Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [cp] Re: community stability - learning, managing and leading

Expand Messages
  • eisai@comcast.net
    Hi Rosanna, That was quick. Don t know if I can be quite as quick in my reply since you ve raised some important issues. ... From: Rosanna Tarsiero
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Rosanna,

      That was quick. Don't know if I can be quite as quick in my reply since you've raised some important issues.
      -------------- Original message ----------------------
      From: "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@...>
      > Joe, Miguel and Pete:
      >
      > Joe wrote:
      > "I agree with this re-statement, generally, but I think that 'managing'
      > doesn't always focus on re-ordering existing patterns. In fact, much of the
      > time, and perhaps more than it should, it is concerned with reinforcing
      > existing patterns and suppressing deviations from them."
      >
      > Joe also said:
      > "I also agree with Miguel that 'managing' in organizations is importantly
      > related to influence, power, and/or authority and using it to get others to
      > achieve the goals and objectives of person doing the managing."
      >
      >
      > I think that there is a different in how you guys are approaching the
      > concept of "management".

      I'm sure there is, but before we get to questions of ontology and epistemology do you think the statements Miguel and I have made about 'managing' and 'managing in organizations' ae wrong? And if so why?

      > It sounds to me like Peter is trying to give a
      > definition, reflect upon it, theorize, change action, get to a new
      > definition etc (see action learning).

      I agree that he is, and he's also trying to elicit criticism of his view in order to see whether it's strong enough for him to continue to advance it, or whether it requires change. This, too, is 'action learning.'

      > It also sounds to me like Joe and
      > Miguel are more focused on the ontology of the concept, ie what it "is".

      I can't speak for Miguel, but as for me, I'm focused on evaluating Pete's ideas about what distinguishes 'managing' from 'acting.' Pete said that 'managing' was about "reordering'" and changing patterns, I pointed out this was not always true, and that sometimes managing is about re-inforcing or maintaining existing patterns. I think both Pete and I were talking about factual matters in both his claim and my counterclaim. I don't think we were discussing ontology, or disagreeing about that.

      > In
      > the conclusions they actually get to, both Joe and Miguel miss two important
      > points:
      > 1) there is no one concept of management, which Joe agrees with through his
      > words. But then Joe, you again try to get to "one" definition!

      I agree people use the term in different ways. But I'm not at all sure that Pete and I have different definitions of 'managing'. We were trying to communicate. He made a statement about managing. I made a counterclaim. Pete could respond and say: well, we disagree because we mean different things by 'managing'. Or he could say I agree with you. Or he could say I don't agree with you, and then provide some reasons why efforts to maintain existing patterns are not 'managing.' I'm still waiting for his reply to see what he thinks.

      But regardless of whether Pete and I have different definitions of 'managing,' there's still something to talk about other than simply noting that we have different definitions. We could, for example, talk about which of the many available definitions actually refers to phenomena that exist. This is your ontological question. And if different definitions refer to different phenomena then we can try to agree on which phenomenon we'll call 'managing,' and on what label we'll apply to the other phenomena previous also called 'managing' by some people.

      > 2) every concept is at least partially the product of a culture and culture
      > means, on a personal level, a certain degree of "hidden bias". In
      > particular, both Joe and Miguel *assume* that their concept of management
      > (ie see the part related to "power") is somehow "objective" while it's the
      > product of many by-product of a CULTURAL bias (read: the role of individuals
      > in their own development, viewed as a "fight" to "win" and "power" to
      > "impose" in WESTERN cultures).

      > Clearly as Joe *said* the concept of management is a cluster of concepts.
      > However if we the discussants aren't able to openly admit that the
      > objectivity of our own interpretation is BIASED by our own culture, chances
      > are we'll ramble forever on these concepts and all parties will keep their
      > ideas like the first day they've thought about them *grin*
      >
      > For me, I prefer to factor culture because I think that there is NO learning
      > if we don't consider the fact that we ALL are biased by something, be it
      > science, culture or "mere" feelings.

      Ro, I'll stipulate that whatever I say is partly the product of (a) my family culture, (b) the culture of my ethnic group, (c) the culture of the neighborhood in New York City where I grew up, (d) the cultures of the various schools I attended, (e) the cultures of the various organizations I've worked for, (d) the cultures of my professional reference groups, (e) the culture of KM, etc. etc. etc. However, I don't think that means that the term 'managing' as I use it does not refer to something that actually exists. It may not, but that has to be shown through criticism of the substance of my view of management and not through pointing out that I am influenced by various cultures, biology, groups I participate in, or anything else that may have an influence upon me.

      I deny that any of these influences determine that my notion of 'managing' is biased. And, further, I think that to claim that it does is to open oneself up to the tu quoque argument. Specifically, what exempts the claim that the views of others are culturally biased from the counterclaim that the thesis of cultural bias is itself invalid because it is determined by culture? The notion of cultural relativism, like the broader notion of epistemological relativism is, I think, self-refuting.

      But even more, even if we were to all admit that our views are not just influenced by culture but inevitably false due to cultural bias, this really makes no difference to what we have to do in inquiry, except perhaps that it might dishearten us. What I mean by this, is that we will still have different people with different views, and we will still have to select which view is better for making decisions and taking action, and therefore we will still have to consider and assess competing views against each other and relative to our evaluation criteria. And then when we have to decide anything, we will still have to make a decision based on the track record about which of the competing views we are considering is the best for us to use in decision making

      This is exactly the same thing we have to do if we don't believe that everything we say is false due to our cultural bias. So not only is the view that our knowledge claims are always false due to cultural effects self-refuting, it is also useless because it makes absolutely no difference to what we do in conducting inquiry unless we are disheartened by cultural relativism and so decide that inquiry itself is useless. So, I think the idea of cultural bias is both self-refuting and useless for facilitating inquiry, and that we should simply forget about it, and instead devote ourselves to substantive arguments criticizing what people say.
      >
      > Pete, I'll articulate more for you on the emotion side... I find it
      > fascinating and sooo taboo in Western cultures, where managing means
      > pigeonholing people into some standardized process (as opposed to the
      > Eastern management theory and action as a way to HELP people be themselves
      > at their best and, because of that, getting more productivity out of their
      > job).

      Of course, emotion is very important in organizations and should have a prominent place in Organization and Management Theory. My own psychological framework outlined in the Key Issues book and also in the Open Enterprise Excerpt available for free download here:

      http://www.dkms.com/papers/openenterpriseexcerptnumb1final.pdf

      places affect (emotion) alongside, evaluation, cognition, and purpose as a key factor in motivation. Emotion shapes the DEC and also impacts our KLC and KM processes through it. But apart from emotion, our frameworks also include values and give them a central pace in our decision making.

      Best,


      Joe
    • Fred Nickols
      ... In short, we are what William Powers calls Living Control Systems. His book, by that title, should prove of interest to anyone who shares what Peter has
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter Bond, as part of a much longer and very interesting post, writes:

        > Managing is a practice. We all make decisions, we all
        > have intentions or goals, we all plan to achieve our
        > goals (more or less formally), we all implement our
        > plans, we all monitor the implementation, and we all
        > attempt control of the processes through which our
        > goals will be achieved, we all reflect upon and evaluate
        > the outcomes of our efforts and learn from our successes
        > and failure.

        In short, we are what William Powers calls "Living Control Systems."
        His book, by that title, should prove of interest to anyone who shares
        what Peter has written above.

        Regards,

        Fred Nickols
        www.nickols.us
        nickols@...
      • eisai@comcast.net
        Hi Grace, I think that you, yourself, are never alone. You re always accompanied by your memory of your various social experiences, the tracings of your
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 10, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Grace,

          I think that you, yourself, are never alone. You're always accompanied by your memory of your various social experiences, the tracings of your culture, and biological predispositions, which are part inherited and part shaped by the interaction of your biological heritage and your previous experiences. Your self was and is shaped by the interaction of your body, mind, and culture. You couldn't even conceptualize your "self" without language. And language, of course is a cultural product. In short, you can physically alone, but I don't think you can be socially or culturally alone, because you carry the traces of previous social and cultural experience with you.

          Best,


          Joe


          -------------- Original message ----------------------
          From: "Grace L. Judson" <gljudson@...>
          > If, as Peter suggests, "We are who we are, only in relations to others," I
          > have to ask - who am I when I am alone???
          >
          >
          >
          > Grace
          >
          > Personal & Executive Coach
          >
          > www.svahaconcepts.com <http://www.svahaconcepts.com/>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Guy Kellogg
          Peter et al., ... The concept to which you are referring is ubuntu which is a Southern African word, of Bantu origin (according to Wikipedia). It s widely
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 10, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Peter et al.,

            > 'We are who we are, only in relations to others'
            > (an apt quote I heard on a radio interview with a
            > Botswanan churchman who > was expressing an African
            > principle of living)

            The concept to which you are referring is "ubuntu" which is a Southern
            African word, of Bantu origin (according to Wikipedia). It's widely
            used in South Africa, and you can hear Nelson Mandela explain it here:
            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Experience_ubuntu.ogg

            The icon viewable on the bottom right of the video belongs to Ubuntu
            Linux, which is supported in part by Canonical. Some members of this
            list may find relevance to this in the Ubuntu governance section of
            their website: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/governance

            Guy

            P.S. I am a digest subscriber, largely lurking to learn about
            knowledge management and how that may be applied to learning
            communities whose focus is a second language. I am particularly
            interested in applying the concepts of CofP to classroom based
            language learning. And,...I am writing this from an Ubuntu-based PC.
          • Rosanna Tarsiero
            Joe, You wrote: before we get to questions of ontology and epistemology do you think the statements Miguel and I have made about managing and managing in
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 11, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Joe,



              You wrote:

              "before we get to questions of ontology and epistemology do you think the
              statements Miguel and I have made about 'managing' and 'managing in
              organizations' ae wrong? And if so why?"



              And he also wrote:

              "I'll stipulate that whatever I say is partly the product of (a) my family
              culture, (b) the culture of my ethnic group, (c) the culture of the
              neighborhood in New York City where I grew up, (d) the cultures of the
              various schools I attended, (e) the cultures of the various organizations
              I've worked for, (d) the cultures of my professional reference groups, (e)
              the culture of KM, etc. etc. etc. However, I don't think that means that the
              term 'managing' as I use it does not refer to something that actually
              exists."



              What I wanted to remark (and I thought I was clear but I obviously was not)
              is that ANY attempt to establish what a given thing "is" or "is not" brings
              with it the *limitations* of the culture the person expressing those
              statements comes from. In other words, the observer (*whoever* s/he is and
              *whatever* his/her framework is) evaluates facts through *closed* categories
              mutuated from his/her culture.



              THEREFORE, no matter how factual your (or anybody else) idea of management
              is, the *interpretation* of those facts can NOT and will NOT be objective.
              In other words, we can't say what management "is" (ie ontology) but
              ***only*** say what we *think* it is, if we like it or not, etc. The
              difference between the two things (aka the fact and your opinion about it)
              wasn't clear in how you worded your post.



              Btw you mentioned action learning. while both constructivism and action
              learning have a subjective epistemology, action learning has an objective
              ontology. This is NOT to be confused with objectivism ie the belief that all
              objective things can be "made objective" aka quantified. Action learning's
              subjective epistemology allows for the study of the interplay between
              subjectivism and objectivism aka relativism. Therefore, *some* things can be
              determined objectively (for example, numeric variables), some others can
              only be expressed in subjective terms (for example, the value they have for
              the given individual, group, community). And I claim that "management"
              belongs to the latter because it can't be fully defined by numbers (like,
              say, the sunlight wavelength).



              Rosanna

              PS: I NEVER said that something "culturally influenced" equates to "false".
              I DID say that something that is viewed through the lenses of culture gets
              ***distorted*** in this process, therefore it becomes subjective. In order
              to accurately express a subjective thing one can't use statements like "this
              things is" but rather "I think/suppose/assume this thing to be bla bla".
              Assumptions don't always have to be wrong, yet they can't be claimed to be a
              fact (if one wants to be rigorous) in that they belong to a whole other
              category, whose epistemology is quite different. This is quite different
              from claiming that assumptions have no role, need to be
              discounted/disregarded and such. 95% of what I start or understand comes to
              me through intuition BUT I don't call it a fact!



