Analysis of organizing orders

This is a post in my series on organizing “between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The series is inspired by David Bohm’s and F. David Peat’s notion of “the order between and beyond.”¹ The purpose of this post is to summarize the analysis. I will add to this post over time.

Background
First, a short reminder about what we are trying to do. I wrote in my 1^st post in this series about an attempt to combine Agile with Sociocracy. I view this as an example of organizing “in between” and asked how an organizing “beyond,” which transcends the compromises in existing organizing “orders,” would look like?

Introduction
Compiling a first list of existing organizing “orders” was straightforward. I will add to the list over time. The analysis, however, will require creative energy and time. The analysis will also trigger the writing of other posts. My aim is to summarize the conclusions in this post. I will also reflect on the journey itself as the work progresses. I have noticed, for example, that I need to be careful with my own assumptions so that I don’t jump into conclusions.

An iterative approach of questioning all assumptions takes a lot of time, but provides considerably deeper understanding and insight. This cycle never ends. There is always more to learn. The study of incompatibilities is done for the sake of understanding. It doesn’t mean that an approach is wrong, but that it is a limiting case. An example, Newtonian mechanics in physics isn’t wrong, but is a limiting case of relativity theory.

Analysis
What existing organizing “orders” are there?
My 3^rd post contains a list of frameworks, approaches, and conceptions. The challenge is that these are not really “orders” in a generative sense. The “deeper order” we are searching for is a “Generative Order of … actions and perceptions.”² This order determines the “perception of the world.”³ To find the “deeper order,” we need to identify what lies behind the values and perceptions of each approach. This is a huge, if not impossible, undertaking. We have to make a selection.

What patterns are there?
One way of identifying patterns is to look at the historical development of the approaches. Some have a common history. Others don’t share a common history but are based on the same basic assumptions.

What are the historical developments, basic assumptions, and worldviews?
We can assume that the number of worldviews are fewer than the number of approaches listed. However, we cannot assume that approaches which share a common history share the same worldview.

How are the “orders” entwined within each other in ways that are basically incompatible?
See the table below. The table will be updated over time.

Comments

• The CMM/CMMI and Sociocracy fit suprisingly well together.
  • The major change necessary is to make policy decisions by consent, since policy decisions by default are made by senior management in the CMMI.
  • CMMI’s general practices fulfill the requirements of the circle process in Sociocracy.
  • Policy decision-making by consent increases the belonging together between policy and processes/operations.
  • Strong hierarchical management creates a belonging together between policies/aims and processes/operations.

To be continued…

Here is the next post in the series. Here are all posts.

Notes:
¹ David Bohm and F. David Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity (Routledge, 2010-09-01, first published 1987-10-01), p. 275.
² Ibid., p. 304.
³ Ibid..
⁴ Watts S. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process (SEI, 1989-01-01), p. 11.
⁵ Watts S. Humphrey, Three Process Perspectives: Organizations, teams, and People (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Annals of Software Engineering 14, 2002), p. 53.
⁶ Ibid., p. 54.
⁷ Ken Schwaber & Mike Beedle, Agile Software Development with Scrum (Prentice Hall, 2002), pp. 24–25.
⁸ Gerard Endenburg, Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making (Eburon, 1998), pp. 39.
⁹ Ibid., p. 30.
¹⁰ Brian J. Robertson, Holacracy: The Revolutionary Management System that Abolishes Hierarchy (Penguin, 2015), pp. 200, 202.
¹¹ Robert Hartman, Freedom to Live: The Robert Hartman Story, p. 124.
¹² Brian J. Robertson, Holacracy: The Revolutionary Management System that Abolishes Hierarchy (Penguin, 2015), pp. 42–46.
¹³ Lasse Ramquist & Mats Eriksson, Integral Management (Lasse Ramquist AB, 2nd ed. 2009), p. 127.
¹⁴ Ibid., p. 175.
¹⁵ Ibid., p. 81.
¹⁶ Tor Hernes, A Process Theory of Organization (Oxford University Press, 2014), p. vii.
¹⁷ Ibid., p. x.
¹⁸ The generative order is primarily concerned with a deeper order out of which the manifest form of things can emerge creatively. David Bohm, F. David Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity (Ruthledge, 2010, first published 1987), pp. 80, 148, 154–157, 216, 286–287.
¹⁹ The notion of active information is important in explaining the ideas of generative order. Ibid., pp. 80, 84–86.

Revision history:

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts