Emerging pattern from simple rules are often created by a complex adaptive system. Both an organization and an individual are a complex adaptive systems. These systems have schema which are used to filter incoming information (Gell-Mann, 1995). The purpose of the schema is to compress the incoming information and to look for regularities which fit the schema. Information which does not fit the schema may be either disregarded or used to change the schema. The adaptation of the schema to fit the new data may be difficult or easy, instantaneous or delayed. The individuals and organizations are defined as complex because the schema is the set of simple rules from which they perform routine tasks that often lead to complex behaviors.
The adaptation arises when the schema is changes, therefore the simple rules of the system are changed. As these rules change the emergent behavior also changes. Emergent behaviors of complex adaptive systems interact with each other in a manner in which each person's behavior is information to another person's schema. Each person's schema are the basic assumptions one carries with them. These assumptions change as the context one lives and works in changes. To create knowledge, the learning that takes place from others and the skills shared with others need to be internalized -- that is, reformed, enriched and translated to fit the company's [and the individual's] self-image and self-identity (Nonaka, 1995). As enough experiences (that do not fit well with the dominate schema) are gained by a person the recessive schema adapts and may take the place of the dominate schema. This is yet another layer of models of the learning organization within the individual and the organization. There exist dominate and recessive schema to both the structural and cultural schema from which the individuals and organizations act. These layers are not meant to be labels for a taxonomy of the learning organization, but as interfacial boundaries from which difference in principles and rules may reside, and the dissonance in these boundaries helps hold and create the creative tension necessary for the development of new knowledge and understanding.
The structural and the cultural principals in a learning organization may be seen as analogous to the "simple rules" of complex adaptive system. The principles of the organization will change only as a function of how well they serve the outcomes of the organization. What is most likely to change is the application of these principles in the "real world." The operation of a learning organization from a set of fundamental principles used in context of the organization and its operation, instead of a set of rules that dictate the operation of the organization is the equivalent of setting boundaries for a person in which to perform a task instead of giving them the recipe to do the task. Principles are sometimes difficult to translate into rule-based strategies. If one were to choose open-communication as a principle, then the rate and flow of information passed through those lines of communication would be dependent upon the people's judgment who were passing on or requesting information. If open-communication were the rule of the organization, then people would be working against the organization if they were not passing along information to those who requested it, even if the information was not appropriate to pass along. A principle relies upon the good judgment of the individuals participating in the system. A rule forces individuals to be dualistic about their actions within an organization. One is either playing by the rules or they are not. The application of rules does not allow for the creative tension between the context in which the individual is interfacing with the organization and attempting to collaborate and cooperate with an organization to help produce the intended outcomes.
A learning organization exists within the interaction of these two perspectives. The creative tension between the individual and the organization viewing the other as a resource which can be developed for the 'advancement of the other' creates the boundaries of the relationship. If either one loosens the creative tension (e.g., no value is seen as being added by the other), then the vitality of the relationship decrease and the relationship may disintegrate. If either one tightens the creative tension too much (e.g. demands that value be added by the other to one; or an uncomfortable amount or degree of demands are placed upon one by the other), then the power differential kills the creative tensions and the relationship becomes one of command-and-control.
Other resources that keep the creative tension present and dynamic between the individual and the organization are:
In order to have a complex adaptive organization, the individuals participating in the organization must also be complex and adaptive. The learning organization requires a differently focused definition of individuation (the idea of knowing who one is, the distinction between that and what is going on outside of oneself, and being aware of the possible choices available for the interactions between the two.) It is not the idea of the subjective and the objective, but the importance of the interfacial relationship between oneself and the organization AND the importance of the interfacial relationship between the plethora of roles one carries inside oneself. (Bermudez, 1993) Those roles are a mixture of the internal and external realms in which the individual resides/operates. The individual has the ability to project themselves into external situations, and then re-internalize the expected external environmental results. The outcomes is a layering of projection upon projection of the individual acting in conjunction with others. This layering process allows nodes of potential interface to emerge (possibly before one ever encounters the actual situation).
Human Development focuses on each individual and the personal interface with an organization and the roles an individual plays within the organization. The individual as a learning organization interfacing with others who are also individual learning organizations each with their own unique personal culture. Larger collectives of people are scalar representations of individual learning organizations.