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • eisai@comcast.net
              Hi Ro, I ve interleaved my responses to your very good comments, for which I thank you. ... From: Rosanna Tarsiero ... And again
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 11, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Ro,

                I've interleaved my responses to your very good comments, for which I thank you.
                -------------- Original message ----------------------
                From: "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@...>
                > Joe,
                >
                > You wrote:
                >
                > "before we get to questions of ontology and epistemology do you think the
                > statements Miguel and I have made about 'managing' and 'managing in
                > organizations' ae wrong? And if so why?"

                > And he also wrote:
                >
                > "I'll stipulate that whatever I say is partly the product of (a) my family
                > culture, (b) the culture of my ethnic group, (c) the culture of the
                > neighborhood in New York City where I grew up, (d) the cultures of the
                > various schools I attended, (e) the cultures of the various organizations
                > I've worked for, (d) the cultures of my professional reference groups, (e)
                > the culture of KM, etc. etc. etc. However, I don't think that means that the
                > term 'managing' as I use it does not refer to something that actually
                > exists."
                >
                >
                > What I wanted to remark (and I thought I was clear but I obviously was not)
                > is that ANY attempt to establish what a given thing "is" or "is not" brings
                > with it the *limitations* of the culture the person expressing those
                > statements comes from. In other words, the observer (*whoever* s/he is and
                > *whatever* his/her framework is) evaluates facts through *closed* categories
                > mutuated from his/her culture.

                And again Ro, I largely agree, however, to repeat myself, "I don't think that means that the
                term 'managing' as I use it does not refer to something that actually exists."

                >
                > THEREFORE, no matter how factual your (or anybody else) idea of management
                > is, the *interpretation* of those facts can NOT and will NOT be objective.
                > In other words, we can't say what management "is" (ie ontology) but
                > ***only*** say what we *think* it is, if we like it or not, etc. The
                > difference between the two things (aka the fact and your opinion about it)
                > wasn't clear in how you worded your post.

                OK. Let me see if I can make things plainer.

                I make certain statements about "management," some of those statements are intended to describe aspects of reality. These statements of mine are conjectures. They are not the facts they purport to describe. And they are also always fallible, even if, on occasion, they happen to be true. If you like, these statements may reflect my opinion (though they are not my opinion, since that is comprised of my beliefs which are not the same as my statements or their content).

                However, in making such statements I don't mean to state my opinions. Instead, again, I mean to describe certain aspects of management, part of reality. My conjectures have certainly been influenced and constrained, though not entirely determined, by the various cultures I have experienced.

                But, that is not what is significant about my conjectures. What is important or significant about them, is that they may be true or they may be false, and when I offer them I hope to have them evaluated from that point of view. I hope further, that someone will criticize them from that viewpoint. That they will say things like, what you say can't be true because it's contradictory, or what you say can't be true because I've observed that managers do y and you've said they do x, or what you say can't be true because it implies something about organizations we've never, never observed. I have not the slighest interest in reactions to my views that talk about their origin, or the influences upon them, or anything but their content. Because such discussions will not bring me or anyone else closer to the truth about what I am saying. Only an evaluation of the content of what I say will do that.

                Now, moving on to objectivity, I really don't think that facts are objective. Facts are facts. "They are what they are." The term "objective fact" is redundant in my view, because if something is a fact, it exists, or has existed. It is up to us to find out what the facts are.

                "Objectivity" is a term that has a number of meanings, and, in my view, it doesn't mean "fact". In a short paper that you may find interesting Ro, because its purpose is to talk about the foundations of value epistemology, called "Correspondence Theories of Truth and Legitimacy (a link is here for those interested,
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cafephilodcdialogue/files/ )

                I distinguish three senses of objectivity, that make sense to me:

                -- objectivity as correspondence between statements and facts,
                -- objectivity as knowledge claims produced through the use of a particular method, and -- objectivity as knowledge claims that are sharable and criticizable.

                In this third sense, which is the one I almost always use when I talk about objectivity or objective knowledge, all the knowledge claims we make in this group are "objective," except those that people manipulate in such a way that they are made invulnerable to criticism and refutation.

                The first sense of objective, correspondence to the facts, is not a logically inconsistent notion, but it is beyond our power to know for sure whether such correspondence exists in any particular case. All our knowlefdge claims are forever fallible in the sense that we cannot be certain about them, even if they happen to be true. My statement about the importance of fallibilism is here:

                http://radio.weblogs.com/0135950/2004/03/20.html

                Finally, Ro, you said:

                ". . . the *interpretation* of those facts can NOT and will NOT be objective . . ."

                Now, I'm not sure what you mean by objective, but if you mean that whatever I state cannot and will not corespond to the facts, then I say in response that you cannot know that. The facts are outside of us. They are what they are. We cannot lay our thoughts or our statements beside them to see if they correspond. So the possibility remains that whatever the influences upon us and whatever the sources of our views, those views themselves may possibly correspond to the facts. And NO ONE HAS THE KNOWLEDGE to say with certainty, and without question, that our interpretation of the facts CANNOT correspond to them.

                You also said:

                > Btw you mentioned action learning. while both constructivism and action
                > learning have a subjective epistemology, action learning has an objective
                > ontology.

                I know that constructivism and action learning have subjectivist epsietmologies. But not only that. They also have fideist epistemologies because their subjectivist asssumptions are not criticizable. They are based on commitment and on doubt, but they are not assumptions that are subjected to and have survived criticism.

                When you say that constructivism and action learning have an objective ontology, I guess I don't know what you mean. In what sense is the ontology of those bodies of thought "objective?"

                You aso said:

                > This is NOT to be confused with objectivism ie the belief that all
                > objective things can be "made objective" aka quantified.

                Quantification and objectivity are not the same thing, they are orthogonal notions. And Critical Rationaism, which has a commitment to realism is different from "objectivism," which is a philosophy that is highly subjective in its resistance to criticism and falsification. "Objectivism" is a caricature of philosophy and has nothing to do with "objectivity."

                You also said:

                > "Action learning's subjective epistemology allows for the study of the interplay between
                > subjectivism and objectivism aka relativism. Therefore, *some* things can be
                > determined objectively (for example, numeric variables), some others can
                > only be expressed in subjective terms (for example, the value they have for
                > the given individual, group, community). And I claim that "management"
                > belongs to the latter because it can't be fully defined by numbers (like,
                > say, the sunlight wavelength).

