"Benjamin B. Compton" <bcompton@geocities.com> comments on lack of
structure in emerging organizations:
>...In a strange way they began to see networks and messaging systems as
>something that are alive. . .almost as if they were the circulatory system
>for the organization. . .which caused them to start thinking about their
>organizations as also being alive. . .
>That was the greatest thrill in presenting the methodology. . .it changed
>the way people thought. . .it often shattered their mechanistic view of
>the world, and helped them walk into a world that was much more alive,
>interactive, responsive, and exciting!
Some of my colleagues have been working on the parallel in evolution
between Newtonian Mechanics finally giving way to Quantum Mechanics,
and the evolution of organizations from the nicely functional hierarchy
that is depicted on the org charts and the truly chaotic happenings that
tools such as NetMap and InFlow can map.
The evolution is similar in many ways. There are those who cling to the
old view proclaiming that it works and those who adopt the new view as the
only way. Newtonian Mechanics is still an adequate representation for
much of our world, while Quantum Mechanics is required to explain real
phenomena like the operation of a laser. In fact the laser could not have
been invented in a world that believed the Newtonian way was the only way.
To some extent, team dynamics have a strong parallel to Quantum
principals. And Ben's work appears to be early experimentation that
illustrates the need for "a new science" of organization. Books such a
Megatrends and many that folowed have touched on the area.
Maybe our LO is the early version of the organization that can produce
laser light when the right conditions are discovered. One constraint will
be the lack of research recognition (i.e. government funding policy) for
the social sciences in general.
Michael Erickson <sysengr@atc.boeing.com> uses the hierarchical to
relational database analogy to illustrate the evolution of science:
>...The flexible organization seems to require intelligence at all levels and
>in every job or task. Quick responses to new situations seem to require
>the ability to plug into or relate in different ways without the
>cumbersome permissions and signatures required by the hierarchic model,
>yet the management need to feel some sense of control or they will all
>panic. ...
The "mechanistic" world has accepted the ubiquitous deployment of the
laser technology "because it works" without an inherent appreciation for
the ins and outs of Quantum Mechanics. Maybe we need to position this
dynamic creation of teams as another management tool to be deployed
selectively when the need arises and then work on defining what conditions
give rise to the appropriate deployment of this tool!? Cheers....Keith
K.C. Cowan - President - YTI
<a href="http://OurWorld.CompuServe.Com/HomePages/YTI">YTI Web Site</a>
Created at 8:57 AM, on Tuesday, November 19, 1996 with WinCIM EMail/Assist
--Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>