Hello.
I've been lurking periodically on the LO list for a few months. This
thread concerning Margaret Wheatley's work is the first that's moved me to
pipe up. I just reread all of the related postings and I'm also intrigued
by the questions such as why is reductionism so ingrained in our typical
approach to problems? and how do we take a system as a whole and approach
change that way?
In response to the latter, Rol Fessenden offers:
>Shared vision
>Common view of current situation
>Learn how my work can multiply or leverage the power of others.
This last statement drives at the heart of what's been bugging me since I
recently started reading about complex adaptive systems in connection with
my own research on innovation in organizations. One of the critical
ramifications of the science of complexity is that the trajectory of a
system may be understood to be momentarily bounded (as with a "strange
attractor"), but it is not predictable. Thus, I may be able to learn how
my work *has* multiplied or leveraged the power of others, but perhaps not
how my work will multiply or leverage the power of others in the future.
This seems to be a critical difference between the systems perspective as
outlined by Senge, and the so-called new science.
- Curt Topper
--Curt Topper <cm_topper@ccmail.pnl.gov>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>