[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Kb-complexity] How much need they know?
Eileen,
Excellent question and a continuing one for us. In this particular case, my
role was as a shadow consultant to the primary facilitator of the process.
She and I were explicit about the human systems dynamics (HSD) patterns and
dynamics as they emerged, particularly containers, differences, and
exchanges as conditions that shape the speed, clarity, and richness of
self-organizing patterns. She did not, however, train the client group or
expect them to be explicit with dynamical concepts. She used HSD to frame
the questions for them to consider and to reframe some perrenial issues in
new ways. She used some of the metaphors (e.g., stretch and fold) to help
them see patterns and reduce anxiety.
Generally this this the way we work--using the concepts to shape
conversation, insight and action. Usually at least one person in the group
will ask about what we're doing and why, and we explain as much as they want
to hear. We also invite them into our on-going conversation of associates
engaged in HSD.
We find this one of the real valuable differences between HSD and
non-complexity approaches--it shifts the dynamics whether or not you name
them in the group. We also realize that influences beyond our interaction
are powerful pattern-makers. We don't delude ourselves into thinking that
the conditions we set are the only ones that influence the patterns that
emerge for individuals or collectives.
What do others see about explicit and implicit use of complexity with
clients?
G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kb-complexity-bounces@list.knowledgeboard.com
> [mailto:kb-complexity-bounces@list.knowledgeboard.com] On
> Behalf Of kb-complexity-request@list.knowledgeboard.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:00 PM
> To: kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> Subject: Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 7
>
>
> Send Kb-complexity mailing list submissions to
> kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://list.knowledgeboard.com/mailman/listinfo/kb-complexity
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> kb-complexity-request@list.knowledgeboard.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> kb-complexity-owner@list.knowledgeboard.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific than "Re: Contents of Kb-complexity digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 6 (Glenda Eoyang)
> 2. Re: RE: Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 6 (Eileen Conn)
> 3. OPen systems theory and complexity theory (Warren Linds)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 08:14:16 -0600
> From: "Glenda Eoyang" <geoyang@hsdinstitute.org>
> Subject: [Kb-complexity] RE: Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 6
> To: <kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com>
> Message-ID: <002a01c64516$17e41b20$d818f518@yourus67pi6luv>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Carol,
>
> Thanks for your historical view. It does help to give
> ourselves context as we wrestle with these difficult
> questions. Within this historical context,
> I take a slightly different view. I see complexity as
> providing us ways to
> think and talk about the paradoxes of being/not being and
> knowing/not knowing that were not resolved by Kant, but
> documented by him in his his antinomies
> (http://www.friesian.com/antinom.htm). Through the methods
> and metaphors of complexity, we can begin to engage
> productively to talk about, understand, and act across the
> messy lines of finite and infinite space and time; parts and
> wholes; freedom and causality; necessity and accident. Rather
> than needing to separate neumenal from phenomenal, process
> from entity, part from whole, I think complexity lets us
> explore each in the context of the other to enrich our
> options for understanding and taking action in both.
>
> Here's an example. . .
> A non-profit I work with thought they were going to get about
> $100,000 for a planning grant for a $5,000,000 project. A
> pattern of consideration and decision making emerged that
> included the positional and technical leaders within the
> organization. Who they were, what the challenge was, and how
> they related to each other shaped their decisions, actions,
> and outcomes. Over time, the project conditions changed--more
> money became available for planning, more for program, media
> coverage expanded, the vision became global and crossed
> insititutional and disciplinary lines, relationships
> developed, the parent company was acquired, and so on. All
> of this happened in the space of six months. Individually
> and collectively, as the project definition shifted, so did
> the relationships and structures that provided infrastructure
> for the emerging conversation. The group did not see it as
> breaking old patterns and forming new ones. They didn't talk
> about their reality changing. They didn't worry about what
> was true and for how long. They recognized they were working
> in a complex, self-organizing system and they used simple,
> iterative questions to shape their work together: What
> happened? So, what does it mean to us and this work? Now what
> should we do about it?
>
> Complexity allowed them to enter their knowing/being as a
> dance with each other, with their collective and individual
> pasts, and emerging environmental factors. Kantian
> distinctions became irrelevant, I think, as this adaptive
> engagement emerged. I think we were working in a different
> dynamical space. Maybe not. What do you think?
>
> Glenda
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kb-complexity-bounces@list.knowledgeboard.com
> > [mailto:kb-complexity-bounces@list.knowledgeboard.com] On
> > Behalf Of kb-complexity-request@list.knowledgeboard.com
> > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 7:01 PM
> > To: kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> > Subject: Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 6
> >
> >
> > Send Kb-complexity mailing list submissions to
> > kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://list.knowledgeboard.com/mailman/listinfo/kb-complexity
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > kb-complexity-request@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > kb-complexity-owner@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> > specific than "Re: Contents of Kb-complexity digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Scientific Method --> Kant --> Systems Theories...?
> (Carol Webb)
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 04:21:06 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Carol Webb <carolwebb75@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: [Kb-complexity] Scientific Method --> Kant --> Systems
> > Theories...?
> > To: kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> > Message-ID: <20060310122106.37261.qmail@web51801.mail.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > Dear All
> >
> > Continuing the thread of conversation on systems
> > thinking etc, for me I have to go back and consider
> > all this in the light of 'where we came from'
> > theoretically speaking, and this includes considering
> > again what we think we understand by rationality, the
> > scientific method, Kant, systems thinking and theories from
> > there, and then how you integrate this with organisational
> > theory and an understanding of complexity science.
> >
> > The concept of 'rationality' was central to the
> > scientific method, which arose in the context of the
> > 'scientific revolution' in the 17th Century backlash against
> > religious doctrine and dogma, which had, until then,
> > dominated as the major resource for understanding the laws of
> > nature. The scientific method had particular implications for
> > the sciences of physics, astronomy, and philosophy, which
> > then began to emphasise the role of the individual scientist
> > in a capacity of objective observer, formulating and testing
> > what were predominantly causal hypotheses on the governing
> > laws of nature. Divergent schools of thought based on
> > differing epistemological and ontological perspectives arose
> > out of this endeavour. These included dogmatic rationalism,
> > or, the realist scientific perspective, and, radical
> > scepticism. In dogmatic rationalism, or, the realist
> > scientific perspective, reasoning individuals were seen to be
> > able to formulate hypotheses based on the nature of an
> > existing external reality that can be reliably observed as
> > truth. This was understood to be perceived through the mind,
> > the body, and its senses. In radical scepticism, proponents
> > suggested that all knowledge was relative and unreliable
> > because the mind was held to impose an order of its own on
> > the sensations coming from the external real world through a
> > series of accidental, repeat connections. In this sense,
> > intelligibility was perceived as reflecting the habits of
> > mind rather than the nature of reality. This pointed to the
> > constructed, relative and plural nature of accounts of the
> > world in which there is no truth, only many different stories
> > of equal worth (Stacey, 2003a).
> >
> > Kant then bridged these two perspectives through the dualistic
> > postulation of his transcendental idealism in which he held
> that while
> > we know what we know through sensations coming from the
> real world -
> > or, that we know reality through the capacity of the mind,
> > the mind also imposes some kind of order on this sense
> > data so that we cannot know reality in a direct manner
> > - or, the categories through which we know are given
> > outside our direct experiences. This dualistic
> > postulation, Stacey (2003a) argues, justified the
> > scientific method and enabled Kant to develop a
> > systems theory in which the development of nature
> > could be explained with a theory of formative
> > causality, and human action could be explained with
> > rationalist causality. In later systems theories,
> > reports Stacey, individuals became conceptually
> > designated as parts in a system called a group,
> > organisation, or society, where systemic phenomena had
> > to be explained from the perspective of an individual
> > outside the system - a system being a whole separated
> > by a boundary from other systems, with an inside and
> > an outside. Retrospectively, this systemic perspective
> > has been associated with a mechanistic metaphor
> > (Hatch, 1997), complementary with reductionist
> > science, where a unit of analysis, or phenomena of
> > interest, was seen as the sum of its parts, and where
> > the focus was on the nature of the part rather than on
> > the interactions between them (Stacey, 2003a). How
> > this perspective made its way into recent
> > organisational and management theory is seen in terms
> > of developments that took place in science in general
> > and in scientific management in particular over the
> > course of the 20th century.
> >
> > The mechanistic metaphor and reductionist approach was embraced by
> > early proponents of scientific management (Taylor, 1911;
> Fayol, 1916).
> > Scientific management inherited the same philosophical
> assumptions as
> > the scientific method and transferred them to the
> > workplace so that leaders and managers were meant to
> > stand in control as objective observers outside the
> > immediate system, which could be represented by the
> > mechanistic metaphor in that the organisation was seen
> > as a machine and the employees parts of that machine
> > (Hatch, 1997).
