If you squint at the diagram while standing on our head you might see a reflection of Otto Scharmer’s “Theory U”. Can you see co-senseing, co-presencing, co-creating? If you can, then where you place them is important. Perhaps you will find that your favorite, or your strength, resides in the complicated domain. This may reveal something about your own perspective within a particular conversation.
It is here that Dave’s work in fragments and signifiers is so timely. With the Sensemaker software even I could be an optimist. One of these days I hope to find some time to explore it in depth. Today though I can’t make a convincing case to pursue this where I work.
I must acknowledge that there are factors other than knowledge at play in general managing. It isn’t easy work, and bad actors, biases and favorites certainly influence real word activity. I’ve read what’s readily available but haven’t gotten to Otto’s book yet. (1) I suspect it may provide a means to deal with some of the power and political dynamics of the Bureaucratic system.
What I hope I have shown in this series of posts is that the intentional behaviors that create knowledge form a complex system of the type described in “Dynamics In Action.” (2)
Bureaucracy fails because our understanding of knowledge is too vague. We need to ground our organizations with good theory, practice and experience in knowledge management if we want to get any traction in complex system change work.
2. “Dynamics In Action; Intentional Behavior as a Complex System,” Alice Juarrero, 2002, MIT Press
Cognitive Edge Ltd. & Cognitive Edge Pte. trading as The Cynefin Company and The Cynefin Centre.
© COPYRIGHT 2023
In my previous post I described the paradox of knowledge as a chute that ends ...
If you move around government and intelligence circles, or touch them tangentially (as I do) ...
Leave a Reply