Dear Fellow Netters, What a lively and provacative discussion on conflict.
Many thanks to Michael, Robert, Ed (Not Edryce, with whom I share gender
confusion about my name), Erwin, Ruth, and Ronda (I appologize if I forgot
some).
As a kid who grew up in the 50's, I quickly became a Sci-fi buff. Thus, I
often watch various junky Sci-fi series on TV. One of which was Babaylon
5. In the series, one of the major story lines concerned the war with the
Shadows and the Vorlons. The Shadows believe that progress occurred
through chaos and conflict, while the Vorlons believed that progress
rquired order and discipline. (Sounds as if the writers subscribe to this
net).
I agree with Ronda's observation about the importance of culture and values
as well as metrics. This reaffirms the observation that some of the most
important things to organizations are typically not measured, or not
measured very well. Or as the saying goes, "because a thing can be
measured, does not mean that it is worthwhile measuring."
One confusion that I would like to address however is the relationship
between measurement and control. The goal of traditional scientific
inquiry is to acheive understanding, predictability, and control. Chaos
theory suggests that sometimes the best we can achieve is the first. Even
in mature sciences, e.g., astronomy, where understanding and predictability
can be achieved, control cannot.
Thus, to measure something is not equivalent to controlling it.
Regards
Kimberly (Not to be confused with the actresses who took my name Kim as
stage names-Hunter, Stanley, and Novak, and created great confusion) Boal
At 06:39 PM 12/4/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Gentle Readers:
>
>On 4 Dec 98 at 15:00, I wrote:
>
>>> I've sort of been waiting for someone to stumble on this thought in
>the conversation. Didn't we recently have someone ask if economics was
>relevant to business education (and a response from an economist)?
>
>Rbacal wondered:
>
>>I'm wondering what the relevance is...oh well.
>
>To wit, I say:
>
> Sorry--my mistake as an academic. Economics is the progenitor (the Queen
>as it were) of all business disciplines, and it first made significant note
>of the function and benefits (and costs) of competition in a very systematic
>and rigorous way. Competition is, at its base, conflict--be it social,
>economic, political, or biological.
>
>That a previous list member questioned the relevance of economics in
>business training or educational programs should have caught the attention
>of the list's members who knew of the key role economics has played.
>Instead, hardly anyone (other than an economist) attempted an answered. The
>notice I obscurely made above implied that we are not very encouraging or
>aware of other viewpoints (e.g., economic).
>
>After I had argued for the necessity of conflict / competition, Rbacal said:
>
>>>I think perhaps you are lumping various KINDS of conflict together here.
>On a superficial level it may appear that conflict is an "essential element"
>but without specifying what KINDS of conflict (or do you mean ALL), then I
>don't see how we can get beyond the surface of the issue.
>
>To wit, I say:
>
> Correct: I am saying that! Conflict is essential to evolution,
>development, complexity, and organization--and most every part of civilized
>society. I recognize that some readers might morally abhor this viewpoint,
>but I think that a great number of evolutionists would argue the same point
>(Prigogine, Dyson, Davies, Hoyle, and Gould), as would almost every
>philosopher, and even popular economists (Porter). This is not to say the
>universe is not also truly wonderous; it's just that conflict of ALL sorts
>is endemic, intrinsic, and natural in absolutely everything. Perhaps it has
>been the Arts that have best shown this Janusian nature of the Universe
>(wonderous and terrible). As Steven J. Gould has said in his book,
>Wonderful Life, the universe is a very grim reaper: natural selection is
>what he calls, "natural decimation." Out of conflict comes everything,
>Q.E.D.
>
> Reger referenced strong passions and values in her dealings with Intel. A
>better exemplar I could not pick. "Constructive conflict," "creative
>conflict," "work out" programs at great companies like Microsoft, General
>Electric, McKinsey, Schlumberger, Wal-Mart, IKEA, and others, are signs of
>serious intentions, high standards, inimitable skills--and superior
>performance. (Ask their competitors.) You may not like it, but I think that
>you have to respect what conflict forges. Great companies, organizations,
>and people do not shy away from conflict. They gravitate towards it.
>
> As another person earlier argued here on this listserv, the point is not so
>much whether there are important distinctions regarding different kinds of
>conflict. The real point is that achievement comes from tackling conflicts
>that are just barely beyond one's abilities.
>
>Finally, Rbacal backhandedly quipped:
>
>>>But perhaps the superficial is the best we can expect on the Internet?
>
> I think not, sir.
>
>M.
>
>Michael Levenhagen
>High Technology Strategy & General Management
>College of Business, California Polytechnic
>San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
>805-756-1563 (off), 756-1473 (fax)
>408-456-0704 (hm)
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu