Hi Marty,
Interesting questions! The way I understand it,
Kaufman does not refer to an environment with
abundant food supply. Neither does he mean an
environment where the food supply is constant. I
have always taken it as referring to an
environment that provides at least a minimal
level of nutrition and is relatively stable, in
the sense that it does not change radically in a
short time span. Of course the food supply, the
number of natural enemies, the weather conditions
etc. will change over time. But for a self
organizing system to exist, there has to be a
reasonable amount of stability. If we look at a
biological example: the Earth has an atmosphere.
The atmosphere provides not only an important
part of the necesarry nutrients, it also works as
a buffer to eliminate radical changes in
temperature and radiation. On a planet without an
atmosphere, it is much more difficult for life
forms (at least as we know them) to develop, for
lack of both nutrition and stability. But this
does not mean that the atmosphere never provides
any challenges! It changes constantly and does
not always make us feel comfortable. But these
changes have so far been within acceptable limits.
Now I am not sure how to translate that to
organizational change. I gues that it has
something to do with the notion of Ilya Prigogine
(Order out of Chaos, 1984) that a system tries to
adapt to a changing environment untill it can no
longer keep up with it using the old paradigm.
There will be a point where it discovers, as
Harrison has put it in The Spirit of Leadership,
that it is not doing something wrong, but it is
doing the wrong thing. It will either die or
reinvent itself. If it dies, another system will
take its place, which is essentially the same as
when the system would have reinvented itself.
This will happen, whether or not we mingle with
the whole thing or not. The reason that we as
consultants find ourselves useful is that we may
make the transition somewhat smoother, by sewing
the seeds of the new system while the old system
is still alive. The destruction/creation cycle
will have to take place no matter what. But by
helping it a little bit, we may make the ride a
little less bumpy and we may limit the nubmer of
casualties. If we want to provide a suitable
environment to help this destruction/creation
process along, we think of it in terms of an
environment that is stable and nutrient enough
for the new system to emerge. The old system is
still there, in whatever shape it may be. So
there is still an environment that can suppport a
system. The environment is slowly changing, and
it is probably time for our system to reinvent
itself or die. But the environment is still there
and I tend to assume that it is stable and
nutrient enough. So I would not worry too much
about it. I think our aim would be to create room
in (or close to) the old system for new sparks to
flare up. It is not that we have to tweak the
environment at large, it is that we have to
create small environments, small pockets of
nutritious space where the seeds of the new
system can be sewn and take root. Those pockets
have to be relatively stable and nutritious. This
means that people have to be safe there, the
things they say and do there should not backfire
on them unexpectedly, they have to have the
opportunity to learn and grow, and of course
there have to be food, drinks, toilets, beds and
what other practical things people need. I think
it will look quite a bit like an Open Space Technology meeting.
Just my view. Very interested in what others have to say about this.
Koos
At 17:23 20-1-2008, Martin Boroson wrote:
Dear all:
I have a couple of philosophical questions about
the concept of a stable nutrient
environment. According to Stuart Kauffman, as
quoted by Harrison, this is Condition #1 for self-organization.
My questions:
a. What does this mean
scientifically? Presumably Kauffman is talking
primarily about biological systems, as he is a
biologist. Does he mean sufficient food
supply? That would make sense you need
sufficient food in order to do anything -- but
on the other hand, fundamental environmental
challenges to a system (such as lack of food
supply) are surely one of the perturbations that
can induce a re-organization.
b. Im also curious to know how each of you
would interpret stable nutrient environment in
terms of organizational change. What would be
the stable nutrient environment
required? Abundant coffee and cake at your
conference? Lifetime job security for all the
organizations employees? Or something in between?
;)
Namaste
Marty
* *
==========================================================
osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
------------------------------ To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change your options, view the
archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST
FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
