At 07:18 01-02-2001 -0500, Harrison Owen wrote:
I guess what I am suggesting is that the distinction between constrained and not constrained, functionally considered, is not all that much, or maybe nothing at all. I know the conventional wisdom understands that in most organizations the job of management is to keep things under control (constrained), and that when they do this, supposedly they are doing a good job, witness the fact that the system is apparently "close to equilibrium." On the other hand, when things get out of control, the managers are fired, and clearly it is all chaos ("far from equilibrium"). What I am suggesting is that everything is a question of scale (fractal) and just when you think you have eliminated all the chaos, it turns out that you weren't looking in the right places (scale). Worse, since chaos is essential to life (it provides the open space where new things grow), should management succeed in its mission (eliminating chaos) it would fail -- the organization would die. So -- shortly put -- If you think you have it all under control, you don't. And thank God for that.
Thanks for your comments, Harrison. I now understand what you intended to say. But, again, I wonder if we are not using the same name (chaos) to refer to different things, because they have differences of "scale" and, because of that, they are qualitatively different... (As there are molecular mouvements in water, in ice or in a termonuclear explosion with different degrees and consequences). Let me try to give a name and separate these different kinds. Let me call "small constrained chaos" to refer to what happens in all organizations, where the work is done, in many cases, in spite, and even against, the rules and hierarchies, as in the meeting the two "communication girls" were able to organize that you referred in one of your books. Let me call "big disruptive chaos" to refer to what happens when a CEO is fired. And now let's talk about what happens when the all staff meets in an OST meeting. Some time ago we mentiond the "magic" of it, as it allows for a very different time of reality, where chaos is ackowledge and embraced. My I call it "medium size productive chaos"? I don' t know if my names are the good ones. My point is that this are different types of chaos. If this is true, then when we talk about "self-organizing systems" to refer to organization in different types of situations, maybe we are confusing ourselves. My main question is the following: what are the special and different conditions that are at work durind OST? When we talk about "chaos" and "self-organization" as it happens in an OST meeting, is it the same sort of chaos and self-organization that, after all, are allways present? If it is a different type I would like to understand what are the differences. If it is the SAME type, I question: why are we still talking about OST or even using it? Looking forward to see how you manage this... Artur * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html =========================================================== osl...@egroups.com To subscribe, 1. Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist 2. Sign up -- provide an email address, and choose a login ID and password 3. Click on "Subscribe" and follow the instructions To unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@egroups.com: 1. Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist 2. Sign in and Proceed