Posts
In one of the most fascinating and intriguing books I have read for a long time, I am thoroughly enjoying Margaret Wheatley’s book, “Leadership & the New Science”. Quite simply, but respectfully, she challenges our simple and entrenched notions of how organizations work and function. Pushing us beyond Sir Isaac Newton’s mechanistic theories, she forces us to take a deeper dive into the ocean of systems, where we are forced to think more about the relationship of how things work together in a symbiotic and complimentary manner, and that the nature of these relationships rarely remain static or constant. Sir Isaac Newton and machine imagery leads us to study parts as the key to understanding the whole. New science tends to have a more holistic focus that looks at systems and how things within that system relate to each other. Even in the context of human health, the body is viewed more as an integrated system rather than as a collection of discrete parts. A mechanical worldview tends to concentrate on the ‘what’, and ‘how’, not so much the ‘why.’ However, Wheatley impressively takes us on a journey that goes deeper than merely looking at how structures work and how they can be applied in an organizational and human context. Pushing away all preconceived notions and assumptions that sit at the basis of organizational structures (i.e. to create order), Wheatley leaves us questioning the value of disorder and chaos: Not as you and I would typically view disorder and chaos, as being disruptive and unwanted, but rather that it has significant value in creating new order because the old order can no longer be sustained. She cites the work of Nobel Peace prizewinner, Ilya Prigogine in chemistry, where he discovered that the dissipative activity of loss was necessary to create new order (“Dissipative Structures Theory”). Basically, Prigogine was saying that when anything disturbs the system, it plays a crucial role in helping it self-organize into a new form of order. He calls this one of life’s paradoxes. Wheatley explores this further, by saying those new conditions, and indeed anything that unsettles a system’s equilibrium; there is an opportunity to awaken creativity and a new resolution. Historically, we have tended to believe that all disorder was the absence of the natural state of order, and that chaos and normal were two separate states. However, in the context of where paradox is considered to be a distinguishing feature, we can see that disorder can incorporate a dance – of chaos and order, of change and stability. “Neither one is primary; but both are absolutely necessary.” Exploring this theory in the context of desiring order in organizations, we come to see that we have focused more on rigid structures than fluid processes that inject creativity into the ebb and flow of chaos as it pushes up against a set order. There is no doubt that at times our rigid structures do not neatly wrap themselves around the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and that our commitment to a mechanistic worldview may prevent us from exploring alternate ways to look at things as we appreciate them in a broader systemic way, rather than discrete parts that bump up against each other randomly. The concept that jumps out at me from Wheatley’s analysis of systems and structures, is her view that we should not run from chaos or seek to overturn it in order to find a form of organizational utopia, but rather appreciate and encourage constant interchanges between chaos and order to bring about new orders. Wheatley of course, is not proposing that we seek chaos and disorder so that we might find order, but that in the context of a world that always changing, we would embrace the conflict and seek a new order, rather than revert to an old order that can no longer be maintained in the light of new circumstances. This certainly has ramifications for the way organizations are structured and operate, as organizations often lack the kind of faith that can accomplish purposes in a variety of ways. Once again, Wheatley is not suggesting that structure is unimportant. She does, however, believe very strongly that blind adherence to any one particular structure may in fact prevent growth, impede development and ultimately lead to organizational atrophy and ineffectiveness. Structures are time-limited and certainly not infinite. Structures should not be built to eliminate disorder and chaos, but instead create an environment where chaos and change are foundational to finding a new order to help the organization move forward and sustain itself in a world that has changed and will continue to.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Retreat from yesterday or advance to tomorrow?
We all know times when it is easier to retreat to the safety of a cave, but after too long it’s no longer healthy. It prevents us from experiencing the power of God in our lives in ways we could never imagine. Check out this link - http://www.marketplaceleaders.org/blog/coming-out-of-the-stronghold/
Monday, November 15, 2010
Read my review of Joseph Nye on Global Power Shifts. It's time to write a new narrative about power.
Joseph Nye on Global Power Shifts, Ted.com
Nov 15, 2010
#dmingml Historian and diplomat, Joseph Nye seeks to provide a 30,000-foot view of the shifts in power between China and the U.S, and how power moves around the globe. Nye recently pioneered the theory of Soft Power. His notion of "smart power" became popular with the use of this phrase by members of the Clinton administration, and more recently the Obama Administration. Nye is currently Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and serves as a Guiding Coalition member for the Project on National Security Reform. The 2008 TRIP survey of 1700 international relations scholars ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar of the past twenty years, and the most influential on American foreign policy. Nye provides a high level view of power in the 21st Century and how there exist two primary types of changes. The first he describes as Power Transition. Literally, how it transfers from one state to another state, from West to East). The second change he calls Power Diffusion. Simply, how power is moving among all states, to non-state actors on the world stage, not merely from one player to another. He debunks the common theory today that there is a key power transition from the U.S. to Asia, and that instead of referring to this phenomena as “The Rise of Asia,” it really should be viewed as the “Recovery or Return of Asia.” For example, in 1800, more than half of the world’s population lived in Asia and produced more than half of its products. In 1900, more than half of the world’s population still lived in Asia, but it only produced about 1/5 of its products. The Industrial Revolution was behind this significant change. Europe and America became the dominant economic center of the world. It is projected that in the 21st Century, there will be a return to Asia producing more than ½ of the world’s products. Nye describes the second change in power as Power Diffusion. This largely centers around the removal of traditional restrictions. For example, computing and communications costs have fallen 1,000-fold between 1970 and the beginning of the 21st Century. While these may appear to be abstract number, if the same change had occurred in relation to automobiles, then you would be able to purchase a car today for around $5. Traditionally, you needed to be wealthy. Today, you need to be connected and have access to networks and the flow of information. There are many more actors today who have this capability and the stage has become crowded. Influence and power have become diffused. Nye claims that that we are not thinking innovatively enough about this diffusion of power and how it can effect better outcomes globally. As he pursues this argument, he proposes that whereas traditional power focused on coercion (“sticks”) and payment (“carrots”), it is time to think more innovatively about getting others to want what you want. He introduces a new term to describe this as Soft Power. By utilizing Soft Power, the world can save a lot of “sticks” and “carrots”. He proposes that the way this is done is to focus our efforts around creating a new narrative. It is not about whose army wins, but whose story wins. Nye talks about the need to change the narrative away from the rise and fall of countries (the rise of China and the fall of the U.S.) as these metaphors are often very misleading. They are based on projections about the transition of power that find support in simple and inadequate, measures. For example, history is not linear. There are many variables and cycles that interrupt a linear projection of what might be said to be the rise or fall of a nation. The size of an economy is also important. However, although it is projected that China will have a larger economy than the U.S. in 2027, the per capita measure clearly favors the U.S. and overlooks some of the huge development deficiencies that exist in China. Nye also believes it is important not to ignore the fact that there are Asian countries who will want an American insurance policy against the potential dominance of China in Asia as well as other regions of the world. Referencing the Peloponnesian War (431-404 A.D.) where the rise and power of Athens created fear in Sparta, and where the European state system and centrality of Europe was caused by the rise and power of Germany and the fear it created in Britain, Nye believes that the greatest danger that exists in the world today, is speculating about what a shift in power to the East will do, leading to the creation and generation of fear. To avoid this, he advocates that Soft Power needs to become more critical than military and economic. Through organizing networks and building collaborative alliances it is important to recognize that power need not be a zero sum game. We need to get away from “I win, you lose.” We need to mix Soft Power with Hard Power (economic, military) to create Smart Power. To achieve this, Nye states that we must develop a new narrative for Smart Power where in collaboration, countries can begin to produce global, public goods or win/win outcomes. This requires that countries define their interests first and become transparent with their desired outcomes. This was a fascinating argument presented by Joseph Nye about global power shifts. In particular, the concept that stood out for me was the notion that a new narrative or story about how power should be defined needs to be created and intentionally exercised by the leaders of nations. As Nye stated, it is not so much about whose army wins, but whose story wins. Although this may sound a little naïve or unrealistic, I do think Nye could have taken this one step further by speaking not only to changing the narrative, but how that narrative could be developed, reinforced and communicated widely with the use of today’s computing and communications capabilities.
