Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science, a study guide…

  • INTRODUCTION
  • Why I chose this book
    • The context of our collective consciousness is ever changing and rarely acknowledged until forced to do so by the current situations
    • We find ourselves in the continual state of “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” mostly because we are in our “comfort zone”. Things may not be perfect but comfortable.
    • 9- “How do we resolve personal needs for autonomy and growth with organizational needs for prediction and accountability”?[1]
      • It may be this single phrase that prompted me to consider this book for class. How do we…
      • It struck me as I read, how far we try to divorce ourselves from those dynamic processes we are made to feel are irrelevant to “art making”. Yet it seems to me with in the context of science, physics, biology and chemistry the very essence of the world is considered, questioned, and in some cases explained. So is there a level of relevance when we consider order in process or chaos in process or the connections we make with our colleagues, should we not consider more basic ideas to consider, determine, and employ the basics before we get ahead of ourselves.
    • Pg 11- Quantum Physics…[2]
      • Anyone concerned? I find the context of Quantum Physics as a tool to define and understand leadership fascinating. The very basic elements come to light and provide a basis for that understanding.
      • What is contextualized as the “unseen connections” [3] that can and do color and affect our relationships in almost every way is fundamental to our ability to manage those processes.
      • So why again Quantum Physics? The base elements of creation. Break it down to the simplest components is essential, but what is really intriguing is the level of constant relationships of one component part to another. We never venture to far from either a relationship or connection in the context to how all things are interrelated. Cause and effect, address one part the other may need addressing as well. Nothing is truly separate with significant levels of overlap.
      • Page 12[4] Reference the Gaia theory: http://www.gaiatheory.org/
      • We sometimes, ok many times consider art to be above science and all of the rather messy particulars that tend to bore us rather than entice the right brainers to action. Worse yet, as managers and leaders in an artistic process it is considered we only use the left half of the brain and are not really capable of Art making. I appreciate the possibility that there it requires both left and right to embrace complete creativity in science as in art. http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm
      • Page 15, Concepts of organizations
    • Study Guide Vocabulary
    • Equilibrium
    • Disequilibrium
    • Chaos
    • Gaia
    • Quantum Physics
    • Quantum Mechanics
    • Chaos Theory
    • Deterministic Chaos
    • Butterfly Effect
  • SECTION 1 Chapters 1-4 to page 74
  • Chapter 1, Page 18, “Organizations are impressive fortresses”…
    • Artistic organizations are no different, comfort and control is the watch words, don’t get beyond your own level of comfort or stretch past our own level of incompetence.
  • Page 20, “Life is about creation, so is artmaking…
    • Art is a living entity with a certain level of autonomy necessary to be self-realized. As artists we are parts of the whole that connects us together intrinsically entwined with ideas, ideals goals, vision and mission together to a certain or sometimes uncertain conclusion. (Is that possible an un certain conclusion?)
    • Individual Identity… Possibly one of the most important concepts in managing an artistic process.
    • Yet individual Identity is reinforced by the collective relationships that define our process and connect us to the whole
  • Context for the “Web of Relationships”
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
  • In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum (momenta; SIunit kg m/s, or equivalently, N s) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. For example, a heavy truck moving fast has a large momentum—it takes a large and prolonged force to get the truck up to this speed, and it takes a large and prolonged force to bring it to a stop afterwards. If the truck were lighter, or moving more slowly, then it would have less momentum.

Like velocity, linear momentum is a vector quantity, possessing a direction as well as a magnitude:

Linear momentum is also a conserved quantity, meaning that if a closed system is not affected by external forces, its total linear momentum cannot change. In classical mechanics, conservation of linear momentum is implied by Newton’s laws; but it also holds in special relativity (with a modified formula) and, with appropriate definitions, a (generalized) linear momentum conservation law holds in electrodynamicsquantum mechanicsquantum field theory, and general relativity.

  • Chapter 2, Page 28, David Bohm, reference Synchronicity, by Jaworski (pull sections)
    • page 29[6], ”reengineering”, William Bygrave,
    • Page 33, “The World ceased to be machine….”
    • Page 35 Gregory Bateson[7],
    • “In Organizations, which is the most important influence on behavior-the system or the individual?”
    • Page 36, critical relationship, prediction and replication, elementary matter
      • The significance of particle vs. waves and what doe it men to me?
      • Chapter 4, Page 62, “self-fulfilling prophecies…”
        • “People accept that which is consistent with what they believe to be true”
        • page 64, “Quantum Mechanics”[9] , “As Non-physicists…”
          • “Knowing is disrupting”
          • Define Quantum…physics and mechanics
        • Page 65, “Participative Universe …”[10]
        • Relevance, “If we seek a problem we will find a problem” Agree/disagree
        • Again, what can we discern from the examples, we occupy a world where by mere observation we affect or can affect the outcome because we see it we believe/disbelieve it. We tend not to allow ourselves the possibility that what we see is not…but is only the perception. This may sound like it is a exercise in the ridiculous but if one looks to their own experience with a eye of honesty, one may determine while particles and wave have a level of duality our observations and our likely predeterminate tendencies can give us a false picture of what we see, because it “is consistent with what we believe to be true”
        • Knowledge – yields – power/control – yields action – completion, how does observation fit/affect/effect…
        • Page 66, Organizational Data, observation and interpretation…
        • Page 68, “ownership”
        • “Quantum Logic…” requires personal interaction
        • page 69, “Participation, ownership, subjective data…”
        • 70, Matrix diagram
        • Can we diagram our own Leadership/management structure and processes? Please do…
        • Page 71, “A subatomic particle is defined by it’s energy and by the network of relationships in which it exchanges energy. These subatomic particles, In Capra’s words are not separate entities but interrelated energy patterns in an ongoing dynamic process. These patterns do not ‘contain’ one another but rather “involve” one another…”[11]
        • Page 72, “Roles mean nothing without understanding the network of relationships…”
        • Page 73, “Why would we stay locked in our belief…”
      • SECTION 2, Chapters 5,6,7 to page 156
      • Chapter 5, page 75
        • Disequilibrium vs. Status Quo
          • We fight very hard to maintain “status quo”,
            • We are comfortable
            • We know what to expect
            • We don’t have to expend any extra energy on decisions that may or may not yield results
          • Page 76, Definition of Equilibrium
            • http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equilibrium
            • Second Law of Thermo-dynamics
            • Context or relevance, GK
              • Positive
                • Balance, cohesion, systems, synchronicity, understanding, clear expectations
              • Negative
                • Stagnation, good enough, lack of adaptability, lack of responsivity, unclear expectations
              • Entropy
              • An interesting, or maybe a disturbing observation is, or may be perceived as, “in some artists the attempt to provide a sense of disequilibrium for those managing the process in order to gain an advantage”.
              • Do we as managers ever employ this aspect of deception, omission…
            • Page 77, “We have magnified the tragedy…”
            • Page 78, “Equilibrium is neither the goal nor the fate…” –“They don’t seek equilibrium…”
            • Page 79, with the introduction of time, “the interest turned from system structures to system dynamics” [12]
              • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine
              • System level exchange of energy
                • “if the system had the capacity to react and change, then disturbance was not necessarily a fearsome opponent.”
              • Context/relevance, We use to say or believe, “Within structure there is freedom”. Certainly there very well may be a time and place for such a sentiment. I do wonder however if we can/should re-define structure rather than simply discount it for a more perceived random order. Within organizational dynamics a strong foundation can and should be the key which not only allows for or supports change, but asserts change itself is necessary for continued dynamic progress.
              • It takes a strong sense of organizational stability to embrace change as a matter of accepted structural integrity and wholeness.
              • The reality that as part of the process chaos is not only likely but assured and perhaps according to Wheatly desired, sought after and used as an instrument of change.
                • I feel chaos as conflict, is inherent and should not be avoided or ignored for fought against, but rather identified, planned and planned for then managed to a positive state of realization.
              • Relating back to the idea of trading energy, It is important to understand everything is ultimately energy is one of the determining factors relating to change or no change. We all have a finite amount of energy to allocate to any specific enterprise.
              • Adaptability
              • Energy
              • Time
            • Page 80, “Self Organizing…”
              • The real question becomes, do we as artists or managers of the artistic process have the ability to embrace change on the level we need to in order to develop a truly adaptive, dynamic process?
              • Can we allow for the re-organizing philosophy necessary, or is our sensibility to fragile?
              • “Exquisitely ordered behavior”[13]
              • http://www.partneringresources.com/articles/pdfs/LessonsFromField.pdf
            • Page 81, Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction…[14]
            • Context/relevance;
              • In the context of life, art and management and ultimately the leadership of ideas we all need to be cognizant of obscured yet emerging patterns which will define relevant information;
                • Attitude
                • Energy
                • Selective engagement
                • Immersive engagement
                • Exclusion
                • Inclusion
                • Re-ordering
