Inkwell: Authors and Artists
Art Kleiner (art) Mon 1 Mar 04 00:21
L.P., thank you very much for the compliments - and the questions. I'm also agnostic on Myers-Briggs. I once heard Elliot Jaques describe it as astrology for managers, and the image has stuck with me. (I've gotten in trouble by saying as much.) I also don't want to identify any particular "Core Group type" -- because I think they vary so much from organization to organization. I guess you could do a Myers-Briggs profile of a Core Group and the organization, and you'd probably find some distinctions. The same would be true of a Human Dynamics (mentally, physically, emotionally centered) profile or a kinesthetic-visual-verbal profile, or birth family order, or what-have-you. Again, I'm not quite sure how it would play out....
Art Kleiner (art) Mon 1 Mar 04 00:27
Ron, I couldn't agree more with everything in #23. Your throwaway line, "Don't ask me how I know this!" makes me curious to know more about the circumstances under which you decided to leave one place (I assume)... just curious,.... Getting corporate people to tell stories about themselves... I especially agree with that.... I don't know Po Bronson's book. I've heard of it, of course, but I haven't read it. One of the things I'm supposed to write about next (for Strategy + Business) is the "community nature of innovation" -- based on Andrew Hargadon's work. But also looking more generically. Does Silicon Valley thrive because it attracts smart people or because it fosters a community among them? Or are those reinforcing? (I am not sure they are; lots of places attract smart people without having much of a community in them.)
Woody Liswood (woody) Mon 1 Mar 04 04:31
Hi Art: I've got a question for you that is less about the book but about your thoughts on the future. Some context: I'm here in Hong Kong and have been teaching a graduate class about Human Resource technology and where HR is headed for the future. One of the conversations that developed was about Organizatgional Behavior and what was the most current research and thinking. I recommend that they read, as I always do, The Age of Heretics, and, now, Who Really Matters. I also recommend that they read "The Ropes to Skip and the Ropes to Know" by Ritti & Funkhouser. But, in my thinking, I've not seen much come out of academia about how organizations are developing for the future since Senge did his original work. Where are you on the future of Organizational Behavior -- as we teach it in school and as it might be used as a tactical item in supervision and management? I ask this because, as I read your new book, I keep thinking that you have really said that the culture of the organizatgion is the most important part of understanding the organization and that you have identified something many of us have thought about but not put into writing quite the way you have done.
Sharon Lynne Fisher (slf) Mon 1 Mar 04 04:31
Astrology for managers is a great term.
Art Kleiner (art) Mon 1 Mar 04 05:37
Well, there are really two questions: What we know for sure about the future of organizations and what kinds of organizations we might want to create in the future. Let me start with the "future" issue that most people think of first: Will hierarchies persist? Tom Malone, Shoshana Zuboff and a few others have argued fervently that hierarchies are on their way out; that the Internet (and other advances) will make conventional command-and-control structures fade out, like unto dinosaurs. I'm unconvinced. I buy what Elliot Jaques demonstrated: That the hierarchy, at some level, fits with human nature. So it will continue. But I buy some other things too. 1. The number of organizations is doubling roughly every 25 years. In the US, at least. Worldwide, I'd guess it's at least the same rate, but I don't know of any statistics on the subject. This, to me, is incredibly significant. It means the employment picture is significantly different now from the way it was when I graduated from college, in 1975. Why is "business" more acceptable as a career than it was back in, say, 1967? Because people can be in the Core Group more easily in business than they can in most government agencies. And they can get into it more directly. 2) The lines between government agencies, non-profits, and for-profit corporations are blurring more and more. And they'll continue to blur. Philip Bobbitt points out that the private contractors that came to Iraq are the wave of future in all military endeavors. Peter Drucker argues that the nature of organizations in all these arenas is basically the same. In my view, they all amplify human activity in the same way. 3) Organizations will have more diverse core groups. Finally. Demographics suggest as much. There just aren't enough "older white men with executive-style hair" to fill all the executive slots. Diversity will mean serious diversity -- people crossing the boundary of professional closeness, if not personal intimacy. I know that just about every significant experience I've had of friendship with someone from a different racial background has come about through work, and I THINK the same is true for many people (except for those closely involved with an intermarriage.) Therefore, there will be two great "have and have not" barriers in our culture (and, increasingly, in global culture.) The first will be: Can you get a ticket into a job in an organization? The second will be: Can you get into the core group of a legitimate organization? The way things are going right now, there are a lot of people who could not answer yes to either question. 4. The size of significant organizations, on average, will probably come down. In the class I teach on the future of the infrastructure, there's a recurring scenario we call "Dinosaurs and Mammals" -- the big get bigger, but there's always lots of smaller ones. I think there is enormous pressure on middle-sized organizations (which are, after all, major acquisition targets) but I do not necessarily buy the argument that they disappear. I just think there will be many more small organizations, proportionately.... 5. The big question is: Will organizations mature? That, to me, depends on the question: Will Core Groups mature? Will they start looking out for the longer-term consequences of their actions? There are signs that the answer is yes, in some isolated cases. But what I don't know is: Will the structural pressures on organizations shift to encourage more long-term thinking? By structural pressures, I mean the shareholder structure, and the governance structures, and the laws, and the culture, and the demographic factors that influence organizations, and the range of technologies... I don't know whether these will change, but I think the PERCEPTION OF A NEED for organizational maturity has never been so strong, and I think it's getting stronger. For example: Donor organizations are pumping money into Africa right now -- on a project by project basis -- to fund initiatives for dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis there. But do the organizations have the maturity to recognize what each other is doing, or to build and maintain the necessary long-range infrastructure (such as the presence of clinics and staff) needed to make some treatments and prevention measures effective? Do they have the presence of mind to seek out and incorporate learning from those who are unlike themselves? I'm not sure. I do believe the organizations which can foster a longer-term outlook will thrive. But I can't prove that, either. If history is any judge, to really build a sustained enterprise, you have to have a commitment to long-term outlook -- and you have to place the right bets.
Joe Flower (bbear) Mon 1 Mar 04 09:38
Excellent set of thoughts, Art. Let me comment on the last one: Will organizations mature? I have to say, "I don't think so." Your thesis is valuable to the extent that it identifies organizational behaviors and shows how they arise out of behaviors that are basic to human nature. This can be an extremely valuable lens with which to look at organizations. But it also suggests that there are limits to how much organizations can "mature." Some factors (new technologies especially come to mind) may introduce new constraints that change behavior at the margins (viz. the way the prevalance of amateur video cameras may have put a damper on public police brutality). But the underlying urges (for simplicity, for clear direction, for competition and self-preservation) that give arise to core organizational behaviors will not change.
from CHRIS MACRAE (tnf) Mon 1 Mar 04 11:36
Chris Macrae writes: My co-authors and I have been researching the mathematical system dynamics of goodwill (aka valuing intangibles) for 5 years. Personally, I entirely agree with Art Kleiner's diagnosis of the 3 greatest lies corporations tell about caring for customer, employee and owner value. To restore governance of corporations to serve everyone, we have ten value multiplier coordinates most simply mapped as paired relationships of productivity and demand. On the demand exchange, ask the leader of the organisation, which of these 5 stakeholders' greatest non-monetary needs are you prepared to be wholly accountable to ensuring its priority of delivery is what the gravity of the company's win-win communal purpose revolves around: employees, customers, long-term owners, business networked organisations, societies at different global localities? On the productivity side, ask this simplified 3-way question: as well as hierarchy is your organsaition designed to transparently multiply the productivity of at least one 'preneurial segment (be these teams, personal networks, practice communities) and at least one boundary to and from another networked organisation. If the leader stutters on any of those 8 connections with value multiplication, I would suggest distancing yourself from that organisation in whatever stakeholder ways you and your networks of friends can. Because its in the process of spinning value destruction of goodwill, in all value compounding likelihood it will catch a terminal ilness within the next 3 years. Art is clearly already modelling the demand side. The reason why we connect the productivity side too can be illustrated by this query: how many global coporations do you know of that suffer from the productivity cancer of valuing the strategy and pay of the top 30 people more that all the knowledge, productivity and value service of the other 29970? Chris Macrae www.valuetrue.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Art Kleiner (art) Mon 1 Mar 04 11:55
Whoa, Chris -- You say you model this mathematically? I didn't quite get what the "eight connections with value multiplication" are.... I am looking forward to reading more about your work. My own efforts to deal with the "production" side are in a chapter of Who Really Matters that hasn't yet come up in this conference: "A Core Group Way of Knowledge." It's the chapter on the "Integrated Learning Base," a concept I cribbed (with credit) from the Harvard Business School historian Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. Essentially, every Core Group has an impact on the organization's capabilities -- through the way it pays attention to the knowledge and capabilities of people throughout the organization.
Art Kleiner (art) Mon 1 Mar 04 11:57
Joe, I too am skeptical about whether organizations will mature. But it raises an interesting question: What is the appropriate speed with which we should expect an organization to mature? Faster than, or slower than, the maturation rate of a human being?
from PAOLO MARENCO (tnf) Mon 1 Mar 04 15:14
Paolo Marenco writes: very interesting and exiting the debate on yr book, Art. I come to it from Chris , from our KB ( Knowledge management board). I want to submit to you this simplification of human being, in every sector, and probably in every country. To me the Human being is substancially divided in two categories: persons who have as a goal the public( general, common) interest, first ; persons who have as a goal the own personal interest . I recognize yr Core groups- that really exists , I found in my life of innovation manager and consultant in Italy- in the second category ( widing the sense of personal interest) I'm convinced that the wellness of all the planet ( South plus north) will increase if the organizations( business but also politics) will mature in a sense to be ,to act, the majority in the first category. How can we move in this sense the world? I think that there is a sort of capacity to go up from the bottom when you reach it, after a very dark period , it comes a clear one and so on. Probably technology will help us to increase the average - well being, passing from a bottom to a top. Today I have the possibility to Know you and many other people and circulate good ideas. When we went out from the middle School in the seventies these possibilities were quite absent, or more difficult. Important is to share Knowledge and push open-thinking, against private-core group interest... my best regards paolo marenco www.storianelfuturo.org www.ruvaris.it http://members.xoom.it/swanhouse
Gerry Feeney (gerry) Mon 1 Mar 04 15:35
Art, would you say that the current management craze over "metrics" (to measure employee performance) is an extension of the "Welchism" that you describe in your book?
Art Kleiner (art) Mon 1 Mar 04 19:38
Paolo, thank you. Two quibbles: I think most people have altruistic and selfish impulses.... And I think we've learned that technological change will not be sufficient for organizations to mature. Necessary, perhaps. But not sufficient. That was one of the lessons of the "reengineering" craze. Gerry, I have a chapter called "doggie treats" in my book to deal with metrics and performance measures. I believe that most of the time, these are communication devices designed primarily for three purposes: 1. Getting people to work harder; 2. Making it seem like everyone knows what is going on; 3. Saving wear and tear on the attention of the Core Group. Sigh.
jane hirshfield (jh) Mon 1 Mar 04 22:08
Just a bit of side praise here--Art, I really appreciate the flexibility and humility of your answers here, along with their thoughtfulness. It's been interesting even to a person who hangs out as far from these kinds of structures as society permits, at least on an organizational as opposed to a social level.
Rip Van Winkle (keta) Tue 2 Mar 04 05:58
Hi Art, I agree with <jh> - there's a quality to your attention and approach to answering that carries a lesson of its own. I'd like to ask if there is any sort of related "Who DOESN'T Matter" evolving group consensus that you've looked at?
Douglas Weinfield (bumbaugh) Tue 2 Mar 04 07:51
Douglas Weinfield writes: I've been struggling with my response to "Who Really Matters" since I first read it, just after it came out. I think, beyond all the "back book cover endorsements" that it is a breakthrough - it begins to capture some of the emotion-laden aspects of organizational life and provide conceptual frames so that we can perceive them, discuss them, dance more elegantly and playfully with them. That's as much of a breakthrough as anything in "Good to Great" or "Innovator's Dilemma." In my judgement, less sexy, less analytical, and just as much a breakthrough. I'm trying to be careful here neither to damn with faint praise nor to overpraise. There are few books I keep; this is a keeper. I also have a number of problems with "Who Really Matters." Some of my problems are literally my problems-similarly to Joe, I've rarely or never been in a Core Group, and I have some prejudices against them - that Core Groups misuse power and other resources, that Core Groups bring us wars and other forms of misery that would be much less or non-existant in the absence of Core Groups. Again, this is my prejudice-I believe there is some accuracy to it, but it feels mostly like a prejudice in the form I stated it. But this is like shooting the messenger, no? Core Groups are there, Art is opening our eyes to their existence, and this is good. Arguably, what really bothers me about Core Groups is what I would call dysfunctional Core Groups-ones that do misuse power and other resources, that eat their seed corn, that pollute their organization with bad emotions, bad leadership, or other bad behaviors. The one significant concern I have grows from my reading of "Who Really Matters" as presenting a perspective that is so highly appealing to Core Group members. I mean, after reading "Who Really Matters," who wouldn't want to be in a Core Group? Imagine that you're in a Core Group. "I've got a multi-celled organism where the cells are human beings, and their primary goal is to love me! As a result of their love, I get incredible material and emotional benefits that most of us never get. And the book tells me that this situation, which rewards me so handsomely, is arguably necessary for the advancement of humanity. Hey, I'm at the evolutionary apex! " >The part I never realized before is this: > >Who Really Matters is, in a way, a defense of organizations. Much of >the book is right with you, Esau -- saying that, in a well-functioning >organization, you can have a highly fulfilled career whether you're in >the Core Group or not. So, why do organizations need a defense? Who's attacking them? What happens if the attackers succeed? What happens if the attackers fail? A concern I have here, Art, is that you may not be sufficiently distinguishing between a normative perspective and a descriptive perspective. I think this is closer to the bullseye than the "tautological" criticism. Let give a little context here to clarify. For instance, I judge that NY Times columnist Tom Friedman confuses the normative and the descriptive all the time. In the "Lexus and the Olive Tree," for example, he describes the oncoming "Market World" in which the decisions made by many economic actors, including individual consumers and investors, will drive countries to more or less the conventional IMF recipe for economic success. Friedman presents this as "just the way the world is." Many reviewers have said, and I agree with them, that Friedman is actually inserting his normative preferences for what he thinks will be a good world into a purportedly descriptive statement. How does this relate to "Who Really Matters"? My concern, Art, is that you are blurring the distinction between "Core Groups are important to the way the organizations I have observed work" and "Core Groups are inescapably fundamental to organizations' success." (I'm exaggerating to clarify the distinction). I guess I wonder how much "Who Really Matters" grows from your work with companies and organizations you work with and their Core Groups, and how much it is shaped by that work, and and I wonder what it sacrifices, if anything, in order to present a perspective which I perceive as highly appealing to Core Groups. It's been a while since I read "Who Really Matters," but my recollection is that it had abundant amounts of information on how to succeed in an organization vis a vis the Core Group, but had less on how the Core Group can itself be successful. This points me towards what is most poignant for me about "Who Really Matters." I want more. I want more about what distinguishes a good Core Group from a bad Core Group. I want to know what makes a Core Group a good Core Group in terms of its own organization, and in terms of the other organizations with which it interacts, and in terms of other stakeholders-communities, regions, countries, the world. There is undoubtedly a place for a "The Prince" about organizations. What I want, and what i believe the world needs, is a "Discourses" about organizations. -- Douglas Weinfield www.jdresume.com
Art Kleiner (art) Tue 2 Mar 04 08:00
Whew. First of all, Jane and Keta, thanks for the compliments. They're powerfully appreciated. Keta: Do you mean, are there people who are systematically ignored or put down because everyone (all decision-makers) collude in doing so? As I say, whew. That idea never occurred to me. My first instinctive response is to say, "Of course." It would help explain why people get scapegoated. Or as Robert Fuller puts it in Somebodies and Nobodies, people aren't scapegoated because they're of a different race or gender or creed; racism and sexism and other "isms" exist as a manifestation of the basic human need to single out somebody as beneath the rest. If that is truly part of human nature, then what does one do about it? Do you condone it -- simply say, "Well, it's part of human nature, so we've got to learn to live with it?" Or do you condemn it, and take the stance of either quixotic perpetual fighting, or else "being a victim?" None of these responses seem particularly appealing, at least to me. Which brings us to Douglas's question...
Art Kleiner (art) Tue 2 Mar 04 08:10
OK, I paraphrase Douglas' question this way: By articulating the idea of Core Groups, and showing how much power they have, aren't we reinforcing their self-satisfaction and potential for abuse? I like your distinction between -- a "descriptive" point ("Core Groups are important to the way the organizations I have observed work") or, perhaps, more blatantly: ("Core Groups are the way they are, and we'd better see them as they are.") and a "normative" point ("Core Groups are inescapably fundamental to organizations' success.") and again, more blatantly... ("Core Groups are the way they are, and we'd better get used to it, because it's historically inevitable and it ain't going to change.") First of all, I'm not sure that I buy that ANYTHING is historically inevitable until it happened. The World Wide Web is historically inevitable now (for instance), but it sure wasn't in 1992. (I know you didn't raise this, but it seems implicit...) My own way of dealing with this dilemma was to say, Core Group structures do seem built into the nature of organizations, but there's no guarantees of what kind of Core Group an organization will have. And great Core Groups, while they may not be fundamental to an organization's success, make a tremendous difference to the organization in the long run. How do you know a Great Core Group when you see it? Well, I sort of dance around that question. I have some ideas about it, but for me it's like asking, "how do you know a great person when you see one?" You have to develop your capacity to see. That's why I didn't write "Discourses." It's a great idea, and I've been contemplating a book, or maybe a web site, called, "In Search of Great Core Groups." Then I could fall into the same fallacy that Tom Peters fell into -- the temptation to freeze a judgment about a living system into print. I know... what alternative is there?
from WCBN009 (tnf) Tue 2 Mar 04 09:10
WCBN009 writes: > One of the things that most frightens me about core group theory is: it > seems to warn us about the likely consequences of globalisation where more > and more power seems to be in fewer and fewer big organisations' hands? If > we mix together core group theory and the pervasive connectiviness of net- > working technology, does it mean that George Orwell's Big Brother scenario > has become the most likely one we'll all end up with? Is there a way out > whilst Core Group theory dynamics explain what outcomes organisational sys- > tems are capable of?
Douglas Weinfield (bumbaugh) Tue 2 Mar 04 09:37
Doug responds: Art- You paraphrased my comments as: >By articulating the idea of Core Groups, and showing how much power >they have, aren't we reinforcing their self-satisfaction and potential >for abuse? That's not my point, or at least it's an incomplete rendition-as I noted in saying: >But this is like shooting the messenger, no? Core Groups are there, >Art is opening our eyes to their existence, and this is good. What I am saying is that by addressing Core Groups in the way you have - by, as best as I can tell, focusing on their positive aspects and benefits to the Core Group members, stating little about their negative impacts, stating little about how people move into or out of Core Groups, stating little about: what makes them functional or dysfunctional, what their roles should be, that "Who Really Matters" too much supports the position that the current status of Core Groups is just fine. That leads me back to the question I posed in my earlier post: "Who Really Matters" is in a way a defense of organizations. What are organizations being defended from? Who's attacking? What happens if the attacks succeed? What happens if the attacks fail? As to the issue of "How do you know a great Core Group (or person) when you see one?", for me, I first have to decide what "great" means - and for me, it's crucial that I do so. Even if it's hard, both the struggle and the results are enormously worthwhile. And it's fairly easy to identify a bad person -so, by mirroring, one can at least start to identify the characteristics of great. >How do you know a Great Core Group when you see it? Well, I sort of >dance around that question. I have some ideas about it, but for me >it's like asking, "how do you know a great person when you see one?" Art, i get that that's your experience of it. And, it is really unsatisfactory for me. If a person were to say to me, "You know, I've heard people talk about great people, but I've never understood what they're talking about," then I would believe that the concept isn't in your repertoire. But if a person were to say to me, "I know a great person when I spend some time with him or her, or read something, or gain data in another way," then I would believe that person hadn't thought it through. Yes, sometimes greatness is in the eye of the beholder. But it simultaneously in the brain and heart of the beholder, and discoverable by introspection or conversation or other means. What makes a great Core Group? Art, you're the expert - the world's leading expert. (Yes, with awesome powers come awesome responsibilities <grin>). I can think of lots of places to start. We could look at the characteristics of a great company, ala "Good to Great." We look to the psychological characteristics of a maturely individuated human being. We could look to the kinds of criteria historians use in identifying great leaders. Perhaps the most important questions in my judgment are "Great for what? Great to accomplish what ends?" Great at survival? - The cockroach species looks to be pretty good at that. Great at generating wealth? Enron was doing well at that for a while. Great at producing wonderful human beings? I thought that was the role of families and educational and spiritual organizations. Where I'm going with this is that there is no single factor, no single metric, that will identify great Core Groups; that multiple factors are required. My hunch is that there is an interacting or matrixed set of factors that could be identified with a reasonable amount of work -- and this forum could be a great place to start identifying! What do you think, Art? Best regards, Doug
Art Kleiner (art) Tue 2 Mar 04 13:16
Re #43 (David?) -- I think there's a vital difference between organizations - where core groups are appropriate -- and communities/societies -- where core group dynamics by their nature are probably abusive. Globalization to me is not necessarily a story of having more power in fewer hands. (It can be, but it doesn't have to be.) Nor is it a Core Group story per se. The way I like to think of it is: There's a coming governance crisis in the US and elsewhere. Corporations and other organizations (including government agencies) are driven by Core Group needs and priorities. These are immensely powerful institutions and agencies. But they exist in a larger society/community which should not be operating on behalf of Core Groups at all. Where is the governance structure that can manage THIS dilemma?