Nov 15, 2010
#dmingml Historian and diplomat, Joseph Nye seeks to provide a 30,000-foot view of the shifts in power between China and the U.S, and how power moves around the globe. Nye recently pioneered the theory of Soft Power. His notion of "smart power" became popular with the use of this phrase by members of the Clinton administration, and more recently the Obama Administration. Nye is currently Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and serves as a Guiding Coalition member for the Project on National Security Reform. The 2008 TRIP survey of 1700 international relations scholars ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar of the past twenty years, and the most influential on American foreign policy. Nye provides a high level view of power in the 21st Century and how there exist two primary types of changes. The first he describes as Power Transition. Literally, how it transfers from one state to another state, from West to East). The second change he calls Power Diffusion. Simply, how power is moving among all states, to non-state actors on the world stage, not merely from one player to another. He debunks the common theory today that there is a key power transition from the U.S. to Asia, and that instead of referring to this phenomena as “The Rise of Asia,” it really should be viewed as the “Recovery or Return of Asia.” For example, in 1800, more than half of the world’s population lived in Asia and produced more than half of its products. In 1900, more than half of the world’s population still lived in Asia, but it only produced about 1/5 of its products. The Industrial Revolution was behind this significant change. Europe and America became the dominant economic center of the world. It is projected that in the 21st Century, there will be a return to Asia producing more than ½ of the world’s products. Nye describes the second change in power as Power Diffusion. This largely centers around the removal of traditional restrictions. For example, computing and communications costs have fallen 1,000-fold between 1970 and the beginning of the 21st Century. While these may appear to be abstract number, if the same change had occurred in relation to automobiles, then you would be able to purchase a car today for around $5. Traditionally, you needed to be wealthy. Today, you need to be connected and have access to networks and the flow of information. There are many more actors today who have this capability and the stage has become crowded. Influence and power have become diffused. Nye claims that that we are not thinking innovatively enough about this diffusion of power and how it can effect better outcomes globally. As he pursues this argument, he proposes that whereas traditional power focused on coercion (“sticks”) and payment (“carrots”), it is time to think more innovatively about getting others to want what you want. He introduces a new term to describe this as Soft Power. By utilizing Soft Power, the world can save a lot of “sticks” and “carrots”. He proposes that the way this is done is to focus our efforts around creating a new narrative. It is not about whose army wins, but whose story wins. Nye talks about the need to change the narrative away from the rise and fall of countries (the rise of China and the fall of the U.S.) as these metaphors are often very misleading. They are based on projections about the transition of power that find support in simple and inadequate, measures. For example, history is not linear. There are many variables and cycles that interrupt a linear projection of what might be said to be the rise or fall of a nation. The size of an economy is also important. However, although it is projected that China will have a larger economy than the U.S. in 2027, the per capita measure clearly favors the U.S. and overlooks some of the huge development deficiencies that exist in China. Nye also believes it is important not to ignore the fact that there are Asian countries who will want an American insurance policy against the potential dominance of China in Asia as well as other regions of the world. Referencing the Peloponnesian War (431-404 A.D.) where the rise and power of Athens created fear in Sparta, and where the European state system and centrality of Europe was caused by the rise and power of Germany and the fear it created in Britain, Nye believes that the greatest danger that exists in the world today, is speculating about what a shift in power to the East will do, leading to the creation and generation of fear. To avoid this, he advocates that Soft Power needs to become more critical than military and economic. Through organizing networks and building collaborative alliances it is important to recognize that power need not be a zero sum game. We need to get away from “I win, you lose.” We need to mix Soft Power with Hard Power (economic, military) to create Smart Power. To achieve this, Nye states that we must develop a new narrative for Smart Power where in collaboration, countries can begin to produce global, public goods or win/win outcomes. This requires that countries define their interests first and become transparent with their desired outcomes. This was a fascinating argument presented by Joseph Nye about global power shifts. In particular, the concept that stood out for me was the notion that a new narrative or story about how power should be defined needs to be created and intentionally exercised by the leaders of nations. As Nye stated, it is not so much about whose army wins, but whose story wins. Although this may sound a little naïve or unrealistic, I do think Nye could have taken this one step further by speaking not only to changing the narrative, but how that narrative could be developed, reinforced and communicated widely with the use of today’s computing and communications capabilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
