Discussion: View Thread

Fred,

An apology for making it sound like I sent the following question:
>
>Does anyone wish to discuss anything other than elevators (lifts to me),
>how to use the e-mail and whether or not systems are required to have a
>purpose. Is anyone else interested in mangement education and
>development?

That question was sent in by another person in a separate e-mail. I was
replaying to it and proposing a topic. I further feel unconfortable because I
deleted that e-mail and have no way of mentioning who it was.

I see the topic you mention relevant to the discussion of the interplay of the
parts vs. the whole. That is how does the system afects the components and how
does the components afect the system. More specific, what actions do we need to
encourage in interactions of the parts to improve the system when the changes
required by the parts are counter to their current desires. Using a compleately
different analogy, cancerous cells can be seen as mad cells that focus on
reproducing disregarding the impact on the system they live in. Eventually the
cancerous grouth places such a burden on the host that the system only recourse
is to die and in the process the cancerous cells lose their means of triving. On
the same analogy, normal cells strike a balance between the burden they provide
the host and the function they serve, thus ensuring a sustainable survival and
growht of both the host and the cells. The question framed in this analogy would
be what actions do we require to encourage cancerous cells to behave like normal
cells. If we can impose this mental model of the host and cells onto the
organization and the employees, what actions do we require to foster a healthy
development instead of unilateral grouths. If we thake the stand that the system
results from an agregate of the parts then we are bound to live with the limits
imposed by the parts. On the other hand if we asume that the system and parts
interplay we can work with either the system or the parts to get the desired
outcome. Furthermore as a part of that system what actions can we take to
transform it in such a way that the impact starts a chain reaction to improve
both the system and the other parts?

Saludos

Esteban

Fred,

Forgot to run the spell checker :-(

An apology for making it sound like I sent the following question:
>
>Does anyone wish to discuss anything other than elevators (lifts to me),
>how to use the e-mail and whether or not systems are required to have a
>purpose. Is anyone else interested in mangement education and
>development?

That question was sent in by another person in a separate e-mail. I was
replaying to it and proposing a topic. I further feel uncomfortable because I
deleted that e-mail and have no way of mentioning who it was.

I see the topic you mention relevant to the discussion of the interplay of the
parts vs. the whole. That is how does the system affects the components and how
does the components affect the system. More specific, what actions do we need to
encourage in interactions of the parts to improve the system when the changes
required by the parts are counter to their current desires. Using a completely
different analogy, cancerous cells can be seen as mad cells that focus on
reproducing disregarding the impact on the system they live in. Eventually the
cancerous growth places such a burden on the host that the system only recourse
is to die and in the process the cancerous cells lose their means of thriving.
On the same analogy, normal cells strike a balance between the burden they
provide the host and the function they serve, thus ensuring a sustainable
survival and growth of both the host and the cells. The question framed in this
analogy would be what actions do we require to encourage cancerous cells to
behave like normal cells. If we can impose this mental model of the host and
cells onto the organization and the employees, what actions do we require to
foster a healthy development instead of unilateral growths. If we take the stand
that the system results from an aggregate of the parts then we are bound to live
with the limits imposed by the parts. On the other hand if we assume that the
system and parts interplay we can work with either the system or the parts to
get the desired outcome. Furthermore as a part of that system what actions can
we take to transform it in such a way that the impact starts a chain reaction to
improve both the system and the other parts?

Saludos

Esteban

Saludos

Esteban

ESTEBAN TREVIÑO MUGUERZA asks...
>
>Does anyone wish to discuss anything other than elevators (lifts to me),
>how to use the e-mail and whether or not systems are required to have a
>purpose. Is anyone else interested in mangement education and
>development?

I think discussions of systems, including examples, is relevant to
management education and development. Managers who don't understand
systems (in all their many forms and types -- Kenneth Boulding comes to
mind here) are, in my opinion, less well equipped than those who do.
What's puzzling to me about the recent discussion is that it verges on
searching for a single definition of "system" which, owing to the many
types of systems, strikes me as a futile quest. It makes more sense to me
to specify the kind of system one wishes to discuss (again Boulding comes
to mind) and then proceed from that basis. To stir the pot a little,
organizations and computer-based claims processing operations both qualify
as systems in my thinking but they are very different kinds of systems and
I wouldn't try to use a single definition to refer to both. Claims
processing systems, for example, are a much better fit with the notion of a
system as a set of interacting components whereas I prefer to think of
organizations more along the Katz & Kahn and Allport lines of "a cycle of
events."