> >
> > The three main systemic theory strands - general
> > systems theory (Boulding, 1956; von Bertalanffy,
> > 1968), cybernetics (Ashby, 1945; Ashby, 1952; Ashby,
> > 1956; Beer, 1979; Beer, 1981; Wiener, 1948), and
> > systems dynamics (Forrester, 1958; Forrester, 1961;
> Forrester, 1969;
> > Goodwin, 1951; Philips, 1950; Tustin,
> > 1953) - developed over the course of the 20th Century
> > and as the whole system came to be understood as more
> > than the sum of the parts, attention was also placed
> > on the interaction of subsystems in the way they
> > formed systems, and in the way systems formed
> > suprasystems (Stacey, 2003a).
> >
> > These views were adopted and integrated into
> > organisational theory.
> >
> > I then personally see Complexity Science (as a broad
> > label), as presenting a dilemma. On the one hand it
> > offers another set of theory which is coherent with
> > systems theories, but on the other hand it also makes
> > you stop and question them.
> >
> > I resolve this by accepting some ideas presented by
> > the theory of complex adaptive systems, but then
> > looking at the principles which stem from there (such
> > as self-organisation and emergence, edge of chaos,
> > diversity, etc etc), and trying to make sense of their meaning and
> > implications somehow according to the way Stacey proposes in his
> > complex responsive processes of relating (CRPR). CRPR isn't
> a systems
> > based theory, it's a process based theory, based on a temporal
> > metaphor, not a spatial one. Stacey argues that this
> > resolves problems with boundaries (which don't exist
> > in 'reality') between social and individual.
> >
> > It's my feeling that this view offers a lot of food
> > for thought and really challenges the way a lot of us perceive
> > complexity science and then what it means.
> >
> > All comments welcome! Looking forward to developing
> > this conversation further...
> >
> > Best wishes, Carol
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kb-complexity mailing list Kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> > http://list.knowledgeboard.com/mailman/listinfo/kb-complexity
> >
> >
> > End of Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 6
> > *******************************************
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:52:18 +0000
> From: Eileen Conn <e.conn@nutbrook.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Kb-complexity] RE: Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 6
> To: "KnowledgeBoard: Complexity group mailing list"
> <kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com>
> Message-ID: <mslQoAIixxEEFw9G@nutbrook.demon.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Hi Glenda
>
> I too work in the not-for-profit world. Roughly how many of
> the people
> involved in the case you mention knew about complex systems
> ideas, and
> was bringi9ng in that knowledge part of the project? And what
> was your
> role?
>
> I am interested in the extent to which that knowledge and way of
> thinking was a factor in the emergence of the processes you mention.
>
> Eileen
>
> .In message <002a01c64516$17e41b20$d818f518@yourus67pi6luv>, Glenda
> Eoyang <geoyang@hsdinstitute.org> writes
> >Carol,
> >
> >Thanks for your historical view. It does help to give ourselves
> >context as we wrestle with these difficult questions.
> Within this historical context,
> >I take a slightly different view. I see complexity as
> providing us ways to
> >think and talk about the paradoxes of being/not being and
> knowing/not
> >knowing that were not resolved by Kant, but documented by him in his
> >his antinomies (http://www.friesian.com/antinom.htm). Through the
> >methods and metaphors of complexity, we can begin to engage
> >productively to talk about, understand, and act across the
> messy lines
> >of finite and infinite space and time; parts and wholes; freedom and
> >causality; necessity and accident. Rather than needing to separate
> >neumenal from phenomenal, process from entity, part from
> whole, I think
> >complexity lets us explore each in the context of the other
> to enrich
> >our options for understanding and taking action in both.
> >
> >Here's an example. . .
> >A non-profit I work with thought they were going to get
> about $100,000
> >for a planning grant for a $5,000,000 project. A pattern of
> >consideration and decision making emerged that included the
> positional
> >and technical leaders within the organization. Who they
> were, what the
> >challenge was, and how they related to each other shaped their
> >decisions, actions, and outcomes. Over time, the project conditions
> >changed--more money became available for planning, more for program,
> >media coverage expanded, the vision became global and crossed
> >insititutional and disciplinary lines, relationships developed, the
> >parent company was acquired, and so on. All of this happened in the
> >space of six months. Individually and collectively, as the project
> >definition shifted, so did the relationships and structures that
> >provided infrastructure for the emerging conversation. The
> group did
> >not see it as breaking old patterns and forming new ones.
