Discussion: View Thread

Phil,
I suggest you take a look at "Response Ability: The Language, Structure and
Culture of the Agile Enterprise" by Rick Dove, Wiley, 2001
.
Also, if you like I will forward an overview of the work going on in the
INTelligent ENTerprises Alliance and the Intelligent Enterprises Working
Group of the International Council on Systems Engineering. Then you can
decide whether to join our discuss list. Be forewarned, though, that topics
such as organizational development and performance management (at least as
described in current literature) are considered part of the problem, not
part of the solution.

----- Original Message ----- > Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:16:09 +1000
> From: Phillip Rutherford <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
> Subject: Complex Adaptive Systems
>
> Hi fellow listers,
>
> Is anyone, or does anyone know of anybody who is, working with the Complex
> Adaptive Systems theory and its application to organisational development
> and performance management?
>
> Regards
>
> Phil Rutherford
>
>

Then might the problem be due to the perception of Organization and OD?
Perhaps if we recognized that humans are not resources but the sources of
enthusiasm thus innovation and if we stop reifying "organization" then the
path to improved enterprise performance and equitable rewards might become
more clear.

The plea of the crossbow practitioner to define military doctrine only in
terms of crossbows is insane. Such is the case with HR and OD
practitioners.

Sorry, but I am just the messenger. Sent by several hundred million
"resources" grimly doing their shifts in their voluntary adult detention
facilities.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Rutherford" <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
To: <saneryiu@csend.org>; <jring@amug.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management


> Thank you all for your comments. The difficulty I'm having is that to me
the
> complexity of OD is blindingly obvious but little in the literature
supports
> this (except for that put out by Ralph Stacey and co.). All I've found
talks
> about complexity, chaos, Complex Adaptive Systems etc is very generic and
> seems to be skirting the main issues - namely that despite the rules and
> regulations set up by organisations people will get on and do things
anyway.
>
> Phil Rutherford
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Centre for Socio Eco Nomic Developpment" <saneryiu@csend.org>
> To: <jring@amug.org>
> Cc: <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 7:09 PM
> Subject: RE: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
>
>
> > Dear Jack,
> >
> > Intrigued by your comments and pointed direction. I would like to
receive
> a
> > copy of the overview that you mentioned in your mail.
> >
> > My interest stems from our experiences in working with governments of
the
> > transitional economies/countries. The complexity of
inter-organisational
> > relationships often hampers the reform process when political leadership
> is
> > either weak or dis-engaged from the performance related criteria. We
> have
> > been feeling the limitation of current OD theory and have been looking
for
> > additional paradigms to broaden our thinking. Really appreciate the
fact
> > that Phil brought up this question.
> >
> > With thanks,
> >
> > Lichia
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 5:02 PM
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
> >
> >
> > Phil,
> > I suggest you take a look at "Response Ability: The Language, Structure
> and
> > Culture of the Agile Enterprise" by Rick Dove, Wiley, 2001
> > .
> > Also, if you like I will forward an overview of the work going on in the
> > INTelligent ENTerprises Alliance and the Intelligent Enterprises Working
> > Group of the International Council on Systems Engineering. Then you can
> > decide whether to join our discuss list. Be forewarned, though, that
> topics
> > such as organizational development and performance management (at least
as
> > described in current literature) are considered part of the problem, not
> > part of the solution.
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:16:09 +1000
> > > From: Phillip Rutherford <>
> > > Subject: Complex Adaptive Systems
> > >
> > > Hi fellow listers,
> > >
> > > Is anyone, or does anyone know of anybody who is, working with the
> Complex
> > > Adaptive Systems theory and its application to organisational
> development
> > > and performance management?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Phil Rutherford
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> >
>
>

Jack,

I think you've hit the nail right on the head. Ever since I started thinking
about this problem (many, many years ago) I was trying to everything by its
whole. For example, a whole activity, a whole piece of knowledge, a whole
outcome. It has come to me recently that there is no such thing as 'a whole'
anything . . . especially where people are concerned.

A whole activity is actually the sum total of a lot of little activities
(including dressing in the most appropriate clothes, getting to work/the
activity on time and with the right tools etc), but we can't measure them by
measuring 'the whole'. The same with a 'whole' piece of knowledge - all
knowledge is only a platform upon which other knowledge is built so how can
we measure it? The very best we can do is measuring something at a
particular point in time, but what are we measuring it against?

The biggest problem we have, I think, is that we try measuring something
that is forever changing (eg, OD) using static measuring tools. A little bit
like measuring a race horse's ability to win races by using a measuring
tape. An organisation is a constantly changing entity and, in my very
limited experience, it appears that the only thing we can use to measure how
well it is doing is by using something equally as 'changing'. I wonder what
the heck that might be?