                I'm not sure what the first sentence in the above paragraph says. But, as I said above, there's no necessary correlation between objectivity and quantification, or, for that matter between subjectivity and qualitative expressions. So, statements about 'management' can be objective in the sense that they correspond to reality, even if 'management "can't be fully defined by numbers. And in the sense of "objectivity" that is most important, that our statements about management can be shared and can be criticized, thus facilitating the growth of our knowledge; I think that the study of "management" can be made fully "objective," if only we can avoid the lure of subjectivist epistemologies which tell us that we can never get it right, and thus imply that we might as well insulate our views from criticism and testing in the interests of our communities, our professions, our reference groups, or whatever other interest we have that might be served by such insulation.

                Finally, you offered this PS.
                >
                > PS: I NEVER said that something "culturally influenced" equates to "false".
                > I DID say that something that is viewed through the lenses of culture gets
                > ***distorted*** in this process, therefore it becomes subjective. In order
                > to accurately express a subjective thing one can't use statements like "this
                > things is" but rather "I think/suppose/assume this thing to be bla bla".
                > Assumptions don't always have to be wrong, yet they can't be claimed to be a
                > fact (if one wants to be rigorous) in that they belong to a whole other
                > category, whose epistemology is quite different. This is quite different
                > from claiming that assumptions have no role, need to be
                > discounted/disregarded and such. 95% of what I start or understand comes to
                > me through intuition BUT I don't call it a fact!

                Well, first, if "distorted" doesn't mean lack of correspondence to the facts, i.e. false, then what does it mean?

                And second, when I call a statement a fact, I'm not talking about the statement alone. I'm saying that it corresponds to a fact. I'm quite clear on the fact that my statement is not that fact. I even think that my claim is a conjecture and may very well be false. But the purport of my statement will often be to claim that it corresponds to a fact, and that I don't intend it to be merely my opinion, even though I think it is a conjecture.

                Then I go about trying to find out whether my statement corresponds to a fact. In fact, my presenting the claim as more than my opinion is an attempt to focus attention on my claim that it is a fact, so that I can get some criticism of it and learn more about whether it is a fact or not. But if, on the other hand, as you suggest, I should just state that it is merely my opinion, then why should anyone bother about that? Why should anyone care about my subjective opinion? After all, one subjective opinion is as good as another, isn't it?

                Of course, I have the right to have my opinion, and if your interest in is in my opinions and not whether my statements are true, then it is perfectly fine to focus on the fact that my statement might reflect only my opinion and might not describe reality at all. But if your interest is not in my opinion, but in whether what I've said about management is true or false, then you need to forget that what I've said reflects my opinion. You also need to forget that it reflects my cultural experiences. You also need to forget that it reflects my biology, or my indigestion this evening, and just focus on the content of the statement, and whether it is true or false. And to determine that you need to test my statement; to criticize it; to try your best to overthrow it; and to above all concentrate on what it says, rather than on where it comes from.

                Best,


                Joe
              • Pete Bond
                Thanks Miguel. This is a big can of worms I know but I pursue only because I feel the need for something different. Someone encouraged me to explore the
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 14, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks Miguel. This is a big can of worms I know but I pursue only because I
                  feel the need for something different. Someone encouraged me to explore the
                  concept of managing using the Maturana framework at the time Seth asked his
                  questions. If we are trying to reconceptualise the way organisations work
                  why not question the other basic concepts?

                  Hope this delay will not have killed the conversation.

                  M......

                  From the start, when you quote "'We are who we are, only in relations to
                  others'", I can't help thinking that is a partial view and a self-evidence
                  at the same time. "We can only be defined from outside by our observed
                  behaviour, which will always affect or be determined by others directly or
                  indirectly", would be an acceptable alternative. But that'd be digressing.

                  P.......
                  I don't feel this is a digression but is central to the principles I'm
                  attempting to apply, that is, the principles that lay in Maturana and
                  Varela's approach to understanding what happens in organisations. But you
                  are correct to say its a partial view. Who we are emerges from the networks
                  of conversation we engage with so always in relation to others. As well as
                  observers of the behavioutr of others we are also observers of our own
                  behaviours and so there will be a gap between what we feel ourselves to be,
                  what we are strong and weak in, and what others believe about us. The
                  important thing is that what we know about anything is subjective but
                  appears to become 'objective' if confirmed, or is taken to be shared by, a
                  significant and influential group of others. Applies especially to the
                  sociology of science, technology and engineering.

                  M.......

                  The role of leadership has so many definitions that it'd be quite useless to
                  qualify them. IMHO "leading" simply means taking the responsibility for a
                  decision that affects your fellows, however it's taken. It does not need
                  words; indeed it does not require humanity.

                  There are many specific types of leadership of which more things may be
                  predicated, but they're subspecies. It does, however, have one prerequisite
                  for efectiveness: authority.

                  Then you equal management and leadership. Again I can't agree. "Management"
                  is all about implementation: it's simply overseeing the execution of tasks
                  (plus all the bells and whistles to ensure it's done right), guiding an
                  established process along. It has one prerequisite for efectiveness: power.

                  Thus management (aka "administration") does not imply leadership, and a
                  leader need not be able to manage (think religions). Power and authority are
                  not the same thing.

                  P..........

                  There has been a lot of study of leaders and managers and the differences
                  but I don't think many managers would agree with the idea that they only
                  implement the goals of others. In any case, these implementors would have to
                  have the power and authority and accountabililty (if not the responsibility)
                  to put plans into action. I don't think the difference between leading and
                  managing can be found there. But we do associate leaders with creating the
                  grand vision and making the decisions that prove significant in the long run
                  and not with the nitty grittiness of putting plans into action. Leaders are
                  really a bit 'feeble' in that way.

                  As I mentioned before, my model of managing comes from the 1980s and it
                  covers the practices right through from problem recognition (the need to
                  improve, to change, to do better) through planning to implementing
                  monitoring controlling and evaluating, bit most of them can be mapped onto
                  Kolb's cycle of learning. Finding the patterns in these different models
                  leads me to thinking that managing is problem solving is learning. I would
                  validate my argumet with reference to the these models. Leading, may,
                  perhaps, a special case of 'managing with style' in a limited set of what
                  become high-profile activities.

