Kategoriarkiv: Reflections

Organizing reflection 6

Lämna ett svar

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to reflect on subjects occupying my mind. I make no claim to fully believe what I write. Neither do I pretend that others have not already thought or written about the same subject. More often than not, I take up, combine, and add to already existing thoughts and ideas.

What is on my mind?
Changing the system doesn’t necessarily change people’s behaviors
Changing the system doesn’t necessarily change people’s behaviors because their underlying values are unchanged. John Schinnerer writes in a mail to sociocracy.groups.io, January 12, 2018, that (my emphasis in bold):

”… we humans are quite good at not changing our behavior, regardless of change of some aspect of a system. There is no system that is proof against human behavior.

So if I want to I can still live my prejudicial behavior, my un-equivalent behavior, my autocratic behavior, and so on, within a sociocracy (or Holacracy, or ”teal organization,” and so on) by name. I might have to ”work the system” differently, but it is always possible
to some degree.

John Schinnerer specifically addresses human power relations:

The basic means of human power-over are available one way or another, because they involve far more complex systems of human relating than just the formal governance processes and structures.

I think a key point is, there is so much more to human power relatings than is addressed either explicitly or implicitly by the SCM or any other implementation of sociocracy.”

An example of human power-over is when a sociocracy facilitator subtly manipulates the sociocratic decision-making by putting time pressure on the person who has an objection. I have seen it happen.

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Organizing reflection 5

Lämna ett svar

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to reflect on subjects occupying my mind. I make no claim to fully believe what I write. Neither do I pretend that others have not already thought or written about the same subject. More often than not, I take up, combine, and add to already existing thoughts and ideas.

What is on my mind?
Mechanistic vs. dynamistic thinking
Mechanistic thinking is everywhere. Not only do we see our organizations as machines. We even view ourselves and our bodies as machines. They are not. Goethe explained two hundred years ago why mechanistic thinking has become the order of the day (my emphasis in black):

We can grasp immediately causes and thus find them easiest to understand; this is why we like to think mechanistically about things which really are of a higher order. . . thus, mechanistic modes of explanation become the order of the day when we ignore problems which can only be explained dynamistically.1
—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The belief that we can stand outside a system and make up a series of rules and suggestions for actions (like ”best practices”) is everywhere too. Possibly for similar reasons as Goethe pointed out (my paraphrasing of Goethe in black):

We can grasp immediately processes and rules and thus find them easiest to understand; this is why we like to think algorithmically or procedurally about things which really are of a higher order. . . thus, computational modes of explanation become the order of the day when we ignore problems which can only be explained non-computationally.2

We need to replace our fixed strategies by approaches involving a constant dance forward into the doing and then back again to take into account the overall context and meaning of a situation. It is a dance that each individual and the organization as a whole need to perform together.

Notes:
1 Stephen Harrod Buhner, The Secret Teachings of Plants, p.62.
2 An algorithm is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other operations. A procedure is a series of actions conducted in a certain order or manner.

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Organizing reflection 4

Lämna ett svar

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to reflect on subjects occupying my mind. I make no claim to fully believe what I write. Neither do I pretend that others have not already thought or written about the same subject. More often than not, I take up, combine, and add to already existing thoughts and ideas. Here is my previous reflection.

What is on my mind?
People ARE assets
This is a further development of my first reflection. I wrote in this reflection that people are NOT assets. Well, people ARE assets — systemically. It all depends on whether you take a systemic, extrinsic, or intrinsic perspective:1

  1. People ARE assets from a systems perspective. Their systemic value are as assets.
  2. People also have extrinsic value as a type of asset. Notice that the extrinsic value of people can be compared with the value of other type of assets, say, relationships BETWEEN people. We can claim, as is done in this reflection, that it’s NOT people, but the relationships BETWEEN people that are our greatest asset.
  3. People, finally, have intrinsic value as human beings. This has far-reaching consequences that I will come back to in future reflections. A corollary is that people are NOT assets — intrinsically.

Notes:
1 Systemic, extrinsic, and intrinsic value are three value dimensions defined by Robert S. Hartman. See, Hartman, The Structure of Value: Foundations of Scientific Axiology, p.114.

Related posts:
Book Review: The Structure of Value by Robert S. Hartman
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Organizing reflection 3

Lämna ett svar

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to reflect on subjects occupying my mind. I make no claim to fully believe what I write. Neither do I pretend that others have not already thought or written about the same subject. More often than not, I take up, combine, and add to already existing thoughts and ideas. Here is my previous reflection. Here is my next reflection.

What is on my mind?
Money is NOT value
I am tweeting quotes from Dee Hock’s Autobiography of a Restless Mind Volume 1, and get interesting replies. Dee Hock writes that money is not value.1 Gunther Sonnenfeld (@goonth) replies that money can be high value depending on its application.

