m



 

 


 
 a
 
 
 
 

 



  
  





 
-H.L. Mencken

By Kolap Samel
I. PARTICIPATIVE UNIVERSE

V
ant m niverse =
Participative niverse.

V Participative niverse
a m ltit
e of perspectives
constant change
exchange of information.
A. POWER OF OBSERVATION

V Schrö
inger's Cat: "We cannot know

what is happening to something if we
are not looking at it, an
, stranger yet,
nothing
oes happen to it ntil we
observe it.³

V Self-f lfilling prophecies & impact

V Visible have potentials
V Invisibles have no opport nity to

isplay their many potentials
V xvery act of meas rement loses more
information than it gains

V A few people [experts], « are, in fact,

observing very few of the potentialities
containe
within that
ata.
B. MORE OBSERVERS = WISER ORGANIZATION

V ³It wo l
seem that the more participants we

engage in this participative niverse, the more we
can access its potentials an
the wiser we can
become. ´
V ³The o tcome of s ch a process has to be a m ch
more
iverse an
richer sense of what is going on
an
what nee
s to be
one´. (pg. 65)
C. OWNERSHIP / PARTICIPATION —
GREATER COMMITMENT
V It¶s not real if there is no personal
interaction for the in
ivi
al

V Reality is observations an
the

ecisions we make base
on these
observations.
V People can only become aware of the
reality of the plan by interacting with it,
by creating
ifferent possibilities thro gh
their personal process of
observation.´ (pg. 67)
   
     

!    
 

 
  


!" 

  
  

 
 
 
   
-Ch ang Tz , Fo rth Cent ry B.C.

http://www.ski
more.e
/aca
emics/lsi/arca
ia/or
er.html

By Farnaz Mohamma
i
 WHAT IS x


mefinition
Laws of Thermo
ynamics
V Classical Thermo
ynamics ±
eq ilibri m is the en
state in the
evol tion of close
systems, a point at
which the system has no capacity for
change. If we believe that the organization
is going
ownhill, any change exha sts
o r store of val able energy an
leaves
s empty, on a step closer to
eath.

V The 2n
Law of Thermo
ynamics ±

Applies only to isolate
or close
systems
± to machines, for example.
WHAT LED TO OPEN SYSTEMS?

V What is an Open System?

V How
oes a system stay viable?

V Un
erstan
ing change an
growth

GROWTH & CHANGE

V ¦egative an
Positive Fee
backs

Ɣ Chemical reaction example
Ɣ Physicist mavi
Peat

V A
aptability
STABILITY
V For organizations to be
a
aptive, It m st open p
in many ways
Information
V Stability comes from
knowing
who it is as an organization
What it nee
s
What is req ire
to s rvive http://home.thinkprime
.com/archives/tag/meaning

in its environment
SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS

V xcosystem

V Three Characteristics of Open System

Openness, less s sceptible to externally
in
ce
change
Self-Reference, change in s ch a way that it
remains consistent with itself
Stability over time
ż Global an
Whole System
V The more free
om in Self-Organization, the
more or
er.

V Transformation
Whether an or
er is forme
or not
epen
s on whether or
not information is create
. . .  
 " 

 
  
 "
" 

-Ik iro ¦onaka
By miana Tohmeh
Why is there an epi
emic of ³poor comm nication´
within organizations?

z
net.com
THE TELEPHONE GAME
INFORMATION

¦ew Science
V mynamic
V Changing xlement
philcallaway.ab.ca

What happens when we
on¶t get ³real´ information?

We Make it Up!
Gossip
R mors

Lack of Information = Poor Comm nication

Sho l
lea
ers keep information
n
er lock an
key?

http://www.l
a.bran
enb rg.
e
OR

Is information like salmon?

allinwhite.blogspot.com
 ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS
Whole Systems and Future Search

http://www.f t research.net/

Do you believe that Future Search can work?

 EQUILIBRIUM BUSTERS

V ¦ot the caretakers of control, b t the gran

ist rbers.

V Stir the pot
V misr pt an
provoke
What do you think of the role of managers as
³Equilibrium Busters?´
 PERMEABLE BOUNDARIES
0  

" 

 "

 

 
# 
 $%  
 
"  
  &

http://www.evereco.org/comm nities.html
0  

 
 "
 
 


       
 
  

 
   
   

   
   & (p 169)

By Lily Almaraz
 LEADERSHIP IN DISASTERS:
LEARNING FROM KATRINA

V Or
er can emerge from chaos

V Times Magazine
u
 
V Lea
ers faile
, b t people
self-organize

u 

 
uu 
LEADERSHIP IN DISASTERS:
LEARNING FROM KATRINA

V Information informs
s an
forms s

V Fail re of lea
ers to
perceive acc rately  u 

V Para
igm Blin
ness



 
 LEADERSHIP IN DISASTERS:
LEARNING FROM KATRINA

V Relationships are all

there is

V ³We live in a worl
of

relationships, where 
u   



each event or person
evokes new capacities´
 LEADERSHIP OF NETWORKS:
LEARNING FROM TERRORIST GROUPS
V Vision

V xffective Lea
er:
Comm nicates vision
Motivates people

V Behavior of
¦etworks
www.september11news.com
XWhat
o we want to create? If we are in a school system, what
o we want
this school to mean in this partic lar comm nity, in this context, with this
pop lation? What are we trying to create?
 REFERENCES
Wheatley, M. (2006).   
 

'  
  

  
. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler P blishers.