                  Peter







                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Pete Bond
                  Hi All, Now to the REALLY interesting bit- emotioning. Thanks to Ros for reminding me and to Fred for the book title I ve not come across before. Something
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 14, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi All, Now to the REALLY interesting bit- emotioning. Thanks to Ros for
                    reminding me and to Fred for the book title I've not come across before.
                    Something here about distinguishing leading from managing and something on
                    roles for Marilyn, and then a return to the issue of dissappearing leaders.
                    But first a response to Joe and Mintzberg.

                    You're right, Joe. I've overemphasised the 'change' angle and of course
                    'managing' is also about maintaining the performance of the current system,
                    a task that is constantly being undermined by others (like the leaders?)
                    whose task it is to ensure constant improvements in performance. So there
                    is a tension here between needing to change, and wanting to stay the same.
                    Also, current structures simultaneously enable action in the present but
                    constrain changes to the same actions in the future (from Structuration
                    theory of Anthony Giddens).

                    To add to the many roles discovered by Mintzberg, which are already
                    incorporated in one way or another in the Kast and Rozenzweig model, there
                    are many more. Most significant after Mintzberg were perhaps those
                    identified by Peter Senge in his paper on "The leader's New Work" To quote
                    "In a learning organization, leaders' roles differ dramatically from that of
                    the charismatic decision maker. Leaders are designers, teachers, and
                    stewards. These roles require new skills: the ability to build shared
                    vision, to bring to the surface and challenge prevailing mental models, and
                    to foster more systemic patterns of thinking. In short, leaders in learning
                    organizations are responsible for building organizations where people are
                    continually expanding their capabilities to shape their future-that is,
                    leaders are responsible for learning. "

                    What Senge and the many others like him are doing is making distinctions of
                    distinctions of the distinction named 'leading'. Each will make distinctions
                    from their own perspectives, which would be influenced by their unique
                    ontologies, their unique histories of experiencing up to the point when they
                    make a distinction. And, as Ros suggested, the making of distinctions will
                    be heavily influenced (totally influenced?) by the cultural context in which
                    they are made. The result is that different models of managing and leading
                    will emphasis different aspects of what I percieve to be a universal
                    process, which earlier I called 'managing' but later called acting or
                    living. Managing, leading, crafting, running, walking, are all distinctions
                    made in relation to the many behaviours constituted as 'living' or of
                    'being' in a particular context. They are distinguishable through the result
                    achieved by the action. That's why I've tended to focus on the overall
                    result of 'managing', which is clearly a result that impacts on a social
                    group in some way. Working out what that is, precisely, is what can help
                    distinguish between managing and leading.

                    Emotioning as a result.

                    According to Senge (same article as above) there are two sources of energy
                    that motivate organisations: fear and aspiration. Fear is the energy source
                    behind negative visions, and can produce extraordinary changes in short
                    periods, but aspiration endures as a source of learning and growth.

                    As some will know from previous posts of mine, Maturana defines conversation
                    as a flow of languaging and emotioning. Feeling emotional is a result of
                    conversation but can be a continuous 'result'. However, not all
                    conversations provide what might be described as significant emotioning of
                    which we become very conscious. Some conversations are emotionally neutral
                    as you will see below. (List from article at
                    http://www.oikos.org/vinclife.htm and more at
                    http://www.oikos.org/vincen.htm)

                    1. Conversations of coordinations of present and future actions; Such
                    conversations are for the actual coordinations of actions which take place
                    in relation to a particular domain. The conversational participants are only
                    listening for the coordinations of actions here and there is no particular
                    emotional content.

                    2 Conversations of complaint and apology for unkept agreements; These
                    coordinations of actions, within the frame of emotions of righteousness and
                    guilt are concerned with demands and promises.

                    3 Conversations of desires and expectations; These are coordinations of
                    actions undertaken by participants whose attention is oriented to future
                    descriptions and not to the current actions through which they are being
                    constituted as humans in the present.

                    4 Conversations of command and obedience; Such coordinations of actions take
                    place within an emotional frame of negation. That is, by complying with
                    commands to do as he otherwise would not do, the one obeying the commands
                    both negates himself and the person commanding ( by attributing to him a
                    characteristic of 'superiority'). The one commanding also engages in this
                    dual negation.

                    5 Conversations of characterisations, attributions and valuing; Here the
                    coordinations of actions are embedded in an emotional flow of acceptance and
                    rejection, together with the experience of pleasure and frustration
                    depending on whether or not the listeners feel they have been correctly
                    recognised or not by the speakers.

                    6 Conversations of complaint for unfulfilled expectations; In this case the
                    listener feels frustrated by being accused of not fulfilling a promise that
                    he did not make, while the speaker feels frustrated that the listener has
                    dishonestly not kept a promise made.

                    I think this is a massively underdeveloped area of Maturana's work.

                    We appear to be engaged in conversation NO 5, whilst a lot of managing can
                    be categorised as conversation NO 1 but all too much is negative emotioning
                    emerging from Conversation NO 4 . Leading, on the other hand might be
                    Conversation No 3.

                    Can we distinguish between managing and leading on this basis?

                    Now to Marilyn's point. Maturana says that " ...as we human beings
                    participate in many different conversations simultaneously or in succession
                    , our actual community coexistence courses as the changing front of a
                    network of conversations in which different criss-crossing coordinations of
                    present and future actions braid with different consensual emotional flows."

                    Marilyn, and all of us, engage in overlapping networks of conversations,
                    some of which give us more joy than others. But it from such conversations,
                    about practices and the results of practices, that our own role and the
                    identity it gives to us, emerges. We can have multiple roles in a
                    multiplicity of conversational networks. As long as we engage in those
                    networks of conversations we will be able to gain and maintain an identity,
                    a role, a specialism.

                    In respect of the original issue, if the people who leave (the leaders?) are
                    the catalysts for positively emotioning conversations then in the immediate
                    aftermath there is the prospect of neutral or worse, negative, emotioning
                    conversations dominating. If, on the other hand, they were just 'given'
                    authority and power by virtue of an appointment, and the result of the
                    conversations they precipitated was either negative or neutral, then perhaps
                    they were 'managers' after all.

