Carman,
Morgan’s description of a “space of acceptable behavior within which individuals can act, innovate, or self-organize as they please” (pp. 98-99) is intriguing and appealing. Would you like to explore this further?
Some other questons that your post raises (for me) are:
1. Does Morgan, or do you, also see vision, direction, and/or goals as having a role?
2. I notice that Morgan defines guidelines by emphasizing the negative space, rather than the positive space. Do you understand this as a metaphorical device, or does he think that “do nots” optimally shape human behavior?
Thanks for your posts!
Lisa
Great questions Lisa,
Perhaps I could begin to address them through a practical illustration:
I recently heard about a professional bureaucracy that is experiencing high turnover of its trainees—which, in such an organization, is surprising given the time, money and personnel allocated to training. Furthermore, neophytes exhibit enormous enthusiasm and commitment.
In terms of the brain metaphor (cybernetics) the organization could pursue the following:
Ask questions:
1) What is it about our culture that contributes to high turnover? What do trainees tell us (via exit interviews)? How might the workload exceed the limitations of trainees? What kind of treatment do trainees receive once on the job? Is it civil or uncivil? In other words, surface noxiants.
Avoid noxiants: (set limits on undesirable behavior):
2) Don’t browbeat. Don’t overload (with information). Don’t exceed the capabilities of trainees. Don’t impose unreasonable deadlines. Don’t proscribe social [professional] interaction with co-workers.
Morgan says: “Cybernetics shows us that effective management depends as much on the selection of the limits that are to be placed on behaviour as on the active pursuit of desired goals” (p.99)
I would like to further delve into your questions tomorrow Lisa (I’m off to work now).
Bye for now!