• what's context which we are operating
• to continually invest, enhancing the intelligence of your enterprise
• how people understand the world around them
Peter Senge's presentation from
2012 Better by Design CEO Summit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE5lviCN7gA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE5lviCN7gA
____________________________________
Peter Senge's presentation from
2012 Better by Design CEO Summit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE5lviCN7gA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE5lviCN7gA
(transcript, not verbatim, not by algorithm)
I don't know if this is new or very old,
in some sense, my guess is that it is kind of a timeless idea
but since a lot of you are in the senior role in your organization
I would like to suggest one easily neglected aspect of your work is how to help people make sense of things
who are we
where are we
but also what's context which we are operating
so one way to say would be that one aspect of your job is to continually invest, enhancing the intelligence of your enterprise
how people understand the world around them
now that could be
(1.2), (1.25), (1.3), (1.7)
and you'll see in a minute when I explain a little bit
of why there is a natural range of uncertainty
but part of the defining feature of the world we lived today is this number
this number refers to how many earths we presently use
if you look at the total footprint of human activity on the planet
we are way pass the 1
probably, I say a kind of concensus perspective of environmental scientists
probably in the later part of the last century we pass the 1 point
now, this is inherently ambiguious idea
that does not make it unimportant
we want to be a good designer in this world today
you obviously have to embrace ambiguity
everything in life at some level is ambiguious
so you picked a few that are particularly important
I would say there are probably none that are more important than this one
If China were to rise to the level of material affluence and waste of the West, this number would be two
We would need 2 Earths
If India does like wise, it will be 3
I would say that is a defining feature of our reality, today
Because it means what it means
To each person, to each organization, to each society
take the time to try to make sense of it
needless to say we don't have 2 earths, we don't have 3, we don't even have one and a half
so we are way pass already to the point to which human being think in any logical rational basis that we just keep going the way we are going and everything will be fine
but I would say just that as long as we accept this inherently certain notion, every species, every biological context or niche, operate in the context biologist has been calling for years, carrying capacity
you know, how many of whatever species can be supported in this biological setting, or geographical setting, food supply, ability to process waste, etc. . .
very basic stuff
second number
this one, ah, a lot less ambiguious in concept
the idea of a carrying capacity of any species is always a conceptual idea, no one differs with the principle behind it
there is always an optimum size of the physical footprint of any species,
but what that is and how you calculate it is inherently very
scientific question
this one actually much less complicated
that's the number of people in the world who will not have access to clean drinking water by 2020
today it's already well over a billion (1,000,000,000)
general estimate, World Health Organization, about a billion, 200 million people in the world do not have reliable access to clean drinking water, not far off, 2020, standard World Health Organization estimate,
this will be two billions (2,000,000,000)
this is not a new statement right now, but I think it tells us alot
actually, water is the new oil
this third is one that probably
at least for me when I first was expose to it was the one that really surprise me and I want to share it, it's a little bit tough to deal with, at least I think it is, you'll draw your own conclusion, because to me it kind of complete the picture in a very interest way,
that number is the number of people in the world who died each year from their own hands, suicides, compared to the total number killed in homocides and wars, year in and year out, for the last two to three decades, particularly for the last decade,
3 times as many people have killed themselves than have been killed by another
so I am just sharing these little bits of data, to give us something to reflect on, one of the real role of data we often miss that is to get us to stop and pay attention to some aspect of our reality, and asked what does this mean,
so obviously the first and second one have to do ...
for I want to leave with you to think about this on your own
this third number, I don't know about you, but when I first heard it was kind a really jaw dropping
and I've heard it now several time ... in a ball park accurate
It suggests something that to me very important to consider in concert with let just say sociological crisis, which deep down we may have a crisis of humanness
I mentioned the global food sustainable laboratory
we have lived in an age
we need a little definition here
if you are in Europe the we go on, maybe the last 200, 250 years
if you are American the last 150, 200 years
New Zealand, somewhat similar
in China, 20 years
we live in an Era, the era is industrial age, it is not over, wasn't subplanted by the information age, a complete mis understanding of what the term mean
it's an age where, another way to say this, it would be materialism become kind of dominant mindset,
many would argue that the Western scientific revolution plant the seed for this
quite a bit more fundamental
technology is about enabling thing
what do we want to enable
what is the context in which we live
what is the reality of today and the future
··<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
2075
*************************
* Blueprint or Scramble *
*************************
transcript excerpt from a talk given by LAWRENCE WILKERSON
Royal Dutch Shell has done a look.
They have some of the best strategists that I've run into
(and I was a strategist in the military) in a long time,
and their look says the future is a blueprint,
or the future is a scramble.