> Then might the problem be due to the perception of Organization and OD?
> Perhaps if we recognized that humans are not resources but the sources of
> enthusiasm thus innovation and if we stop reifying "organization" then the
> path to improved enterprise performance and equitable rewards might become
> more clear.

Absolutely. I think humans are the catalyst for change and it is their
enthusiasm and imagination that makes change happen. But, we measure their
skills and knowledge to assess their capability. Doesn't quite make sense to
me.

> The plea of the crossbow practitioner to define military doctrine only in
> terms of crossbows is insane. Such is the case with HR and OD
> practitioners.

In organisational terms I would say this is a little like using 360degree
feedback or DISC to measure whether or not a manager is innovative and can
achieve objectives that we don't yet know exist. We are cramming people into
boxes that they don't belong.

> Sorry, but I am just the messenger. Sent by several hundred million
> "resources" grimly doing their shifts in their voluntary adult detention
> facilities.

Don't ever be sorry. Sadly not enough people are pushing this message into
the spotlight. We've been flummoxed by the (little 'g') gurus.

Phil

The recent debate on CAOs has been very interesting and highlighted that
much of relevance to CAOs goes by other names. Scientists, especially those
dealing with Quantum theory, have wrestled with the same challenges for much
longer - offering us some insights:

Not taking an holistic stance is bad - but a unifying Theory of Everything
is proving annoyingly difficult to pin down
The Big World [that you and I live in] works fine with Classical Theory and
the Quantum World [that our atoms live in] works fine with Complexity Theory
- but each theory is bad at explaining the other world
If you design an experiment to find waves, it will find waves; if you design
one to find particles, it will find particles

So
, as the `Beer Game' illustrates, if you don't think of the the full
system, you will build in flaws; but, since this is too big a scale to work
from, we should focus on the scale appropriate to our specific problem [and
use the relevant approaches]
Metaphors for, truly, CAOs might be a flock of sheep or a flock of birds.
The shepherd illustrates how a flock of sheep might be controlled but this
won't help with the birds; three simple rules explain how birds flock but
this won't help with the sheep - they are both CASs but our choice of action
[control / empowerment] is most likely to determine our success or failure.

Finally, we might like to consider the time-scale. In the very short term,
both Traditional and Complexity-based approaches deliver similar outcomes.
In the Medium term, using a broader-scope [e.g. wider tolerances, `Fuzzy
Logic' etc.]enables Complexity-based appro
aches to still be used. In the
Longer term, the system's complexity will defeat our forecasts [but not our
Scenario planning or our Future-basing].

A couple of intriguing notions:
1- The term 'reify' - "To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had
concrete or material existence"
2- To define doctrine restricted to a given specific language.
3- Voluntary detention facilities.

Putting them all together we have :

Our volunatry detention facilities result from a doctrine that restricts
thinking to our specific language which inevitably regard and treats our
abstraction as if they had concrete or material existence... thus
voluntary-slaves exists because they think that they think of options when
they refuse to think and contemplate other alternatives...

Cordially,

Esteban






Jack Ring <jring@amug.org>@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> on 09/22/2002 03:22:59 PM

Please respond to Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>

Sent by: Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>


To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
cc: (bcc: ESTEBAN TREVIÑO MUGUERZA/Cemtec/Cemex)
Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management


Then might the problem be due to the perception of Organization and OD?
Perhaps if we recognized that humans are not resources but the sources of
enthusiasm thus innovation and if we stop reifying "organization" then the
path to improved enterprise performance and equitable rewards might become
more clear.

The plea of the crossbow practitioner to define military doctrine only in
terms of crossbows is insane. Such is the case with HR and OD
practitioners.

Sorry, but I am just the messenger. Sent by several hundred million
"resources" grimly doing their shifts in their voluntary adult detention
facilities.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Rutherford" <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
To: <saneryiu@csend.org>; <jring@amug.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management


