`"...immediately privileges the quantifiable over the qualifiable"- Indeed "tricky"!
Hi, I always supposed it to be the other way round. To have a look on what I want to qualify and then searching for the right scale for what I should quantify..so, my focus implies also a "hierarchy of results, I'm getting by fixing the scale: Meta-, meso-, or microlevel? -Quite an interesting idea, to talk about "compounds" -I had taken in consideration the idea, that any kind of thematically orientated process depends much on the contextual field, which "sourrounds" the process, taking part ,- and that even the intention, to find out about this "fieldforces" can alterate the process a lot... the order of interventions, techniques, questions, or statements can change considerably, which quality of results I will get..Therefore, I find quite interesting the way, Gestalt, or morphologic psychology deals with "measurement"..(and of course, it's a reason,why I'm with OST also) I like the image of dealing with "compounds" It also sounds good to me, that it's not a solution, just to turn round the way of (e)valuation. -Sounds, like: The very first thing, you do, is putting out the fire and then you try to find out about it's qualities :-) So, where can I found out more about the "standard batteries", which had been mentioned? Very interesting to me. I'm dealing with this principles, like "win-win-win (the sourrounding network also wins), with trust, with a motivation check-formula, which is a factor of intrinsic motivation in relationship to extrinsic motivation on individuals in group orientated processes - and last not least, a support-network of about a hundred persons. In this moment, I'm just trying, to imagine, how there can be combined an OS with AI summit and future search (common ground) -elements in a (physical, not virtual) 3 1/2-day network-meeting event....(also about the "basket/container-theme, which is present in this network also) So, I wonder, how you would deal with this so called standard batteries in relation to an OST-event..as there was mentioned in the beginning, there is just a little "box of pandora" with the measurement and validation... : -) Sincerely, Nicolai > Chris Corrigan wrote > Measurement uber alles is tricky because it immediately privileges the > quantifiable over the qualifiable. And certainly, we need to measure > things, but I'm leering of forcing qualitative experiences into > measurement-friendly formats. By necessity it strips what is most > important about the experience. > > How do we measure the effect an OST meeting has on a person that has > suddenly seen the possibilities offered by truly self-organizing work > teams? > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Chris Macrae > For 20 years researching social and organisational identities I was > weary about measuring organisational relationships, but then the > mathematician in me woke up. Measurements don't just determine what you > get but what human systems compound. With deep respect (open communing > once freed up everywhere that 95% of management techniques destroy it > (to interpret a Harrison one-liner) is a far more creative/human thing > than measurement) BUT its way too late to turn global valuation systems > round UNLESS we change measurement around > > So for example the direct answer to your OST question is very easy > > There are now standard batteries on the main emotions : happiness , > trust, courage etc > > Take those before and after an OST intervention in an organisation; > happiness ought to go up if the intervention had anything to do with > cultivating self-organising. Reason joy of learning is the number 1 > self-organising energy according to 15000 interview on Flow done at > Peter Drucker's Claremont by a professor whose name I can never spell > but is begins Csik. > > Turns out the positive win-win emotions are a good health check of how > hi-trust relationships are being organised around here; and hi-trust > (=goodwill) compounds the vast majority of any networked organisation's > future > > SO > More broadly with our open source work www.valuetrue.com we feel > confident that all you all need to do is tell a story that begins > something like this: > > The Future is now measurable > It is impossible to govern an interactive world by separable numbers. > The harder you try the more likely you are to do an Andersen to your > organisation's valuation. Moreover, without maps of organisational > networks a strategy isn't interactively worth the paper its printed on. > > These mathematical facts present leadership teams with the greatest > opportunities and threats ever to have confronted big organisations. > Fortunately, the necessary transformation : mapping human relationships > that connect goodwill systems together is very simple to do provided you > cultivate a hi-trust climate and benchmark transparently with your > biggest partners. Welcome to the Network Age of Value Multiplication of > Business and Societal Organisational Designs. Sorry it took our systems > club 21 years to work out the maths of global & local networking, but > better late than never. chris & norman macrae > wcbn...@easynet.co.uk > > * > * > ========================================================== > 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...@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