> They didn't
> >talk about their reality changing. They didn't worry about what was
> >true and for how long. They recognized they were working in
> a complex,
> >self-organizing system and they used simple, iterative questions to
> >shape their work together: What happened? So, what does it
> mean to us
> >and this work? Now what should we do about it?
> >
> >Complexity allowed them to enter their knowing/being as a dance with
> >each other, with their collective and individual pasts, and emerging
> >environmental factors. Kantian distinctions became irrelevant, I
> >think, as this adaptive engagement emerged. I think we were
> working in
> >a different dynamical space. Maybe not. What do you think?
> >
> >Glenda
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: kb-complexity-bounces@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >> [mailto:kb-complexity-bounces@list.knowledgeboard.com] On
> Behalf Of
> >> kb-complexity-request@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 7:01 PM
> >> To: kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >> Subject: Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 6
> >>
> >>
> >> Send Kb-complexity mailing list submissions to
> >> kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >>
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >> http://list.knowledgeboard.com/mailman/listinfo/kb-complexity
> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >> kb-complexity-request@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> kb-complexity-owner@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >>
> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> >> than "Re: Contents of Kb-complexity digest..."
> >>
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> >> 1. Scientific Method --> Kant --> Systems Theories...? (Carol
> >> Webb)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 04:21:06 -0800 (PST)
> >> From: Carol Webb <carolwebb75@yahoo.com>
> >> Subject: [Kb-complexity] Scientific Method --> Kant --> Systems
> >> Theories...?
> >> To: kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >> Message-ID: <20060310122106.37261.qmail@web51801.mail.yahoo.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >>
> >> Dear All
> >>
> >> Continuing the thread of conversation on systems
> >> thinking etc, for me I have to go back and consider
> >> all this in the light of 'where we came from'
> >> theoretically speaking, and this includes considering
> >> again what we think we understand by rationality, the scientific
> >> method, Kant, systems thinking and theories from there,
> and then how
> >> you integrate this with organisational theory and an
> understanding of
> >> complexity science.
> >>
> >> The concept of 'rationality' was central to the
> >> scientific method, which arose in the context of the 'scientific
> >> revolution' in the 17th Century backlash against religious
> doctrine
> >> and dogma, which had, until then, dominated as the major
> resource for
> >> understanding the laws of nature. The scientific method had
> >> particular implications for the sciences of physics,
> astronomy, and
> >> philosophy, which then began to emphasise the role of the
> individual
> >> scientist in a capacity of objective observer, formulating and
> >> testing what were predominantly causal hypotheses on the governing
> >> laws of nature. Divergent schools of thought based on
> >> differing epistemological and ontological perspectives arose
> >> out of this endeavour. These included dogmatic rationalism,
> >> or, the realist scientific perspective, and, radical
> >> scepticism. In dogmatic rationalism, or, the realist
> >> scientific perspective, reasoning individuals were seen to be
> >> able to formulate hypotheses based on the nature of an
> >> existing external reality that can be reliably observed as
> >> truth. This was understood to be perceived through the mind,
> >> the body, and its senses. In radical scepticism, proponents
> >> suggested that all knowledge was relative and unreliable
> >> because the mind was held to impose an order of its own on
> >> the sensations coming from the external real world through a
> >> series of accidental, repeat connections. In this sense,
> >> intelligibility was perceived as reflecting the habits of
> >> mind rather than the nature of reality. This pointed to the
> >> constructed, relative and plural nature of accounts of the
> >> world in which there is no truth, only many different stories
> >> of equal worth (Stacey, 2003a).
> >>
> >> Kant then bridged these two perspectives through the dualistic
> >> postulation of his transcendental idealism in which he held that
> >> while we know what we know through sensations coming from the real
> >> world - or, that we know reality through the capacity of the mind,
> >> the mind also imposes some kind of order on this sense
> >> data so that we cannot know reality in a direct manner
> >> - or, the categories through which we know are given
> >> outside our direct experiences. This dualistic
> >> postulation, Stacey (2003a) argues, justified the
> >> scientific method and enabled Kant to develop a
> >> systems theory in which the development of nature
> >> could be explained with a theory of formative
> >> causality, and human action could be explained with
> >> rationalist causality. In later systems theories,
> >> reports Stacey, individuals became conceptually
> >> designated as parts in a system called a group,
> >> organisation, or society, where systemic phenomena had
> >> to be explained from the perspective of an individual
> >> outside the system - a system being a whole separated
> >> by a boundary from other systems, with an inside and
> >> an outside. Retrospectively, this systemic perspective
> >> has been associated with a mechanistic metaphor
> >> (Hatch, 1997), complementary with reductionist
> >> science, where a unit of analysis, or phenomena of
> >> interest, was seen as the sum of its parts, and where
> >> the focus was on the nature of the part rather than on
> >> the interactions between them (Stacey, 2003a). How
> >> this perspective made its way into recent
> >> organisational and management theory is seen in terms
> >> of developments that took place in science in general
> >> and in scientific management in particular over the
> >> course of the 20th century.