Art Kleiner (art) Tue 2 Mar 04 13:21
Re #44: Doug -- fair enough. Actually, I have begun to think about the factors that would constitute Great Core Groups. I name a couple of them at length in the book -- the "integrated learning base," and the ability to look ahead 50 years. There are certainly others. Doug, you're forcing me to live up to the courage of my convictions. There are two routes to an answer. I could wait until (like Jim Collins) I've spent $500,000 and five years on an in-depth research project to determine the results empirically. Or I could just say what I believe. Not having $500,000 or five years, I guess I've got to do the latter. ANd I will. Here, even. But not tonight. I mean, what qualities DO Great Core Groups have? In your experience?
Joe Flower (bbear) Tue 2 Mar 04 14:52
There is a fairly straightforward place to start from in judging a great organization: A great organization is one that well serves all its stakeholders over the long term. The problem with defining a great core group is quite different and more complex. It is almost inescapably tautological: a great core group would be one that is extremely good at accomplishing its ends, that is, the goals of the people that comprise the core group. So in this sense a great core group could be abusive to its environment and destructive to its organization, as long as it served its own ends. We could, of course, make up values by which to judge it from the outside. But that would not be descriptive, it would be normative.
Gail Williams (gail) Tue 2 Mar 04 14:56
Well, unless you are IN the core group, you don't want to see it be a parasite. You want the core group to have symbiosis with the organization and the other stakeholders, providing some mutual benefit. (And "great" is normative by definition, of course.)
Joe Flower (bbear) Fri 5 Mar 04 10:54
Let's go back to strategy, Art. Early on, you said: >there are at least four groups of people who can get (in my >opinion) a "so-what" out of this: >1. Members of the Core Group (who have huge leverage over the future >of the organization, if not its present); >2. Employees who are not (and probably never will be) in the Core >Group; >3. People who take seriously the idea that the organization must >change for the better; >4. People who want to influence the organization from the outside. >Each of these has a different strategy to follow. So walk us through this: If I were a member of a Core Group in an organization, what might I take home from your book? What strategy should I follow based on this insight?
Rip Van Winkle (keta) Fri 5 Mar 04 12:12
At last I have the book! You should know I'm just skipping here and there, so your coherent arguments are still unfamiliar to me. Feel free to point me as needed! re my question, "who doesn't matter?" - yes, initially I was just vaguely thinking about various "isms", but now I'm realizing there are two types of potential "not mattering" to be distinguished, and that separating them maybe starts to get at a lot of the other questions so far too. One is the polarized partner of mattering - the not mattering that helps define what matters. (I think a scapegoat would fall into this category - in a negative way, a scapegoat DOES matter.) It looks like your book speaks a lot to this, and also doesnt presume that theres always something profound to the source of the distinctions the example of an organization in a ski area where being a non-skiier (or even a non-natural at it) keeps people out of the core group. The other is the not mattering that is more like a fish not being aware of water because it swims in it. What interests me about that is the whole thread of defense of organizations and <bbear>s comments about not being in a core group. You say, >Re #43 (David?) -- I think there's a vital difference between >organizations - where core groups are appropriate -- and >communities/societies -- where core group dynamics by their nature are >probably abusive. To me, it seems that perhaps the step of saying that the decision is the crucial defining element for an organization is exactly what highlights the thing organizations cause not to matter because they are unaware of it. An organization is on a trajectory. (Side question/comment: maybe if you talk a little about hive mind it will make the book more accessible to people who dont have it and are following along.) An organization is on a trajectory, but there is a whole realm of work/activity that is cyclic. It doesnt have to be discussed in gender terms, but in some ways, thats easiest. The saying, a womans work is never done, originally referred to the fact that as soon as you feed someone, they are already becoming hungry again; as soon as you clean, dirt is arising; sustaining life is tending a birth-growth-flowering-seed-decay-renewal cycle. I wonder if organizations inherently define cyclic work as not mattering? That whole cycle can be hitched to a trajectory, but, I think the question lurking around the margins of whether organizations are dangerous to society, what never wanting to be in an organization is all about, and the coming crisis you pose in <45>, is, Do organizations systematically evolve a consensus that sustaining life doesnt matter? Do they act as if trajectory can exist without the background field? In I Ching terms, Where is the yin?
Members: Enter the conference to participate