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
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!