Durval writes:
>I am an electronics engineer who worked for about 20 years with systems
>design and project management. Then I began to question the purpose of the
>things I was doing and what good it did to others. After some doubts
>whether I should look for a new profession...
I too am an engineer in systems and project management that began to
"question the purpose of things and what good it did to others." I also
was drawn to quality management, especially Deming, and LO concepts.
Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (Systems, Psychology, Variation,
Theory of Knowledge) was very appealing to me as a systems engineer,
father, and Christian. The System of Profound Knowledge unites
science,humanities, and protestant ethics. I am very much drawn the
Theory of Knowledge (philosophy) as well. I see very little difference
in the Fifth Discipline and LO concepts.
Durval writes:
>I also have a wider concern about the ethical aspect of business. I have a
>feeling that our culture (and here I am not sure whether this is brazilian
>culture or occidental culture) expects us to be ethical inside the group
>(company, family,...) but not so much outside. Is it fair to sell a
>customer something he does not really need, or to hide some information
>about the product, etc.?
I am also bothered by the call to "Cooperate to improve Competitiveness"
or "Ethical inside but not outside." Hiding information to me is a good
example of how structural competition influences unethical behavior,
which is accepted as norm outside but not in. We codify the dominant
philosophic paradigm (assumptions, beliefs, ethics) into all of
stuctures, process, and methods which then influences the behavior of
those within our system.
>I have found that the basic ideas of the LO are accepted by many people.
>When we start to put them in practice, doubts and resistances arise, fast
>results are wanted, there is a feeling of being lost and temptation to
>rely on control to produce results. I hope to learn more about how to
>handle these problems.
>Is LO a kind of living philosophy?
To me these two comments are linked.
My theory is that quality and LO emphasize tools, before they thoroughly
understand and define their philosophy. (Hence confusion with
communism, Dilbert, etc). Cart before the horse. I think this is the
reason for the resistance. We are the enemy. Implicitly people say hey
"This is it!" but it is just a glimpse...then they jump right into tools
and methods. The philosophy needs to be made more explicit.
I believe, Deming and Senge, by going to the deeper learning cycle,
crossed the imaginary lines between science, humanities, philosophy and
spirituality and united them. They both referenced the term "Metanoia"
as a reorientation of one's way of life. So yes, quality and LO are
living philosophies. The question remains is what philosophical school
or schools are integrated into them? General Systems Theory, pragmatism,
New Science, Bohm's Implicate order, Christian philosophy, Buddist,
what? My goal is to postpone study tools and techniques and step back
and define better the philosophy we are codifying in them. We know
implicitly that there is a dominant philosophy we are advocating...but
what is it?
When we can clearly define this "philosophy"...maybe then we can help it
to become the dominant social and scientific paradigm. Without theory,
there can be no learning.
Glad to know I'm not alone. Thanks for your intro.
Have a Great Adventure!
Don Kerr
[Quote of entire previous msg deleted by your host. ...Rick]
--"Kerr, Donald" <Donald.Kerr@usahq.unitedspacealliance.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>