LO & the New Sciences LO4961

Doug Seeley (100433.133@compuserve.com)
18 Jan 96 16:56:16 EST

Responding to Uri Merry in LO4938,

You asked me to describe in more depth what I meant by the following in
LO4821:

>"I believe that the application of this to the Learning
Organization rests in achieving cultures wherin different
kinds of connectivity between individuals are encouraged,
especially in response to/ engaged with its environment, beit
market or service clients".

As I outlined in LO4821 Uri, the formation of community appears to be
related to the avalanche of connectivity which occurs when there are
sufficient direct connections between pairs of members in some set. At
this point, the number of individuals which any given individual can
"connect" to indirectly [i.e. connecting "remotely" to others via a
network of intermediaries], suddenly shoots up from a relative few, to
almost all of the other members. At the same time, the number of
(distinct) strongly connected components, or what in biology are called
"patches", suddenly collapses into one large patch.... the "community"
with a few outliers.

I believe that this phenomenon is the intrinsic process at work in all
complex systems which show phase transition behaviour, and that it applies
as well to adaptation in the complex systems we call organizations. If we
consider such relationships as, "working together", "getting into
alignment with", "focused on the same objective", etc. as the Connections
in the abstract discussion above, then we have an explanation for the
emergence of teams, the emergence of alignment, and "pulling together".
Similarily, communities can vanish or break up into differing factions
just as rapidly, when connections are broken.

If We look at the LO as being highly adaptive on the Edge of Chaos, then
the ability of the organization to rapidly make connections in order to
face something which has emerged from its environment (market changes,
competitors moves, policy changes..), and to rapidly let these connections
go when that tactical response is no longer needed, seems to address this
requirement. Note as well, that just below the threshold for the
connectivity avalanche that the many patches exist, which could be
interpreted as rapid prototypes for the needs which are beginning to be
sensed in the environment. [ I believe that this is also a description of
an essential process in our immune systems.]

Now, I have described this connectivity avalanche process in terms of a
single type of connectivity. For learning organizations (and complex
adaptive systems engaged with their environments on a survival basis),
clearly multi-valued connections would occur. That is, connections form
between different individuals, in terms of their individual responses to
different stimuli from the environment. Hence, these emerging networks
are superimposed upon each other as the organization senses the variety
being presented by its essential surroundings. It becomes a kind of
"broth of networks" bubbling away near the connectivity avalanche, and
hence upon the edge of chaos.

Hence, the question for me in developing the LO as a complex adaptive
system, is how to stir up, nurture and sustain this broth of networks
(connectivity) ? As I said in a terse manner in LO4821, I believe that
one response to this question is in supporting organizational cultures
within which there are all sorts of communication channels between
individuals (connectivity). These channels would be flexible in that they
are not crystallized into (enforced) brittle structures. Dis-connection
would be honoured when it is done responsibly, and in an overall strategic
spirit.

The social networks of organizations have long been regarded as important.
What I am proposing is that these social connections are valuable because
they enable adaptive responses by the organization which would not be
possible via hierarchical control. When other forms of connectivity are
enabled, such as via play (I am thinking here of Sun Microsystem's
water-pistle battles), wilderness camps for teams, corporate sports,
broader socialization, and various personal interest groups. Hence, I
view such socialization as a forerunner of an ability to rapidly prototype
teams, missions, solutions to what the environment seems to be demanding.
The key seems to be an environment which supports rapid formation of
networks of interest, wherein the individuals have a commitment to
responses to the environment which they believe will further the
organization's strategic objectives.

I will respond to your further quotations from your book soon.

I hope this has explained my thought in LO4821 to You more fully, but I am
aware of my tendency to describe things too abstractly at times. Thanks
for the stimulation, and I welcome further discussion from all on the
points which I have tried to raise.

--
Dr. Doug Seeley, InterDynamics Pty. Ltd. <Australia>  ( in Geneva ):
			Compuserve: 100433.133 

Doug Seeley <100433.133@compuserve.com>