Just for the heck of it I think I'll round up my systems library and see
what poring over it brings to mind.
--

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095

Greetings,

I'm curious about the reference to Katz & Kahn and Allport lines of
"a cycle of events." Could you elaborate a bit since I'm not familiar
with them or the reference (off the top of my head I'm an author's worst
enemy).

Now, as to your stirred pot. I completely agree that systems come in
different colours and flavors, but because of that I'd suggest some of
their basic commonality should be identified. My reasoning is based on the
belief that to introduce those who don't understand the systems concept, we
should allow them to build their own "analogies" before being given ours
(or someone else's). This is gross since it's off the cuff, but consider
trying to define an elephant to a dog trainer who's never seen one. By
first explaining the elephant walks on four legs, has a tail, ear's, etc.
it's easier for the trainer to grasp the basic picture before you start
explaining the difference details (colour, weight, height, etc.). They
build the picture from their point of reference, and then can begin to
accept our input. Plus by involving them in this way they may start
explaining their model as they see it, which in turn can give us insights
we might not have had before. Just some thoughts. Take care & enjoy!

Tom Walsh


At 07:17 AM 11/4/99 -0500, Fred Nickols wrote:
>ESTEBAN TREVIÑO MUGUERZA asks...
> >
> >Does anyone wish to discuss anything other than elevators (lifts to me),
> >how to use the e-mail and whether or not systems are required to have a
> >purpose. Is anyone else interested in mangement education and
> >development?
>
>I think discussions of systems, including examples, is relevant to
>management education and development. Managers who don't understand
>systems (in all their many forms and types -- Kenneth Boulding comes to
>mind here) are, in my opinion, less well equipped than those who do.
>What's puzzling to me about the recent discussion is that it verges on
>searching for a single definition of "system" which, owing to the many
>types of systems, strikes me as a futile quest. It makes more sense to me
>to specify the kind of system one wishes to discuss (again Boulding comes
>to mind) and then proceed from that basis. To stir the pot a little,
>organizations and computer-based claims processing operations both qualify
>as systems in my thinking but they are very different kinds of systems and
>I wouldn't try to use a single definition to refer to both. Claims
>processing systems, for example, are a much better fit with the notion of a
>system as a set of interacting components whereas I prefer to think of
>organizations more along the Katz & Kahn and Allport lines of "a cycle of
>events."
>
>Just for the heck of it I think I'll round up my systems library and see
>what poring over it brings to mind.
>--
>
>Fred Nickols
>The Distance Consulting Company
>"Assistance at A Distance"
>http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
>nickols@worldnet.att.net
>(609) 490-0095

Tom Walsh writes in reply to a posting of mine:

> I'm curious about the reference to Katz & Kahn and Allport lines of
>"a cycle of events." Could you elaborate a bit since I'm not familiar
>with them or the reference (off the top of my head I'm an author's worst
>enemy).

The basic reference is Katz & Kahn's Social Psychology of Organizations.
It's a treatment of organizations as open systems. In it, they attribute
to Frederick Allport's "genius" the notion that organizations may be viewed
not as a collection of parts but as a cycle of events that closes and
reinitiates itself. For an example (i.e., a brief discussion and a
diagram) of an organization as a cycle of events, see my paper about "The
Difficult Process of Identifying Processes." It was published in 1998 in
The Journal of Knowledge and Process Management. You can find a copy of it
on my web site. Click on the link in my e-mail signature below and, once
there, click on the link to articles. You'll find the article there.

> Now, as to your stirred pot. I completely agree that systems come in
>different colours and flavors, but because of that I'd suggest some of
>their basic commonality should be identified.

What if they don't have anything in common? What if the only reason we
think they have something in common is our use of the word? Frankly, I
don't think that's as far-fetched as it might sound.

>My reasoning is based on the
>belief that to introduce those who don't understand the systems concept, we
>should allow them to build their own "analogies" before being given ours
>(or someone else's). This is gross since it's off the cuff, but consider
>trying to define an elephant to a dog trainer who's never seen one. By
>first explaining the elephant walks on four legs, has a tail, ear's, etc.
>it's easier for the trainer to grasp the basic picture before you start
>explaining the difference details (colour, weight, height, etc.). They
>build the picture from their point of reference, and then can begin to
>accept our input. Plus by involving them in this way they may start
>explaining their model as they see it, which in turn can give us insights
>we might not have had before. Just some thoughts. Take care & enjoy!

I agree with your notion of taking people where they are and introducing
them to concepts and ideas in ways that they can build on what they already
know.

--



Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095