> Thank you all for your comments. The difficulty I'm having is that to me
the
> complexity of OD is blindingly obvious but little in the literature
supports
> this (except for that put out by Ralph Stacey and co.). All I've found
talks
> about complexity, chaos, Complex Adaptive Systems etc is very generic and
> seems to be skirting the main issues - namely that despite the rules and
> regulations set up by organisations people will get on and do things
anyway.
>
> Phil Rutherford
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Centre for Socio Eco Nomic Developpment" <saneryiu@csend.org>
> To: <jring@amug.org>
> Cc: <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 7:09 PM
> Subject: RE: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
>
>
> > Dear Jack,
> >
> > Intrigued by your comments and pointed direction. I would like to
receive
> a
> > copy of the overview that you mentioned in your mail.
> >
> > My interest stems from our experiences in working with governments of
the
> > transitional economies/countries. The complexity of
inter-organisational
> > relationships often hampers the reform process when political
leadership
> is
> > either weak or dis-engaged from the performance related criteria. We
> have
> > been feeling the limitation of current OD theory and have been looking
for
> > additional paradigms to broaden our thinking. Really appreciate the
fact
> > that Phil brought up this question.
> >
> > With thanks,
> >
> > Lichia
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 5:02 PM
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
> >
> >
> > Phil,
> > I suggest you take a look at "Response Ability: The Language, Structure
> and
> > Culture of the Agile Enterprise" by Rick Dove, Wiley, 2001
> > .
> > Also, if you like I will forward an overview of the work going on in
the
> > INTelligent ENTerprises Alliance and the Intelligent Enterprises
Working
> > Group of the International Council on Systems Engineering. Then you
can
> > decide whether to join our discuss list. Be forewarned, though, that
> topics
> > such as organizational development and performance management (at least
as
> > described in current literature) are considered part of the problem,
not
> > part of the solution.
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:16:09 +1000
> > > From: Phillip Rutherford <>
> > > Subject: Complex Adaptive Systems
> > >
> > > Hi fellow listers,
> > >
> > > Is anyone, or does anyone know of anybody who is, working with the
> Complex
> > > Adaptive Systems theory and its application to organisational
> development
> > > and performance management?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Phil Rutherford
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> >
>
>




____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Phil,

The congruency and sustainability of knowledge ought to be the measuring
standard used to evaluate and determine its value.

In case of organization what we need to measure for performance must center
on 'current sustainability value', which of course entails calculating
past, present and future value and striking a 'balance' between what has
pasted and what we expect will come to pass in future... Neither past
results, nor future expectations alone serve to determine the viability nor
value of an enterprise... as you have stated "humans are the catalyst for
change and it is their enthusiasm and imagination that makes change happen"
provided they have hope and faith in things to come... Succesfull managers
provide and create the stories which motivate and lead people to work
together; they tell what has happened, where we are, where we would like to
go, and a road to get us there...


Cordially,

Esteban



____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Dear Esteban,

What an intriguing viewpoint! Thank you for evoking a wicked little smile this afternoon. ;-)

As a warden of a "voluntary detention facility", I felt as one might feel if someone suddenly described some deep, unconscious facet of myself. I felt a certain resonance with the fundamental thoughts you are expressing.

However, I do wonder if we run less "voluntary detention centers" and more voluntary indoctrination centers. You are right, to succeed, students must demonstrate fidelity; that they are bound to a system of "right" answers and "right" thoughts.

That musing got me to thinking that perhaps - integrating a concept or two from complexity theory - the education process is really a strange attractor that defines a field in which students develop patterns of thought. The key to good education would be, then, to develop good strange attractors (visions). In so doing, they "reify" - if I am using your word properly.

For a student to escape the voluntary detention/indoctrination center, he or she would have to develop his or own "strange attractor"; one that would enable them to generate new patterns based upon their beliefs versus generating patterns of thoughts constrained by the forces of an instructor's strange attractor.

I am not saying this is bad. I think basic education and the patterns created are needed foundations for creating the self determinism that one needs beyond education.

But seeing education in this framework points to a need to focus on the gestalt versus the parts or processes.

Kind wishes.

Ed
Drive On!

>>> esteban.trevino@neoris.com 09/23/02 02:03PM >>>
A couple of intriguing notions:
1- The term 'reify' - "To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had
concrete or material existence"
2- To define doctrine restricted to a given specific language.
3- Voluntary detention facilities.

Putting them all together we have :

Our volunatry detention facilities result from a doctrine that restricts
thinking to our specific language which inevitably regard and treats our
abstraction as if they had concrete or material existence... thus
voluntary-slaves exists because they think that they think of options when
they refuse to think and contemplate other alternatives...

Cordially,

Esteban






Jack Ring <jring@amug.org>@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> on 09/22/2002 03:22:59 PM

Please respond to Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>

Sent by: Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>


To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
cc: (bcc: ESTEBAN TREVIÑO MUGUERZA/Cemtec/Cemex)
Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management


Then might the problem be due to the perception of Organization and OD?
Perhaps if we recognized that humans are not resources but the sources of
enthusiasm thus innovation and if we stop reifying "organization" then the
path to improved enterprise performance and equitable rewards might become
more clear.

The plea of the crossbow practitioner to define military doctrine only in
terms of crossbows is insane. Such is the case with HR and OD
practitioners.

Sorry, but I am just the messenger. Sent by several hundred million
"resources" grimly doing their shifts in their voluntary adult detention
facilities.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillip Rutherford" <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
To: <saneryiu@csend.org>; <jring@amug.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management


> Thank you all for your comments. The difficulty I'm having is that to me
the
> complexity of OD is blindingly obvious but little in the literature
supports
> this (except for that put out by Ralph Stacey and co.). All I've found
talks
> about complexity, chaos, Complex Adaptive Systems etc is very generic and
> seems to be skirting the main issues - namely that despite the rules and
> regulations set up by organisations people will get on and do things
anyway.
>
> Phil Rutherford
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Centre for Socio Eco Nomic Developpment" <saneryiu@csend.org>
> To: <jring@amug.org>
> Cc: <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 7:09 PM
> Subject: RE: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
>
>
> > Dear Jack,
> >
> > Intrigued by your comments and pointed direction. I would like to
receive
> a
> > copy of the overview that you mentioned in your mail.
> >
> > My interest stems from our experiences in working with governments of
the
> > transitional economies/countries. The complexity of
inter-organisational
> > relationships often hampers the reform process when political
leadership
> is
> > either weak or dis-engaged from the performance related criteria. We
> have
> > been feeling the limitation of current OD theory and have been looking
for
> > additional paradigms to broaden our thinking. Really appreciate the
fact
> > that Phil brought up this question.
> >
> > With thanks,
> >
> > Lichia
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 5:02 PM
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management
> >
> >
> > Phil,
> > I suggest you take a look at "Response Ability: The Language, Structure
> and
> > Culture of the Agile Enterprise" by Rick Dove, Wiley, 2001
> > .
> > Also, if you like I will forward an overview of the work going on in
the
> > INTelligent ENTerprises Alliance and the Intelligent Enterprises
Working
> > Group of the International Council on Systems Engineering. Then you
can
> > decide whether to join our discuss list. Be forewarned, though, that
> topics
> > such as organizational development and performance management (at least
as
> > described in current literature) are considered part of the problem,
not
> > part of the solution.
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:16:09 +1000
> > > From: Phillip Rutherford <>
> > > Subject: Complex Adaptive Systems
> > >
> > > Hi fellow listers,
> > >
> > > Is anyone, or does anyone know of anybody who is, working with the
> Complex
> > > Adaptive Systems theory and its application to organisational
> development
> > > and performance management?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Phil Rutherford
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> >
>
>




____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/

Esteban,

Beautifully put. Now, how do we measure this? :-)

Phil


----- Original Message -----
From: "Esteban Trevino" <esteban.trevino@neoris.com>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management


> Phil,
>
> The congruency and sustainability of knowledge ought to be the measuring
> standard used to evaluate and determine its value.
>

Ed,

You have described my hypothesis beautifully, what effect changes in the
strange attractor (education) would have on the longer-term outcomes
experienced at an organisation's business or strategic level. The trouble
is, understanding what effect changes in the strange attractor would have at
this level might just be impossible because there is no way of knowing
exactly what the outcome is going to be. Will we achieve these goals or will
our education put us on a different path altogether? The key, as you say, is
to develop good strange attractors (and in the form of visions and not
concrete boxes) which lets whatever may happen, happen.

Regrds

Phil

Phil,

One starting point could be the evaluation of correspondance between the
thory in use and the espoused theory... A 100% match denotes better "
congruency and sustainability of knowledge" because 'deceptions' are
minimized and the validity of claims maximized leading to more informed
resolutions.

A second point could be a determination of 'defensiveness' (passing the
blame to others) within the organization instead of candidly and openly
recongnizing and confronting the issues...

A third indicator could be the level of reflection, second order learing,
taking place within the organization...

Cordially,

Esteban





Phillip Rutherford <robnphil@ozemail.com.au>@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> on
09/24/2002 05:41:29 AM

Please respond to Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>

Sent by: Management Education and Development Discussion
<MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>


To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
cc: (bcc: ESTEBAN TREVIÑO MUGUERZA/Cemtec/Cemex)
Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management


Esteban,

Beautifully put. Now, how do we measure this? :-)

Phil


----- Original Message -----
From: "Esteban Trevino" <esteban.trevino@neoris.com>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] MG-ED-DV Complex, Adaptive Management


> Phil,
>
> The congruency and sustainability of knowledge ought to be the measuring
> standard used to evaluate and determine its value.
>




____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/