Archive for All Posts

On the nature of transformation

January 20, 2009 / / No comments

More gems from Carman de voer. I hope to respond to these excellent posts this weekend…

Hi Lisa,  How do we define “transformation”? Dictionary definitions are nebulous at best. Here is one example from the Free Dictionary:

transform – change or alter in form, appearance, or nature; “This experience transformed her completely”; “She transformed the clay into a beautiful sculpture”; “transubstantiate one element into another”–
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transform

Among adult educators, however, there seems to be a consensus that “information” changes “what” we know, whereas “transformation” changes “how” we know. Change thus appears to involve the re-perception of reality.

Tennant and Pogson suggest that transformation involves the “deconstruction of a given world-view and its replacement by a new world view” (p.114).

I believe it is superfluous to talk about collective (organizational) transformation without first clarifying individual transformation. Lisa, how would you define transformation?

Bye for now!

Reference

Learning and Change in the Adult Years, A Developmental Perspective

From Ways of thinking about learning and change (from Carman), 2009/01/20 at 6:15 AM

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Leadership, Organization /

Ways of thinking about learning and change

January 18, 2009 / / 2 comments

Carman de voer writes: Hi Lisa, I haven’t heard of Hargrove’s model. My conception of transformation derives from the texts of Mezirow, Brookfield, Banathy, and Tennant and Pogson. Your transformative-holistic learning model has really piqued my curiosity, however. Could I hear more about it?

Your reference to transformation is fortuitous because “transformation” will be the theme of an impending conference I and my co-workers will attend. 

Though it is important to know what words mean I anticipate that “transformation” will be applied in a single-loop fashion: that is, it will be the label under which the organization will discuss whether it is “on course” (probably in a budgetary sense). For me, transformation in a double-loop sense signifies questioning the relevance of the “destination,” among other things.

Could we talk transformation Lisa? I expect that our interchange will be steel and flint (interchangeably) igniting a conflagration of ideas.

The fog continues to sit like an elephant on the city. No seal sightings yesterday—only actors appearing from and disappearing behind the curtain. The sun attempted to re-assert its dominion– but in vain. How I long for the “virtuous light” (to quote Elinor Wylie).

Bye for now!

Category: All Posts, Change, Leadership, Vision /

Vision and Limits: Creating a Space for Learning and Innovation

January 17, 2009 / / One comment

Carman writes: Hi Lisa,  I’ll try to paraphrase your questions:

1. Is emergent (bottom-up) organization compatible with goals and direction (top-down)?

2. When is the imposition of limits appropriate?

Morgan explains that “the intelligence of the human brain is not predetermined, predesigned, or  preplanned. Indeed, it is not centrally driven in any way. It is a decentralized emergent phenomenon. Intelligence evolves.” (p.94)

Morgan calls vision, norms, values or limits “cybernetic reference points.” Though they guide behavior and prevent complete randomness they also create a valuable space “in which learning and innovation can occur.”

To return to the example of the trainees:

Managers seem to have slain the goose to get the golden egg (forgive the worn-out analogy). Conversely, by referring to the philosophy (vision and values) of the organization they might have avoided short-term thinking (and the tyranny of targets!) and encouraged the emergence of new behaviours.

For example, might trainees eventually have fostered more effective ways of serving clients (and accomplishing goals)? Might such behaviour have enabled new insights and learning for managers? In short, could managers have learned from learners?

Tomorrow we can discuss single-loop versus double-loop learning if you like Lisa. Once we have beggared the brain metaphor perhaps you would like to select the Morgan metaphor that especially interests you.

Well, I’m off to the Stanley Park seawall, which I love to walk each weekend. Sometimes I see seals and sometimes they see me. Heavy fog in Vancouver today. Reminds me of a Conan Doyle novel. Sweet symphony from KUWY (on computer) without and Starbucks coffee within–the Lark is ascending!

Bye for now!

Carman,  It’s such a treat to read your posts!  Yes, I look forward to your thoughts on single-loop and double-loop learning.  Are you familiar with Robert Hargrove’s triple-loop learning model?  It heavily inspired my (current) transformative-holistic learning model: 

http://creativeleadercoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/model.gif

Your day sounds very pleasant! We’ve had a taste of summer-like weather here the past few days in Southern California, and it makes me look forward to the long, warm days, again.

Talk soon, Lisa

Category: All Posts, Change, Creativity, Culture, Design, Innovation, Organization, Partnership, Teams, Vision /

Unleashing Collaborative Power in the Workplace

January 17, 2009 / / 2 comments

If you are interested in how Partnership approaches to leadership can unleash collaborative power in the workplace, I encourage you to check out Cynthia King’s Creating Partnerships: Unleashing Collaborative Power in the Workplace (2005).   

See more at: http://www.creating-partnerships.com/

Category: All Posts, Change, Collaboration, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Teams /

Defining the space of managerial freedom to avoid noxicants

January 16, 2009 / / One comment

More from Carman de voer:

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!