> >>
> >> The mechanistic metaphor and reductionist approach was
> embraced by
> >> early proponents of scientific management (Taylor, 1911; Fayol,
> >> 1916). Scientific management inherited the same philosophical
> >> assumptions as the scientific method and transferred them to the
> >> workplace so that leaders and managers were meant to
> >> stand in control as objective observers outside the
> >> immediate system, which could be represented by the
> >> mechanistic metaphor in that the organisation was seen
> >> as a machine and the employees parts of that machine
> >> (Hatch, 1997).
> >>
> >> The three main systemic theory strands - general
> >> systems theory (Boulding, 1956; von Bertalanffy,
> >> 1968), cybernetics (Ashby, 1945; Ashby, 1952; Ashby,
> >> 1956; Beer, 1979; Beer, 1981; Wiener, 1948), and
> >> systems dynamics (Forrester, 1958; Forrester, 1961;
> Forrester, 1969;
> >> Goodwin, 1951; Philips, 1950; Tustin,
> >> 1953) - developed over the course of the 20th Century
> >> and as the whole system came to be understood as more
> >> than the sum of the parts, attention was also placed
> >> on the interaction of subsystems in the way they
> >> formed systems, and in the way systems formed
> >> suprasystems (Stacey, 2003a).
> >>
> >> These views were adopted and integrated into
> >> organisational theory.
> >>
> >> I then personally see Complexity Science (as a broad
> >> label), as presenting a dilemma. On the one hand it
> >> offers another set of theory which is coherent with
> >> systems theories, but on the other hand it also makes
> >> you stop and question them.
> >>
> >> I resolve this by accepting some ideas presented by
> >> the theory of complex adaptive systems, but then
> >> looking at the principles which stem from there (such
> >> as self-organisation and emergence, edge of chaos, diversity, etc
> >> etc), and trying to make sense of their meaning and implications
> >> somehow according to the way Stacey proposes in his complex
> >> responsive processes of relating (CRPR). CRPR isn't a
> systems based
> >> theory, it's a process based theory, based on a temporal
> >> metaphor, not a spatial one. Stacey argues that this
> >> resolves problems with boundaries (which don't exist
> >> in 'reality') between social and individual.
> >>
> >> It's my feeling that this view offers a lot of food
> >> for thought and really challenges the way a lot of us perceive
> >> complexity science and then what it means.
> >>
> >> All comments welcome! Looking forward to developing
> >> this conversation further...
> >>
> >> Best wishes, Carol
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Do You Yahoo!?
> >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Kb-complexity mailing list Kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >> http://list.knowledgeboard.com/mailman/listinfo/kb-complexity
> >>
> >>
> >> End of Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 6
> >> *******************************************
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Kb-complexity mailing list Kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> >http://list.knowledgeboard.com/mailman/listinfo/kb-complexity
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release
> Date: 10/03/06
> >
>
> --
> Eileen Conn
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release
> Date: 10/03/06
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:36:34 -0500
> From: Warren Linds <w.linds@sasktel.net>
> Subject: [Kb-complexity] OPen systems theory and complexity theory
> To: kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> Message-ID: <145cbfb170b6.4412fc92@sasktel.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7
>
> I have been reading Fred Emery and Trist's article from 1965
> called The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments
> F.E. Emery and E.L. Trist, ¡The causal texture of
> organizational environments¢, Human Relations, vol.18 (1965),
> pp. 21-32. . At first reading it seems like they are
> writing here from a complexity perspective. Anyone out there
> familiar with open systems theory? Any idea about how OST is
> different or overlaps ro draws from or influences complexity
> theory. Is it just from a different (organizational
> development) perspective whereas complexity theory comes from
> the sciences? Thanks.
>
> Warren Linds
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kb-complexity mailing list Kb-complexity@list.knowledgeboard.com
> http://list.knowledgeboard.com/mailman/listinfo/kb-complexity
>
>
> End of Kb-complexity Digest, Vol 1, Issue 7
> *******************************************
>