                    If you got this far, thanks for allowing me to share.

                    Peter
                  • eisai@comcast.net
                    Hi Pete, Thanks for your excellent and very interesting reply. I agree with your remarks on Leadership and have always viewed Mintzberg s Leading category as a
                    Message 9 of 30 , Aug 14, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Pete,

                      Thanks for your excellent and very interesting reply. I agree with your remarks on Leadership and have always viewed Mintzberg's Leading category as a catch-all for many other activities.
                      Here's a list of activities I use to break down the leading category in Mintzberg's scheme: Recruiting, Training, Motivating, Monitoring, Consensus-building, Persuading, Compelling, Incenting, Informing, Obligating, Evaluating, Delegating, Meeting, and Using Memoranda. I'm sure many of us have our own versions of such a list.

                      Now I'd like to comment on your interesting remarks about "conversation", emotioning and languaging.

                      -------------- Original message ----------------------
                      From: Pete Bond <plbond@...>

                      > Emotioning as a result.
                      >
                      > According to Senge (same article as above) there are two sources of energy
                      > that motivate organisations: fear and aspiration. Fear is the energy source
                      > behind negative visions, and can produce extraordinary changes in short
                      > periods, but aspiration endures as a source of learning and growth.

                      I think this classification oversimplifies too much. There are many emotions that provide motivation for action and learning. In the late 1960s and early 1970s I modified and applied a particular strain of motivational theory coming out the Henry Murray, John Atkinson, and David C. McClelland school to the theory of social conflict with an emphasis on civil strife. I published some articles in the Journal of Conflict Resolution and the general Systems Annual using the theory and have also used parts of the motivational theory in Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management (Chs.1, 2, 4, and 9), and in other KM-related publications In my KM publications however, I didn't develop the emotional side of my conceptual framework because, frankly, KM has been largely in the grip of cognitivism, to the extent it concerns itself with psychology at all, and also the space I had available in the book was limited enough that my publisher wasn't friendly to theoretical excursions that Mark and/o
                      r I couldn't show were absolutely necessary.

                      In any event, my own framework is somewhat broader than Senge's in its incorporation of emotional elements. By the time this post is published, I'll post a working paper on the KMCI Site entitled An Agent/Interaction Systems framework for KM. The paper presents the motivational framework I've developed. Figure Five provides a visualization of a range of negative and positive emotions that are important in motivating human behavior and the paper itself outlines the motivational process through which emotions interact with other motivational components to influence behavior.

                      The paper was written originally for a modeling committee of KMCI's in January 1999, before the "I" was added. It pulls together other things written during the 1970s. For this posting, I subsituted newer versions of my first four figures for the original ones. Mark McElroy helped me to revise these for use in KMCI's CKIM workshop. You find a link to the paper here:

                      http://www.kmci.org/kmci_resources_and_links.html
                      >
                      > As some will know from previous posts of mine, Maturana defines conversation
                      > as a flow of languaging and emotioning. Feeling emotional is a result of
                      > conversation but can be a continuous 'result'. However, not all
                      > conversations provide what might be described as significant emotioning of
                      > which we become very conscious. Some conversations are emotionally neutral
                      > as you will see below. (List from article at
                      > http://www.oikos.org/vinclife.htm and more at
                      > http://www.oikos.org/vincen.htm)
                      >
                      > 1. Conversations of coordinations of present and future actions; Such
                      > conversations are for the actual coordinations of actions which take place
                      > in relation to a particular domain. The conversational participants are only
                      > listening for the coordinations of actions here and there is no particular
                      > emotional content.
                      >
                      > 2 Conversations of complaint and apology for unkept agreements; These
                      > coordinations of actions, within the frame of emotions of righteousness and
                      > guilt are concerned with demands and promises.
                      >
                      > 3 Conversations of desires and expectations; These are coordinations of
                      > actions undertaken by participants whose attention is oriented to future
                      > descriptions and not to the current actions through which they are being
                      > constituted as humans in the present.
                      >
                      > 4 Conversations of command and obedience; Such coordinations of actions take
                      > place within an emotional frame of negation. That is, by complying with
                      > commands to do as he otherwise would not do, the one obeying the commands
                      > both negates himself and the person commanding ( by attributing to him a
                      > characteristic of 'superiority'). The one commanding also engages in this
                      > dual negation.
                      >
                      > 5 Conversations of characterisations, attributions and valuing; Here the
                      > coordinations of actions are embedded in an emotional flow of acceptance and
                      > rejection, together with the experience of pleasure and frustration
                      > depending on whether or not the listeners feel they have been correctly
                      > recognised or not by the speakers.
                      >
                      > 6 Conversations of complaint for unfulfilled expectations; In this case the
                      > listener feels frustrated by being accused of not fulfilling a promise that
                      > he did not make, while the speaker feels frustrated that the listener has
                      > dishonestly not kept a promise made.
                      >
                      > I think this is a massively underdeveloped area of Maturana's work.

                      I like this classification, but my question is: Is there any "languaging" that does not involve "conversation" from the viewpoint of this framework? If not, the term "conversation" as used here seems to stretch ordinary language to the breaking point for no particular purpose.
                      >
                      > We appear to be engaged in conversation NO 5, whilst a lot of managing can
                      > be categorised as conversation NO 1 but all too much is negative emotioning
                      > emerging from Conversation NO 4 . Leading, on the other hand might be
                      > Conversation No 3.
                      >
                      > Can we distinguish between managing and leading on this basis?

                      I doubt it. I think Leading uses all five types of languaging.

                      Here's another theory of languaging, or at least language functions:

                      Following his mentor Karl Buhler, Karl Popper developed a theory of langage functions, probably sometime in the 1930s. Buhler thought that language had three functions: 1) the expressive or symptomatic function, 2) the stimulative or signal function, and 3) the descriptive function. Popper added (4) the argumentative function, to take into account logical argument which he viewed as essential to criticism and eliminating error. In 1961, E. W. Hall in a book called Our Knowledge of Fact and Value, proposed an evaluative function of lamguage and broke that down into value predicative (the good or the desirable, or the corresponding negatives) and normative (the right and the wrong) sub-categories. Earlier this year, Mark McElroy and I developed the following further elaboration of the theory of language functions: (5) We added an assertive function to account for knowledge claims either descriptiive or evaluative that assert something about the world. Thus, we subsumed the value pred
                      icative and the normative under the assertive. Next we also added, (6) a decisional function to the theory suggesting that the acceptance of assertions, after evaluations using logical argument to test and criticize involves decisions which are often explicitly communicated. So, the theory of language function now contains five primary functions: the expressive and signalling functions, which humans have in common with other animals;and three primary higher functions: the assertive function (which breaks down into descriptive and evaluative sub-functions; and the argumentative and decisional functions.