Category: All Posts, Culture, Design, Partnership, Science /

Reply to Carman re: Organization as Brain – Avoiding Noxious States

January 14, 2009 / / One comment

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

Category: All Posts /

Organization as Brain: Avoiding Noxiants

January 11, 2009 / / One comment

Another interesting and educational post from Carman!

Lisa writes: “I wonder what it would do for us to consider organizations as creative, intelligent energy? I wonder if it would lead us to open up to these qualities, to the creative intelligent energy of others?”

Two excellent questions Lisa. Employers may not understand the Brain metaphor’s enormous potential to impact their “bottom line.”

To illustrate: Cybernetic system behaviour, says Morgan, is guided by the avoidance of undesirable system states [noxious outcomes]. A themostat achieves its goal by avoiding such “noxious outcomes” (not too hot or cold).

The same principle applies to complex social states where great codes of behaviour are framed in terms of “Thou shalt NOT.” Morgan describes “avoiding noxiants” as  “defining a space of acceptable behaviour within which individuals can act, innovate, or self-organize as they please.” pp.98-99

Examples: “Don’t overload others with information.” “Don’t respond to provocation.” “Don’t speak to and treat others in inappropriate ways.” “Don’t expect people to work beyond their capacities and limitations.”

By taking the Brain metaphor seriously and [for example] avoiding noxious states, many organizations could well see a reduction in stress and sick leaves which have become pandemic.

Your thoughts?

Category: All Posts, Organization, Science /

Organization as brain, intelligent creative energy

January 7, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, regarding: your post: http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/01/07/metaphors-of-organization-organization-as-brain/ I completely agree.

This is a good example of how our metaphors can limit our thinking. The mind-body dichotomy, in which mind is usually seen as separate from and superior to the body, has been a fundamental cultural metaphor. Related metaphors include: God-World, spirit-flesh, and the misogynist male-female dichotomy in which men were considered rational and transcendent, and women more “bodily” and immanent. According to this pattern (or guiding metaphors), the World, the organization, the body … are all viewed as machines, controlled by an intelligent external force. These ideas were also applied to social organization.

Although the machine analogy has some uses, the metaphor is based on the faulty assumption that the world (including our bodies) are machine like. To the degree that we operate with this assumption, we behave in ways that actually suppress organizational intelligence and creativity. (For an example of how perception can create reality, see Jane Elliott’s social experiment http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/07/08/how-perspective-draws-out-or-diminishes-human-potential/)

In addition to the one you mentioned, a great source on the intelligent body is Dr. Candace Pert’s, Your Body is Your Subconscious Mind. It also supports somatic approaches to psychology.

I like your proposal to consider the entire organization as “brain”; it is more realistic and as a guiding assumption would tend to lead us towards behaving in ways that cultivate organizational intelligence and creativity.  Or a related analogy might be “body-mind.” 

I wonder what it would do for us to consider organizations as creative, intelligent energy?  Might it lead us to open up to these qualities, to the creative intelligent energy of others? (Thinking about it, this is a process view of organizations …)

Lisa
Some related posts:

The brain as a metaphor for organization


http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/09/organization-as-organism-machine/

Category: All Posts, Collaboration, Communication, Creativity, Organization, Philosophy, Science /

Metaphors of Organization: Organization as Brain …

January 7, 2009 / / One comment
Carman writes: Perhaps we could begin with “Brain.” While many are inclined to see the brain as somehow separate from and higher than the rest of the body, Morgan proposes that “intelligence” is, in fact, distributed throughout the entire body—such as the legs hands, feet.

In short, there is no master, centralized intelligence. The brain, says Morgan, “is linked to quasi-independent processes linked to a minimal set of key rules making the whole system appear to have an integrated, purposeful, well-coordinated intelligence.”

This makes sense to me. The intelligence of a symphony orchestra for example, is not confined to the conductor but is rather “distributed” throughout the system. I suggest that society has overstated the role of the brain and understated the integrated functioning of the rest of the body. The separation of “brain” (manager) and “hand” (worker) is a popular practice in organizations. Viewing the entire organization as “brain” however, might be more productive (and realistic).

Your thoughts?

 

Category: All Posts, Communication, Culture, Organization, Philosophy, Science /

Metaphors of Organization

January 6, 2009 / / One comment

Carman in Vancouver, BC writes, “I’m very interested in Gareth Morgan’s metaphors of organization: 1) machine 2) organism 3) brain 5) culture 6) political system 6)  psychic prison 7) instrument of domination 8) Flux and Tranformation.  Each metaphor has enormous explanatory utility and each is worth discussing in some detail, if you like.”

That sounds very interesting! Let’s use this thread to discuss further.  Which metaphor would you like to explore first?

Lisa

Category: All Posts, Organization, Philosophy /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee