Virtuous Growth Cycle LO10682

andrew d rowe (adrowe@essex.ac.uk)
Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:09:43 BST

Replying to LO10677 --

On 22 Oct 96 04:55:35 EDT Julian Macnamara wrote:

> > The individual ant doesn't understand the colony but it works fine.
> > The point is that this is THE condition of complex adaptive systems.
>
> > However, in these other biological instances, there are connections -
> > structural couplings to use Varela's phrase - that already exist. In
> > human organisations these are not of the same kind. They do exist but we
> >are largely unaware of them. I offer language and practices as the key to
> >this connection. NOT formal organisation as we think of it
>
> > Which leads to the second point:
> >> Initially, the main connections in the organisation are those described by
> >> the formal organisation.
>
> > I disagree that the formal are EVER the main connections. In the
> > beginning, of most corporations at least, there are a few people who
> > relate to each other in mainly implicit and seldom formal ways.

> I think the real point is that whilst organisations exist at both a formal
> and informal level, the power and importance of the informal organisation
> (which I think you prefer to call a community of practice and others call
> a network organisation) seems to be underestimated - particularly
> vis-a-vis LOs and the management of change.
>
> In effect, you seem to be making this point even more strongly than I am.
>
> I think Ralph Stacey is correct when, borrowing Kuhn's terminology to
> distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary science, he opines that it
> is the informal organisation that is concerned with extraordinary
> management. (This is developed in more detail on the "Change Management"
> page on my web site).
>
> A consequence of this is that additional weight is given to Chester
> Barnard's view that the role of the executive is to secure the commitment
> and actively manage the informal organisation, whilst simultaneously
> ensuring that the organisation achieves its economic goals.

Julian,

I have been teaching a course in business strategy to undergraduates at
Essex University. The course is split into two 'halves', one the
traditional, 'ordinary management' based approach (using Michael Porters
work); the other, using Ralph Stacey's book 'Strategic Management' (using
his ideas of 'extraordinary management').

The problem that I have found is that students find it difficult to
understand what is meant by the term 'chaos'; the concept of 'order in
chaos' seems to fox most of them. I know there is an article in
MANAGEMENT TODAY, from late 1994 which tries to summarize Stacey's ideas,
but even this causes problems.

How would you explain SIMPLY to students brought up very much in the
traditional management paradigm (if I could term most of the other courses
offered by the depatment) how Stacey's work improves upon traditional
business strategy? Indeed, how can chaos have an order?

Secondly, it has been suggested that the main thrust of Stacey's work
seems to resonate closely with Adam Smith: that organization strategy is
best left to the 'invisible hand' of the informal organization, rather
than Stacey actually providing a detailled answer to business strategy in
a chaotic world. I'm not too sure about this criticism, what do you
think?

Andrew Rowe (adrowe@essex.ac.uk)

-- 

andrew d rowe <adrowe@essex.ac.uk>

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