              • The idea of “patterns” in a non-patterned process may seem irrelevant, yet it probably is not. I think the point of all of this is not to be satisfied the surface appearance is all there is, but to understand the need to look deeper. In order to not be left behind the curve I have found there are certain patterns (random all be-it) that will emerge if you are open to the possibilities. I think the real key here is to consider “nothing is truly random in the universe.”
              • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNnI2xz-VZo&feature=related
  • Page, 81, “Self Organizing dynamics…”[15]
  • Page 82, “In organizations, we typically struggle against the environment, seeing it as a source of disruption and change…”
    • “Our processes while linear in dimension are not in action, dynamic responsivity, (response to action, stimulus or pattern), is necessary.”[16]
    • “The viability and resiliency of a self organizing system is its great capacity to adapt as needed…process structures[17]
      • What are described as process structures?
    • Page 83, “An Open organization doesn’t look for information that makes it feel good…”[18]
      • This is not the statement that concerns me, it follows as “It is deliberately looking for information that might threaten its stability, knock it off balance and open it to growth.”[19]
      • I agree the status quo must always be challenged in order to support growth and avoid organizational stagnation. I don’t believe this necessitates threatening stability, rather if there is a solid organizational foundation it will or should reinforce the stability and move the organization forward in its thinking and processes.
      • “Especially important is the organization’s relationship to information, particularly to that which is new and even disturbing…”[20]
      • “We accept that which is consistent with what we believe to be true”.[21] Information that falls out side of that very narrow parameter is considered suspect and potentially dangerous to the organization. When we try to develop new models of production for example we need to address first our understanding of the process we which to change, the insecurities that are likely to oppose the change and decide on a plan to mitigate them so change may occur. We also need to be cognizant as I am repeatedly reminded in “action” protocols. I can only practically predict the a small portion of the possible level of concern from any specific person as access to the “complete” individual is not really possible or practical. In a continuing search for patterns I do believe they are there, but we do not see or they do not reveal themselves over night. There for a heightened level of adaptability needs to be built into the methodology for developing, promoting and initiating change. The idea of keeping an organization “off balance” is not necessarily a concept I subscribe to. The idea of an organization staying fluid and not being trapped in to past patterns due to past practice and being willing, even mandated to review, analyze, explore and adopt new methods of process, is.
      • “While a self-organizing systems openness to disequilibrium…It’s stability comes from a deepening center…”[22]
      • “Self organizing systems are never passive, hapless victims, forced to react to their environments.”[23]
    • Page 84, Patterns in ecosystems
    • Context/Relevance, In the process of evolution the beginning is defined by an imperfect set of criteria which establish the beginning patterns of organization(life). If the system has the chance to develop with in rigid parameters without the ability to adapt through the process of the open system it will either become stagnate and fail. If it is allowed to develop under an open system it will likely grow stronger as a natural condition since it can change to accommodate the ever changing set of criteria.
      • Examples from within the SOT experience seem relevant…
    • “We tend to think that isolation, secrecy and strong boundaries are the best way to preserve individuality. But this self-organizing world teaches that boundaries not only create distractions; they are also places for communication and exchange.”[24]
    • Page 85, “A second process fundamental to all self-organizing systems is that of self-reference.” “When the environment shifts…remains consistent with itself.” “Change is never random:…” “A living system changes in order to preserve itself.”[25]
    • This is an interesting article on leadership and vision, to
    • Page 86, A clear Identity…
      • Self-reference and facilitating orderly change…
      • Stability of self-organizing systems…
      • Page 87, “The more freedom in self-organization, the more order.”[26],[27]
      • Consider this statement, with context from previous ideas supported in class.
        • It is generally the small disturbance that causes the most change, frequently not change in good way. So how do we insure a positive level of response to any small issue?
      • Page 88, “bifurcation point”
        • co-evolution
      • Page 89, “Evolution is the result…”[29], [30]
        • What is the condition of our fear of change, the unknown, the leap of faith, the calculated risk?
      • Chapter 6, page 93
        • Page 93, “information as a Thing…”
        • Page 94, Information as tangible
          • “How we hear/receive information is critical to how we process, accept and act on that information” [31]
        • Page 95, “All life uses information to organize itself into form. A living being is not a stable structure, but a continuous process of organizing information.” [32]
        • Context/Relevance; Can we consider for a moment that projects, specifically “artistic” projects are organisms, developing in either a closed, open or modified system. For the most part during my time at CalArts I think I would have to classify process as closed/modified system, modified from the “normal” due to the curricular component. In some cases I can identify it as almost provincial at worst and unenlightened at best. (Ok, I will get off my soap box…) My point really is that I do consider the artistic process to be a living entity in it’s own way and it’s own right. It has the right to development, discovery and if you will an evolutionary journey to reach some probable conclusion.
          • Page 96, In continuation Wheatly notes, “In a consistently evolving, dynamic universe, information is a fundamental yet invisible layer, one we can’t see until it takes physical form.” “For a system to remain alive, for the universe to keep growing, information must be continually generated.”[34]