And they talk about how to 2075, how dwindling water resources,
dwindling petroleum resources, gas and oil,
and so forth are going to cause world leaders to have
to either cooperate and coordinate — "blueprint" — or fight each other
mercilessly for half a century or longer.
Royal Dutch Shell believes it's probably going to be the latter.
They call that "scramble".
We arrive at essentially the same point in 2075,
with a basket of energy sources,
some of which we probably don't even know now due to technological
innovation, with different countries in the world,
with different power relationships in the world;
we arrive pretty much at the same place,
whether it's the blueprint scenario or the scramble scenario.
There's just under the scramble scenario a lot of blood,
a lot of treasure, and a lot of dead bodies.
Frankly, Royal Dutch Shell strategists,
they won't tell you this, but I believe it's fair to say that
they think the political will and the leadership won't be here,
and so we're going to do the scramble and not the blueprint.
If you're an optimist, you can go for the blueprint.
LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. STATE DEPT. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL:
Let me express my appreciation for all of you coming out tonight.
It's late, and we're on a college campus,
and this is really rare to get this many people out.
([ It shall be a combination of a blueprint and a scramble, ... ])
____________________________________
author
Peter M. Senge
editor's note
M.I.T. organizational learning center
systems thinking and system dynamics in organizations
organization learning is needed
The Fifth Discipline (1990)
internal structure for learning is essential
keynote address, The Power of Systems Thinking Conference, June 12, 1996
... ... ...
A different view of organization reality: the healthy side of system dynamics
Now let me pose the question in a slightly different way. What would it mean to practice a discipline of system dynamics from what I would call a non-controlling viewpoint? Or, to put it more precisely, from a viewpoint that does not presume a perspective of naive realism?
That question can lead us toward the healthy side of system dynamics. There is an extraordinary healthy side to system dynamics, beyond the obvious, i.e., understanding complexities and interdependence. We all know that is important, so I don’t mean to discount that. But there is something else, more philosophical, at what would be called an epistemological level—how we understand our world around us. When you participate as a model builder you get very clear about your active participation in constructing your understanding of the world.
As human beings what we continually do is construct our understanding of the world. It is never adequate. All models are wrong. Modeling, as a discipline, is a very humbling discipline. I think all of us who have been involved would say that. We become aware of just how incomplete our understanding is, and how much it is based on our own perspectives, our own understanding, and our own history.
How terribly parochial [parochial - restricted to a small area or scope; narrow; limited; provincial [a parochial outlook]] our own understanding is—because it is our own understanding! How could it be anything but parochial? And then we do what the scientific community aspires to do—we make our thinking public. That is really humbling. At first, when we are just building the model, we find ourselves saying, “Gee is that how it works? I think this is how is works.” Then you actually show it to somebody.
Do you know that the word theory has the same roots as the word theater. It is from the Greek root word—theo-rós. It means to lay out in the open, display. To construct a theory is to display one’s thinking. The problem is that most of us learned about science when we were kids, while we read our 8th grade science book and it was full of all these statements which appeared to be definitive descriptions of reality, created by these strange kind of occult characters called “scientists.” The Wizard of Oz is really about that—these strange characters behind the curtain; we don’t see them; we don’t know about them as people; we don’t learn about their foibles, their flaws or their passions. We learn about them as the scientists who create these definitive statements of reality—just like that Wizard’s image projected on the screen. Rarely do we consider science as a human process, as Buckminster Fuller used to say, of “putting the data of one’s experience in order.”
... ... ...
A community is a necessary context
The premise in forming a consortium to do this work—The Center for Organizational Learning— was very simple: (l) This is really hard. It is hard because it’s hard; it is a human attempt to model a difficult, complex and dynamic reality. (2) When human beings have something that is really difficult to do it would be foolhardy for them to try to do it by themselves, You can generalize that one more step: When organizations have something that is really hard for organizations to do, it is foolhardy for them to do it by themselves. They need to team up.
It has taken us about five years, but now I think we understand the kind of principle behind the premise. It is this: When you are seeking to bring about a change in the order of things, something that is fairly fundamental, it can only be done in the context of a community.
... ... ...
____________________________________
author
Peter M. Senge
... [...] ....
I remember Bill O’Brien, former CEO of the Hanover Insurance Company,
saying, “Organizational design starts with the guiding ideas. To what extent is the organization actually committed to—and people perceive it as being authentically and genuinely committed to—aspirations that go beyond just making money.” Without that you cannot expect people to really invest themselves. And if people cannot really invest themselves, it is hard for much learning to occur. So, in a sense, that is the beginning of infrastructure for learning.
