Two things are emerging in this conversation for me. One is the use of
language and the other is a distinction between principles as "attractors"
and "rules".
Durval defends Dee Hock by saying "he didn't mean to say what he said".
That is, he didn't mean "institutions inhibit creativity" only that
"bureaucracy" inhibits creativity. But bureacracy and institutions are
two very different words.
I suggest we don't KNOW what Dee meant. (We don't even know what he said
unless we were there.) It is what is happening to the idea and the
language in this conversation that concerns me.
What seems relevant and very interesting to me is what is the nature of
human institutions - not what is the specific meaning that Dee or anyone
else has.
The second area of interest to me is the confusion caused by referring to
limits and proscription as "rules" especially when they are absolute and
stated as though they stand independently and also referring to sets of
principles as "rules".
The latter, like in the declaration of independence and bill of rights of
the USA - at least as they can be conceived - are a complex set that, in
combination, create the possibility of rich, varied, intelligent life
without specific limit.
I suggest that if we treat these both with the same linguistic label of
"rules" that the power of the latter will be lost.
This is relevant to corporate organisation in all the culture change and
transformation stuff that is going on.
--
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com
web:http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe/TIA/TIAmap.html
"I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity
but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
attributed to Chief Justice Brandeis
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>