We promote our "whole systems perspective" as part of the competitive
advantage which our consulting practice in Australia offers our clients...
Suffice to say that for Us it is an all-pervasive issue. I will allude
briefly to thekernel of our offering after addressing Rod's questions...
>What do you think 'holistic' means?
"Pertaining to the whole" means for us not just a wholeness which is a
static unity, but rather the dynamic interplay of parts which are aligned
together by a common intent. Intent is meant here in a very general way,
both from a human perspective and from a goal-seeking perspective. An
aligned interplay also implies that there is a balance between the
autonomy of the individual parts and their service to the whole. This is
what constitute the interdependence of the parts within the whole, what
synergy is the result of, and why a whole is more than the sum of its
parts.
>Is holistic management a learning organisation concept?
Yes in our view. Management which is not holistic is fragmented by
definition. This means that all sorts of sub-optimizations and numbers
games are going on to meet narrowly defined performance measures which
encourage unnecessary competition instead of a harmony which would promote
the success of the whole organization.
For Us it is a triadic viewpoint in which i) unique management spheres of
responsibility, ii) interplay in a harmonious productive process, which
iii), address global performance.
>Is 'holistic' the same thing as 'systems'? (which might imply that system
>dynamics is the same thing as holistic dynamics)
No, a crisp distinction should be made between them. They do share 2 very
important characteristics in our view, a) just as systems can be viewed as
an embedded structure of sub-systems.... "systems within systems, within
systems, etc.", wholeness also has an embedded quality which is more like
a fractal structure of self- similarity from any viewpoint, at any level
of granularity..[see also The Fractal Company, Warnecke, Springer-Verlag],
and b) systems require the viewpoint of some individual or group of
individuals to define them... they do not appear without our
participation... similarily, wholes require the viewpoint of individuals
in the same manner.
The difference for Us lies in the lack of self-similarity in most
organizations.
Wholeness is everywhere self-similar, but most organizations function
differently within different components, especially in the productive and
service aspects. A holistic or wholistic system would evidence
self-similarity at least in some important aspect, such as performance
measurement, quality or vision.
>Is 'holistic' a theory or a process?
For Us it is a process. When the interplay of component parts act in
alignment, wholeness exists.... and is incredibly effective and what it
wants to do. To consider it to be a theory would be to suggest that there is a more
dominant perspective as a background to the theory. For Us, this is not
so.
>Do you consider that current usage of the term is rather superficial?
Yes, largely due to a) vague allusions to the concept given in the "new
age" movement attempting to get a handle on the underlying truth of "As
above, so below", and b) a philosophical confusion about the question of
"The One and the Many", where instead of finding a transcendent
complemenarity between the Two, one of the polarities of Unity (often with
a negative side-effect of Authority) and Relativity (only relative truths
exist in a post-modern chaos).
>Do we need a new up-graded definition of the term?
Yes, it is especially important in the field of human affairs where the
above mentioned complementarity is seen as a hard and violent dichotomy.
The Individual against the State, individual rights vrs. collective
security, my religion against all of the other paths...etc.
>From the management perspective, a good understanding of holism can make
all of the difference to an organization's survival.
> Does 'holism' have the same meaning across different disciplines?
Not really qualified to answer this one, but in the same spirit as General
Systems Theory, I believe there to be a universality to holism which can
inform all disciplines in a positive manner.
-----
We have a paper on Wholistic Performance Indicators for management
practice if anyone is interested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Doug Seeley, Ph.D. InterDynamics Pty. Ltd. (Australia) in Geneva
CompuServe: 100433.133 Fax: +41 22 756 3957
"Choice and Chance are One."