak as if it's
either control or nothing.
> In my opinion 9 times out of 10, the broad outcome can be predicted as
> either 'good' or as 'bad' with a high degree of certainty. We get
> confused and scared most often when our assessment of the corporate good
> is clear, but our assessment of our personal good is not so clear. We can
> say (if totally, brutally honest), "This change would be good for the
> corporation, but it may be bad for me, and I am scared to death by the
> possible consequences." So I am agreeing with Bill that the range of
> possible outcomes is quite proscribed, but I would add, also quite
> conflicting between corporate good and individual good. It takes a lot of
> courage to move forward under those circumstances.
>
> Bill is perhaps pragmatic, perhaps naive, perhaps also successful. The
> reductionist approach has been proven over and over again. We need
> similar proof for the summative approach before we give it more credit
> than it deserves.
--Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle of the universe. Heraclitus
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>