Emergence LO10492

Michael McMaster (Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 15 Oct 1996 09:07:04 +0000

Replying to LO10477 --

Joan, we are in major disagreement. The difference the points on
which we disagree make will be signficant in practice in my opinion.

> But that is my point. People, like cars, have a nature which must be
> taken into account when managing them.

This is useful (not necessarily true) when considering some aspects
of people - say motor skills and natural physical operations - and it
is potentially useful (and potentially more dangerous) in considering
what groups of people will do.

For instance in the danger area:
> Among others, their nature includes a dislike for taking orders

This is a contextual and possibly statistical statement but is far
from "the truth". Including myself, I know people who like taking
orders immensely in certain circumstances while remaining
independent people of significant self-esteem. (The football team
takes the orders of the coaching staff and the quarterback, to name
an example.) I find it works well when I'm with someone who has far
more expertise and we are attempting to accomplish something.
(Please note that "giving orders" does not preclude listening,
dialogue, etc.)

> > Compare the reliability of outcomes produced, the predictability of
> > outcomes produced, with that of driving a car and tell me we are
> > dealing with a phenomena of similar kind.
>
> That is exactly what I contend is the truth. If the people arena
> appears to be fraught with "chaos", it only exists in our lack of
> understanding. It is predictable IMHO.

And that is exactly what I am countering in the world of
organisation. I am saying that there is complexity, adaptation and
emergence operating - I call it "life" for short - and that it is not
merely a matter of "lack of understanding".

This reveals a deeper response to the one I gave earlier regarding
"Why do people fight those who are materialist reductionists?" It's
because Newtonian clockwork principles are being extended to people
and their organisations. It is not merely a matter of inadequate
understanding or detail. It is a difference in kind.

My understanding of quantum physics, chaos theory, etc is that the
material - at its depths - is coming over towards the living and the
statements that I'm making for living phenomena. The direction at
this time does not seem to support that it's not "merely a lack of
understanding" in any mechanistic terms.

Joan lists some significant "if - then" conditions such as:

> If bosses treat their people as valued team players,
> they become valued team players.

While I generally agree that will be the likely outcome, I disagree that
it is reliable or that the "advice" is sufficient. I've been there too
many times when such interpretations have failed miserably.

Worse, that idea has been around for decades (if not longer) and the
easy results are not appearing. Why not? Because it doesn't work
that way. Individual human beings and groups of human beings are
more complex than that - importantly, including the manager/executive
which is to put that simplistic idea into practice.

We operate in systems of social and individual understanding, meaning
making, interpretation over time and with limited knowledge and neither
individual manager, individual employee nor group can alter their
behaviour totally consistently with a significant change instantly.
Thus mistakes will be made, interpretations will be made, and the
soup may get thicker rather than clearer.

Joan goes on to say:
> (I have not included many
> specifics, but there exist specific actions to implement each of these.

Yes there are specifics. And in many cases they are not only
important but essential. But they won't work reliably as mechanistic
approaches. (This brings to mind the Marriott's programme to "teach
employees to smile".) What will be required is context, individual
understanding - which is developed, not taught - and culture,
systems, organisation which are consistent with them.

Joan, I don't know the specifics of your approaches and I don't
question your personal effectiveness, the effectiveness of your
models nor your intentions. I assume that, as intentions, they are
aligned with mine in at least sufficiently broad terms to be allies
in the game of realising a better life at work.

What my posts are aimed at is a way of thinking and speaking that
will impact the way that the past century of management has
developed.

I agree that management's lack of reliability is their upbringing
(experience, theory, etc) and lack of behavioural knowledge. I am of
the opinion that a different conceptual model, different behaviours,
different organisation, different understanding than can be found in
the classical management or the classical scientific model are
needed.

I think we need to develop an appropriate conceptual structure and
language for the job. It's early days in this and I find the
adventure rewarding and exciting.

--
Michael McMaster :   Michael@kbdworld.com
book cafe site   :   http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
"I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity 
but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." 
            attributed to Chief Justice Brandies
 

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>