          • To continue my point, as a living entity, this process we embrace in what ever form must also evolve to embrace new ideas and considerations. What seems clear, is we(collectively) try to control the process by control over the information content and flow. It is not necessarily that information is being purposefully withheld, but rather there is a fear of letting it out because then it is available for others to act on. All that really means is a loss of control, which is something as humans all fear.
        • Page 97, “Managements task is to enforce control…”[35]
          • Consider how you react to this thought…
          • “Information can serve such an organizational function because organizations are open systems and are responsive to the same self-organizing dynamics as all other life.”[36]
          • http://www.mountainman.com.au/chaos.htm
        • Page 98, “If a system has the capacity to process information, to notice and respond, then that system possess the quality of intelligence.”[37]
        • Context/Relevance, I consider “systems” something we create every time we start a project, each is different with sometimes random, sometimes predictable interactions. However all the systems we create have the ability to process information, it becomes up to us whether we choose to interfere or let alone the process to continue, or whether we need to provide interpretation or context to any given particle or wave as we feel compelled. The trick is not to be compelled in the wrong manner.
        • Page 101, “Information is always spawned out of uncertain, even chaotic circumstances…”[38]
          • “We refuse to accept ambiguity and surprise as part of life…”[39]
        • Page 102, “But there is a way out of the paralyzing fear that ambiguity genders…”[40]
          • We are so afraid that without specific linear information and process we have no control. The unfortunate reality of that is in this context “control” means in charge, at least of our own reality. That is something, as much as we strive for it, none of us ever are. I think that is the beauty of acknowledgement in Wheatly’s concepts no matter how flawed they may sometimes seem, we are never in charge, but we are also never far away form each other. Yet it takes enlightened perceptions on both sides to be able to realize this new reality.
        • Page 103, “Network of relationships…”
        • Page 104, “We have organizational models that demonstrate how open access to information contributes to self-organized effectiveness.”[41]
          • “Knowledge grows inside of relationships…”[42]
        • Page 106, “Evolving feedback”
        • .. And so it begins…
        • Page 107, “We cannot continue to use information technology and management systems as gate keepers…”[43]
        • “An individual without information cannot take responsibility, but an individual who is given information cannot help but take responsibility.”[44]
          • “commander’s intent”[45]
        • Page 108, “Jantsch, as a scientist, urges managers to a new role, that of “equilibrium busters…”[46]
        • Context/relevance, here is an interesting concept for “challenging the status quo”. The context for me is, as an organization we have a responsibility to challenge every precept we hold true and question every aspect of what we know and how we do things. We can’t afford to throw all of our supporting resources into chaos and I don’t believe that is what is being suggested.
        • Page 109, “Organizations too must move beyond the boxes they have drawn to describe roles and relationships….”[47]
        • Page 111, “interweaving of process”[49]
          • “In quantum physics, a homologous process is described as relational holism, where whole systems are created by the relationships among subatomic particles. In this process the parts don’t remain as parts; they are drawn together by a process of internal connectedness.”[50]
          • “Electrons through end of chapter…” Particularly the last chapter beginning with, “Rather, we are engaging…”
        • The idea that order itself is not rigid or located in only one structure but rather a dynamic organizing energy, I find to be compelling to say the least, revolutionary and evolutionary to say the most. To be able to step out of the bonds of provincial and traditional models of organizational stagnation and embrace the ideas of a new generation of motivated and enlightened students of process is not only appropriate but mandated by the “New Science” of leadership.
      • Chapter 7, page 115
        • Page 115, “We the generative force, give birth to form and meaning, organizing Chaos through our creativity.”[51]
        • Page 117, “Chaos is always partnered with order-a concept that contradicts our common definition of chaos**
      • It is interesting that in context we deny and avoid chaos just as we are inclined to deny and avoid conflict. Yet, both are tools we need, to in some respects cleanse and regenerate the process or processes we are attempting to manage and provide leadership for.
  • SECTION 3
  • Chapter 8, Page 137
  • http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/0511duggan.pdf
  • Johann Goethe, particularly this section “Goethe emphasized that perhaps the greatest danger in the transition from seeing to interpreting is the tendency of the mind to impose an intellectual structure that is not really present in the thing itself: “How difficult it is…to refrain from replacing the thing with its sign, to keep the object alive before us instead of killing it with the word.”11 The student must proceed carefully when making the transition from experience and seeing to judgment and interpretation, guarding against such dangers as “impatience, precipitancy, self-satisfaction, rigidity, narrow thoughts, presumption, indolence, indiscretion, instability, and whatever else the entire retinue might be called.”12[60]
  • http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/book%20chapters/goethe_intro.htm
  • http://www.janushead.org/8-1/seamon.pdf
  • Page 143, “Seeing the interplay between system dynamics and individuals is a dance of discovery that requires several iterations between the whole and it’s parts.”[61]
  • Page 144, “motivation for individual change”…, “The organization of a living system”[62]
  • Page 147 “All life lives in the midst of an unending stream of data”.[63]
    • “Self Reference” as a process to sort data…
  • Page 149, “But as we engage in this process…”[64]