Gunther Sonnenfeld (@goonth) 2018-01-02–03. Tweets.

I think that Dee Hock points to the intrinsic value in community and relationship, while Gunther Sonnenfeld refers to the extrinsic and systemic value of money.2 These perspectives are, of course, interrelated.

All perspectives are, in fact, needed. It’s important to remember, though, that — axiologically — intrinsic value is more valuable than extrinsic value, and extrinsic value more valuable than systemic value.3  So, what I think Dee Hock is saying is that money has no intrinsic value.

Intrinsic value is often forgotten, although it has the highest value.

Notes:
1 Dee Hock, Autobiography of a Restless Mind: Reflections on the Human Condition Volume 1 (iUniverse, 2012), p.19.
2 Intrinsic value, extrinsic value, and systemic value are the three value dimensions defined by Robert S. Hartman. See, Hartman, The Structure of Value: Foundations of Scientific Axiology, p.114.
3 Ibid..

Related posts:
Book Review: The Structure of Value by Robert S. Hartman
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Organizing reflection 2

Lämna ett svar

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to reflect on subjects occupying my mind. I make no claim to fully believe what I write. Neither do I pretend that others have not already thought or written about the same subject. More often than not, I take up, combine, and add to already existing thoughts and ideas. Here is my previous reflection. Here is my next reflection.

What is on my mind?
Treasure trove of quotes
Dee Hock’s Autobiography of a Restless Mind Volume 1 & 2 are a treasure trove of quotes. I’ve now started to tweet quotes from Volume 1. I get interesting replies.

Dee Hock, Autobiography of a Restless Mind Volume 1 & 2.

Language is inadequate to convey what is in one’s mind
Dee Hock writes that language is inadequate to fully convey what is in one’s mind.1 Stefan Norrvall (@norrvall) replied that this reminds him of Michael Polyani who said we know more than we can tell.2 Polyani stated that not only is there knowledge that cannot be adequately articulated by verbal means, but also that all knowledge is rooted in tacit knowledge.

Jan Höglund (@janhoglund) and Stefan Norrvall (@norrvall) 2018-01-02. Tweets.

Stefan Norrvall’s reply reminds me of Eugene T. Gendlin’s Thinking at the Edge (TAE), which is thinking from what is unclear and only a bodily sense. TAE requires familiarity with focusing. Focusing enables you live from a deeper place than just thoughts and feelings.3

New book arrived today
F. David Peat’s Gentle Action: Bringing Creative Change to a Turbulent World arrived today. Gentle action involves an initial creative suspension of action, with the aim of developing a clearer perception of the situation in hand. Out of this will flow a more appropriate and harmonious action.4 Peat’s gentle action seems related to Gendlin’s living from a deeper place.

F. David Peat, Gentle Action.

Notes:
1 Dee Hock, Autobiography of a Restless Mind: Reflections on the Human Condition Volume 1 (iUniverse, 2012), p.19.
2 Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, (University of Chicago Press, 1996), p.4.
3 Eugene T. Gendlin, Focusing: How to Gain Direct Access to Your Body’s Knowledge (Rider, 2003, first published 1978), p.4.
4 F. David Peat, Gentle Action: Bringing Creative Change to a Turbulent World (Pari Publishing Sas, 2008), pp.16–17.

Related posts:
Book Review: Focusing by Eugene T. Gendlin
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Organizing reflection 1

Lämna ett svar

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to reflect on subjects occupying my mind. I make no claim to fully believe what I write. Neither do I pretend that others have not already thought or written about the same subject. Often, I take up, combine, and add to already existing thoughts. Here is my next reflection.

What is on my mind?
People are NOT assets, neither are relationships
Bob Marschall (@flowchainsensei) tweeted this morning that: ”People are NOT our greatest asset. In collaborative knowledge work particularly, it’s the relationships BETWEEN people that are our greatest asset.”

Bob Marschall (@flowchainsensei) 2018-01-02. Tweet.

I totally agree that relationships are important, but I question whether they are assets? An asset is something which is useful or valuable. It’s furthermore often something which is owned. From this perspective, I’d claim that people are NOT assets, neither are relationships.

New books arrived today
Volume one and two of Dee Hock’s Autobiography of a Restless Mind arrived today. These two volumes were written in the decades spanning the turn of the millennium.1 I am really looking forward to reading these two books.

Dee Hock, Autobiography of a Restless Mind, Volume 1 & 2.

Previously, I’ve read Dee Hock’s book One from Many: VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization. Here are extracts from the book. It’s a post written by my good friend Simon Robinson, which is based on my tweets at the time.

Notes:
1 Dee Hock, Autobiography of a Restless Mind: Reflections on the Human Condition Volume 1 (iUniverse, 2012), p.ix.

Related posts:
Dee Hock in his own words
Dee Hock on control
Dee Hock on rules
Agile software development in the 1970s
Organizing in between and beyond posts