                      One significant aspect of this theory is that movement to the higher functions doesn't mean abandoning the lower functions. Thus, language fulfilling any of the higher functions or any combination of them can also, and will generally, be associated with the expressive and signaling functions as well. Human beings use all of these in ordinary communication.
                      >
                      [snip]

                      Best,


                      Joe
                    • Pete Bond
                      Hi Joe, I agree that Senge s listing is far too short but there was an attempt in this paper to think about emotions as a source of energy to change, an idea
                      Message 10 of 30 , Aug 16, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Joe, I agree that Senge's listing is far too short but there was an
                        attempt in this paper to think about emotions as a source of energy to
                        change, an idea not too far from Maturana's own view (or so it seems to me).
                        I wanted to skip to the topic of languaging.

                        Conversation is a flow of languaging and emotioning. The list I borrowed
                        indicated kinds of conversations and not kinds of languaging. We are not the
                        only animals who engage in languaging,languaging is a biological phenomenon
                        and not a social one.

                        The Maturanian notion of language does stretch the dominant understanding
                        (which is a cognitivist-information processing- conceptualisation) to its
                        breaking point. A good starting point for understanding the 'new paradigm'
                        concept can be seen at: http://www.solonline.org/res/wp/maturana/index.html

                        I will look forward to reading your new resource. Thanks for that.


                        All for now.
                        --
                        peter
                      • eisai@comcast.net
                        Pete, Thanks for your post and the link to the Maturana talk. It s certainly beautiful and full of theoretical and metaphoric insights. In your reply and also
                        Message 11 of 30 , Aug 16, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Pete,

                          Thanks for your post and the link to the Maturana talk. It's certainly beautiful and full of theoretical and metaphoric insights.

                          In your reply and also in Maturana's talk, there was an answer to my question

                          ". . . Is there any "languaging" that does not involve "conversation" from the viewpoint of this framework? . . ."

                          But the answer, that languaging occurs in other animals apart from humans was a litle indirect and perhaps not to the point of what was bothering me. Let me focus the question further by adding the word "human" in front of "languaging" in my question.

                          Best,


                          Joe
                          -------------- Original message ----------------------
                          From: Pete Bond <plbond@...>
                          > Hi Joe, I agree that Senge's listing is far too short but there was an
                          > attempt in this paper to think about emotions as a source of energy to
                          > change, an idea not too far from Maturana's own view (or so it seems to me).
                          > I wanted to skip to the topic of languaging.
                          >
                          > Conversation is a flow of languaging and emotioning. The list I borrowed
                          > indicated kinds of conversations and not kinds of languaging. We are not the
                          > only animals who engage in languaging,languaging is a biological phenomenon
                          > and not a social one.
                          >
                          > The Maturanian notion of language does stretch the dominant understanding
                          > (which is a cognitivist-information processing- conceptualisation) to its
                          > breaking point. A good starting point for understanding the 'new paradigm'
                          > concept can be seen at: http://www.solonline.org/res/wp/maturana/index.html
                          >
                          > I will look forward to reading your new resource. Thanks for that.
                          >
                          >
                          > All for now.
                          > --
                          > peter
                        • Cornejo Castro, Miguel
                          Hi Pete, yes it s a big topic indeed :-). I have so little connection time these days that I dropped off the conversation but I enjoy reading you as it
                          Message 12 of 30 , Aug 19, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Pete,

                            yes it's a big topic indeed :-). I have so little connection time these days that I dropped off the conversation but I enjoy reading you as it evolves.

                            Just one comment: when I said "that'd be digressing" I meant that pursuing that particular point would be missing what IMHO was the "meat" of your argument, which came after that :-).

                            And of course very few managers can do their work without a minimum amount of initiative and decision :-). It's an artificial division. But on the whole I think we see what the other means.

                            I'm out of my depth with objective-subjective debate and reality-making :-), I guess I'm a "model maker" (if something behaves like the model predicts, then it's the thing) and a positivist. But you'll finally get me to read Maturana in depth :-D.

                            Best regards,

                            Miguel



                            -----Mensaje original-----
                            De: com-prac@yahoogroups.com en nombre de Pete Bond
                            Enviado el: lun 14/08/2006 12:38
                            Para: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
                            Asunto: Re: [cp] Re: community stability - learning, managing and leading

                            Thanks Miguel. This is a big can of worms I know but I pursue only because I
                            feel the need for something different. Someone encouraged me to explore the
                            concept of managing using the Maturana framework at the time Seth asked his
                            questions. If we are trying to reconceptualise the way organisations work
                            why not question the other basic concepts?

                            Hope this delay will not have killed the conversation.

                            M......

                            From the start, when you quote "'We are who we are, only in relations to
                            others'", I can't help thinking that is a partial view and a self-evidence
                            at the same time. "We can only be defined from outside by our observed
                            behaviour, which will always affect or be determined by others directly or
                            indirectly", would be an acceptable alternative. But that'd be digressing.

                            P.......
                            I don't feel this is a digression but is central to the principles I'm
                            attempting to apply, that is, the principles that lay in Maturana and
                            Varela's approach to understanding what happens in organisations. But you
                            are correct to say its a partial view. Who we are emerges from the networks
                            of conversation we engage with so always in relation to others. As well as
                            observers of the behavioutr of others we are also observers of our own
                            behaviours and so there will be a gap between what we feel ourselves to be,
                            what we are strong and weak in, and what others believe about us. The
                            important thing is that what we know about anything is subjective but
                            appears to become 'objective' if confirmed, or is taken to be shared by, a
                            significant and influential group of others. Applies especially to the
                            sociology of science, technology and engineering.

                            M.......

