Hi, All,
I found Michael McMaster's comments on the value of "noise"
especially striking. In struggling to write about how groups jointly shape
their cognitions and reading communications and perception theory, it's
notable to me that "noise" is like "beauty" - in the eye (ear) of the
beholder. We routinely dismiss and ignore what isn't relevant to our
currently evoked map or sense-making set of assumptions (even though, as
in so many mystery stories, the "trivial" detail turns out to be the hinge
upon which important meaning turns). Cognitive economy in a world of
overwhelming data flow means we must edit out lots, defining it a priori
as "noise." Yet what is "noise" is also the early warning that our
assumptions are incorrect or dysfunctional - so we dismiss it at our
peril.
Our dilemma is to keep closely enough in touch with all the
"noise" to refresh our perceptions, adjust our assumptions, and create
anew, while not losing too much of the efficiency we need for getting
anything done (to say nothing of staying sane amidst so many, many bids
for our limited attention). Thanks for your good comments, Michael.
Sam
-- MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU Mariann Jelinek Richard C. Kraemer Professor of Business Graduate School of Business, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23185Tel. (804) 221-2882 FAX: (804) 229-6135 ************************************************************************ The only enduring strategic advantage is the ability to change the rules of the game.