This is a post in my organizing “between and beyond” series. The post is part of my exploration of deeper generative orders for organizing. Other posts are here.
David Bohm and David Peat make a distinction between implicate, or enfolded orders, and explicate, or unfolded, orders. They write that something like implicate orders are tacitly acknowledged, but that they are not regarded as having any fundamental significance.1 The key point, however, is to turn this view upside down, and to regard implicate orders as fundamental.2 Explicate orders unfold from implicate orders. An example are elementary particles, which are always grounded in the whole from which they unfold and into which they enfold.3
Similarly, I think it’s possible to make a distinction between implicate vs. explicate organizing orders. An example, is the mandatory training which I participated in recently. The purpose of the training was to address the need for a more accurate process, incl. rigourous control. In order to support the achievement of this, a revised instruction had been issued, which will become legally binding on a future date. Half of the training was spent on the process, and the other half on the tool which supports the process.
I think that the documented process with its revised instruction, together with the tool, are examples of explicate orders. The expectation is that the generally higher accuracy will be accomplished through new/revised roles and responsibilities. Very little was said about the why a more accurate process is needed. There were references to financial targets, but not much more. In other words, the implicate organizing order was hardly addressed at all. Deeper generative orders for organizing are implicate. Imposing explicate orders for organizing on a situation creates a belonging together. Here is more on belonging together vs. belonging together.
1 Bohm and F. David Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity (Routledge, 2010, first published 1987), p. 176.
Organizing in between and beyond posts