In his book, Developing Critical Thinkers, Stephen Brookfield shares his view on how teachers can help develop adult learners into critical and creative thinkers. He views a large difference the manner which teachers think about teaching and learning, and the way they actually do teach. By opening up the university as a large learning center with no unidirectional path of learning, except an individual's own plan, human and software mentors to guide one and a group to work with which to work closely, faculty will have to open themselves up to teaching at every opportunity and not rely on the classroom lecture as the main source of student learning. The creation of learning team, or value-additive teams is allows knowledge to be produced and learning systems to be created for all levels of the educational organization:
Teams play a central role in the knowledge-creating company because they provide a shared context where individuals can interact with each other and engage in constant dialogue on which effective relationship depends. Team members create new points of view through dialogue and discussion. They pool their information and examine it from various angles. Eventually, they integrate their diverse individual perspective into a new collective perspective. (Nonaka, 1995)This dialogue can only happen when all participants in the learning organization are willing to (and do) probe their own assumptions about learning, and their perspective on the content / system being developed. This is often difficult to do unless one resides in an encouraging atmosphere, one in which all ideas are open to discussion. Once these underlying assumptions are brought to light, the learner, and teachers are ready to proceed. When one is open to learning new ideas and challenging old assumptions, feelings of perplexity, confusion or frustration on their [the learners] part can also be mixed with an innate fascination.
The reflection of these ideas (both new and old) leads to "creative chaos" whereas, without reflection it becomes "destructive chaos." Schön captures this key point as follows: "When someone reflects while in action, he becomes a researcher in the practical context. he is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case." (Nonaka, 1995)It is not easy to live on the edge of confusion and knowledge, but it is at this interface that one can decide where to go next with a project, or even be open to new opportunities.
What is found to be most important in developing networked groups of people is to have them be prepared to participate in reflection of their own actions and respect the difference in the actions of others. Agyris and Schon describe this process as Model II Learning. In contrast, Model I learning is often characterized by persons who prefer to hold on to their old belief systems, even in the face of contradicting evidence. Model I learners frequently become defensive when asked to analyze their own methods of practice. In effect, people seem to act in ways that prevent them from learning about fundamental gaps between their intentions and actions. (Argyris, 1990). Ideas of networked, collaborative organizations come from people who are willing to look at the role they plan within a group or organization and are able to create new roles for themselves within the group as the group defines itself.
Networked organizations, both electronically and humanly, are rapidly transforming the way business and education is being performed today. The ease with which information can be transmitted from one person or group to another keeps increasing as the Internet and other electronic communications media (digital telephone, television and video) are invented.
The final dimensions of transformation is a new kind of internetworked enterprise that makes the virtual corporation look like child's play. We are on the threshold of a new digital economy in which the microprocessor and public networks on the Internet model enable fundamentally new kinds of institutional structures and relationships. The firm as we know it is breaking up. What's happening instead is this: effective individuals, working on high performance team structures; becoming integrated organizational networks of clients and servers; which reach out to customers and suppliers, affinity groups, and even competitors; which move onto the public Net, changing the way products and services are created, marketed and distributed (Tapscott, 1996).This model of the internetworked enterprise relies upon the interface of the human with the electronic. Human networks run in parallel to the electronic ones; it is sometime difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. The increasing use of agents in every field is blurring the line even more. However, enhancement of reflection due to the capabilities of technology to do computation information retrieval increases the effectiveness of the individual.
Bermudez, J. (1993) Interfacial Education Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota.
Brookfield, S. (1987) Developing Critical Thinkers San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Chawla, S. ed. (1995) Learning Organizations Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Fowler, J. and Keen, S. (1978) Life Maps. Waco, TX: Winston Press.
Gell-Mann, M. (1995) The Quark and the Jaguar. NY: Wm. H. Freeman and Company.
Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos: Making A New Science NY: Penguin Books.
Harkins, A. and Winer-Cyr, M. (1992) "Knowledge Base Learning" St. Paul, MN: Saturn Insititue.
Kelly, K. (1994) Out of Control Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching Routledge.
Levy, S. (1992) Artificial Life NY: Pantheon Press.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company NY: Oxford University Press.
Parker, M. (1990) Creating Shared Vision. IL: Dialog International Ltd.
Richardson, G. (1991) Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Schon, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner SF: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D.A. (1996) "Scholarship-In-Action" Change
Senge, P. (1992) The Fifth Discipline NY: Doubleday Books.
Senge, P., et.al (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook NY: Doubleday Books.
Stacey, R. (1995) "Creativity in Organizations" University of Hertforshire, Professional Lecture Series, 8 June.
Tapscott, D. (1996) The Digital Economy NY: MacGraw-Hill.
Wheately, M. (1992) Leadership and the New Science San Francisco: Barrett-Kohler.
Yates, F. E. (1987) Self-Organizing System. NY: Plenum Press.
| Pointers to Abstract and Conference Presentation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract | Conference Presentation | Papers & posters in this theme | All Papers & posters | AusWeb96 Home Page |
AusWeb96 The Second Australian WorldWideWeb Conference ausweb96@scu.edu.au