“ I have come to appreciate the real change in an organization…[65]

  • Page 158, “Our Zeitgeist is a new (and ancient) awareness that we participate in a world of exquisite interconnectedness.[66]
  • Page 166, “Information overload is a major problem.”[67]

[1] Leadership and the New Science,  Margaret Wheatly, pg 9

[2] Leadership and the New Science,  Margaret Wheatly, pg 11

[3] Leadership and the New Science,  Margaret Wheatly, pg 11, Heisenberg, 1958, 107

[4] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, pg 12, Lovelock 1988, Margulis, 1998

[5] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, pg 22, Ilya Prigogine’s recent works, 1998

[6] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, pg 29, William Bygrave, 1989,16)

[7] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly. Pg 35, Gregory Bateson, 1980

[8] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, pg 53, Sheldrake 1995, 82

[9] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, pg 64, Gribbin  1984,164

[10] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret, Wheatly, pg 65, Gribbin 1984, 212

[11] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly pg 71, Capra 1983, 94

[12] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, Prigogine’s study of Thermodynamics

[13] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, Coveney and Highland 1990, 164

[14] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction

[15] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 81

[16] Kechely, Across the Great Divide, Bridging the Gap Between Manager and Artist, Leadership and Management, 2011

[17] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 82

[18] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 83

[19] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 83

[20] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 83

[21] Kechely, Leadership and Management,  derived from the writing of Gerald A. Michaelson in Sun Tzu and The Art of War For Mangers,

[22] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 83

[23] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 83

[24] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, pages 84, 85

[25] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 85

[26] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 87

[27] Jantsch, 1980, 40

[28] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 87

[29] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 89

[30] Jantsch, 1980, 14

[31] Kechely, Leadership and Management,  2011

[32] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 95

[33] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 95/Jantsch

[34] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 96

[35] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 97

[36] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 97

[37] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 98

[38] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 101

[39] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 101

[40] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 102

[41] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 104

[42] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 104

[43] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 107

[44] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 107

[45] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 107

[46] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 108

[47] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 109

[48] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 109

[49] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, Jantsch, page 111

[50] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, David Bohm, page 111

[51] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 115

[52] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, Gleick 1987,15 page 122

[53] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, Capra, 1996, ch 3 page 125

[54] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 125-126

[55] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 131

[56] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 131

[57] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 133

[58] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 140

[59] Leadership and The New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 141, Martin Heidegger

[60] Goethe’s Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature, David Seamon & Arthur Zajonic, editors. Albany, NY: State University of New your Press, 1998

[61] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 143

[62] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 144

[63] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 147

[64] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 149

[65] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 149

[66] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 158

[67] Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly, page 166

[67]

This entry was posted in From Curriculum, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.