                            The role of leadership has so many definitions that it'd be quite useless to
                            qualify them. IMHO "leading" simply means taking the responsibility for a
                            decision that affects your fellows, however it's taken. It does not need
                            words; indeed it does not require humanity.

                            There are many specific types of leadership of which more things may be
                            predicated, but they're subspecies. It does, however, have one prerequisite
                            for efectiveness: authority.

                            Then you equal management and leadership. Again I can't agree. "Management"
                            is all about implementation: it's simply overseeing the execution of tasks
                            (plus all the bells and whistles to ensure it's done right), guiding an
                            established process along. It has one prerequisite for efectiveness: power.

                            Thus management (aka "administration") does not imply leadership, and a
                            leader need not be able to manage (think religions). Power and authority are
                            not the same thing.

                            P..........

                            There has been a lot of study of leaders and managers and the differences
                            but I don't think many managers would agree with the idea that they only
                            implement the goals of others. In any case, these implementors would have to
                            have the power and authority and accountabililty (if not the responsibility)
                            to put plans into action. I don't think the difference between leading and
                            managing can be found there. But we do associate leaders with creating the
                            grand vision and making the decisions that prove significant in the long run
                            and not with the nitty grittiness of putting plans into action. Leaders are
                            really a bit 'feeble' in that way.

                            As I mentioned before, my model of managing comes from the 1980s and it
                            covers the practices right through from problem recognition (the need to
                            improve, to change, to do better) through planning to implementing
                            monitoring controlling and evaluating, bit most of them can be mapped onto
                            Kolb's cycle of learning. Finding the patterns in these different models
                            leads me to thinking that managing is problem solving is learning. I would
                            validate my argumet with reference to the these models. Leading, may,
                            perhaps, a special case of 'managing with style' in a limited set of what
                            become high-profile activities.

                            Peter







                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Pete Bond
                            Hi Miguel, No doubt the manager vs leader debate will carry on long after we have lost interest, but to the other point of interest. I ve definitely got a
                            Message 13 of 30 , Aug 23, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Miguel, No doubt the manager vs leader debate will carry on long after
                              we have lost interest, but to the other point of interest.

                              I've definitely got a model maker's habit too and there's a point of entry
                              into the Maturana stuff for model makers and its related to their concept of
                              scientific explanations.

                              One kind of scientific explanation is refered to as the mechanical
                              explanation. So lets say you wanted to explain the phenomenon of the
                              'community of practice. You would have to describe the operations, or the
                              mechanism, which would give rise to the phenomenon you have observed and
                              desired to explain. or, as we have had here recently, the phenomenon of
                              dissappearing leadership, or is the phenomenon of interest 'CoPs' without
                              leadership. Either way, a phenomenon is deemed to be explained if a model
                              can reproduce the phenomenon. The theory is not quite so straightfoward as
                              this but it does reveal the essentially systems basis for the whole of ther
                              work. As far as human organisations are concerned, a key
                              process/operation/mechanism through which change takes place is languaging,
                              Languaging is essentially the mechanism or operation that gives rise to the
                              phenomenon we call the socio-technical organisation. Within that general
                              phenomenon other phenomena might also be recognised. Such as social change
                              and social conservation.

                              I've got an unfinished paper I'm happy to share that might encourage you
                              even more to delve into Maturana's explanation of socio-cultural change.
                              The original was presented at a complexity conference last year. This is my
                              attempt to explain in diagrammatical terms (modelling) the emergence of
                              cultural space (e.g. the unique spaces created and maintained by
                              communities- like your fisherfolk- through their practices, including their
                              conversations). The modelling convention I use is systems dynamics (like
                              Senge's Systems Thinking diagrams).
                              --
                              pete
                            • Rosanna Tarsiero
                              Hye beautiful mind, You wrote: I ve definitely got a model maker s habit too and there s a point of entry into the Maturana stuff for model makers and its
                              Message 14 of 30 , Aug 24, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hye beautiful mind,





                                You wrote:

                                "I've definitely got a model maker's habit too and there's a point of entry
                                into the Maturana stuff for model makers and its related to their concept of
                                scientific explanations."



                                Model making is an *essential* part of the way brains are wired to work for
                                the best. Without it, the thought is called "preoperational", also famous
                                for being context-dependent, literal, unable to "whatiffing".



                                I say it's ok to make models as long as they are based on observation and
                                open to be amended :-)



                                Rosanna



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Pete Bond
                                Talking of managing, which we were, I came across this recently (see below). Can anyone make sense of it? No wonder there s ambuguity about managing and
                                Message 15 of 30 , Aug 25, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Talking of managing, which we were, I came across this recently (see below).
                                  Can anyone make sense of it? No wonder there's ambuguity about managing and
                                  leading.

                                  You can get the article and others from Sage who are running a freeby to a
                                  new journal called management and organisational history.
                                  http://sage-news.msgfocus.com/c/1cG6QDialMbcbo9

                                  Title of this paper

                                  Conceptual history and the interpretation of managerial ideologies

                                  Abstract
                                  This article introduces key elements of Œconceptual history¹ from the work
                                  of Reinhart Koselleck (1985, 2002).We argue that his combination of an
                                  existential conception of his toricity with the notion of Œconcept¹ as a
                                  mediator of existence and culture opens up unex plored avenues for
                                  interpreting management ideologies.We illustrate conceptual history with the
                                  example of Œplay¹ in recent managerial literature. On the one hand, if we
                                  situate the analysis in the 20th century, Œplay¹ seems to have changed its
                                  conceptual place in rela tion to Œwork¹ from a Œdestructive¹, to a
                                  Œrecreational¹, and ­ recently ­ to a Œcreative¹ force in work
                                  organizations. On the other hand, if we change the horizon of periodization
                                  to the last five centuries (as approximating modernity), the managerial
                                  concept of Œplay¹ continues and intensifies certain central themes of modern
                                  culture: self-assertion, world alienation, and ethical inarticulacy.
                                  Conceptual history, we argue, can be used as a pro ductive analytical
                                  strategy for historical material whose dynamic is otherwise hard to grasp
                                  and Œstabilize¹ in a coherent account.


                                  Key Words: Alienation € ethics € existential phenomenology € Koselleck €
                                  management € modernity € play € soft capitalism


                                  --
                                  peter
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.