Arie de Geus gave a speech in 1995 at the Royal Academy of the Arts, in London, entitled: “What is a Company?” He traced out two quite fascinating historical lines of thought around that question. He pointed out that the prevailing notion of a company, a business enterprise, is that it is a machine for making money. Now we never say that. It would be very politically incorrect. If your organization is a machine for making money, what does that mean you are? But of course that is what people experience. And that is really the “theory in use” in most of our corporations. They basically are conceived of as machines for making money. He then contrasted that with the idea that a company is fundamentally a human community, which if it functions effectively can make money. But it is first and foremost a human community whose needs are those of any community: meaning; some degree of stability; and some degree of longevity, especially the desire to pass on things, to function intergenerationally.
Do know that the traditional word for business in Swedish is nårings liv which means “nourishment for life.” It’s a very old notion of “company,” a gathering of people who care about something, who want to do something. Sounds interesting?
... [...] ....
Author information
Peter M. Senge is the director of the MIT Sloan School of Management’s Center for Organizational Learning. The Center is a consortium of corporations that work together to advance methods and knowledge for building learning organizations. His work articulates a cornerstone position of human
values in the workplace; namely that vision, purpose, alignment and systems thinking are essential if organizations are to truly realize their potentials. His areas of special interest and expertise focus on decentralizing the role of leadership in an organization to enhance the capacity of all people to work
productively toward common goals.
... [...] ....
Senge received a B.S. in Engineering from Stanford University, a M.S. in Social Systems Modeling, and a Ph.D. in Management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
source : Winter1996-1997.pdf
source filename(modified): JoIM(Winter19961-1997).pdf
Winter 1997, 68 pages
(not verbatim)
____________________________________
The necessary revolution : how individual and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world,
Peter Senge,
Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur, Sara Schley,
2008
p.176 mental models.
We all hold mental models——some shared across a society, others across a social class, a political party, an industry, a particular company, or even within our own family. What is often less clear is how these models affect, even dictate, our thoughts and actions and the thinking of those around us.
p.174
Ways of explaining reality
**increasing leverage and opportunity for learning
||
|| Events React
|| what just happened?
||
|| Patterns/Trends Anticipate/expectation
|| what's been happening over time?
|| have we been here or some
|| place similar before?
||
|| Systemic Structures Design/co-design/co-evolution
|| what are the deeper forces driving these
|| patterns or trends and how do they arise?
|| what are the forces at play
|| contributing to these pathways?
||
|| Mental Models Transform/re-form/re-organise/re-call
|| what about our thinking
|| allows this situation to persist?
\/
figure 12.1
p.177
Why is it so important to look beneath the surface at the deeper levels of reality? Because in our experience it is often the key to lasting change. When people or organizations pay attention only to the visible tip of the iceberg, they can only react to change as it happens—so at best, they survive the crisis. They often try to compensate for their lack of analysis of a problem with aggressive and "proactive" strategies. But being "proactive" from a reactive mind-set is reactive just the same. With long enough lever, boasted Archimedes, "I can move the world."
(The necessary revolution : how individual and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world, Peter Senge, Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur, Sara Schley, 2008, 338.927 Senge, pp.172-177)
____________________________________
"An [organization] is not a machine but a living organism." --Ikujiro Nonaka
/**
Fundamentals of epistemology: what is knowledge, the nature of knowledge, and what constitutes learning.
Understanding is achieved after internalization.
Without experience, we cannot truly understand.
Internalization: transformation from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, habits and culture that we do not recognize in ourselves.
3.5 tacit knowledge, i.e. riding a bike, playing the piano, driving a car, hitting a nail with a hammer
3.5.5 Tacit knowledge has been described as “know-how” - as opposed to “know-what” (facts), “know-why” (science), or “know-who” (networking).
Innovation is a process to capture, create, leverage, and retain knowledge.
What is your belief? A belief about images of the world – you may call it a mental model – is a very subjective thing
Information is the flow of a message, while knowledge is created by accumulating information. Thus, information is a necessary medium or material for eliciting and constructing knowledge.
The second difference is that information is something passive. When we switch on a TV set, information comes regardless of my commitment. (( But knowledge comes from my belief, so it's more proactive. ))
knowledge is justifying personal belief toward the "truth." ([ your knowledge is your personal "truth"; knowledge is what you know to be truth ])
And the organizational knowledge or intellectual infrastructure of an organization encourages its individual members to develop new knowledge through new experiences.
This dynamic process is the key to organizational knowledge creation – that is,
(1) socialization -- from individual tacit knowledge to group tacit knowledge,
(2) externalization -- from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge,
(3) combination -- from separate explicit knowledge to systemic explicit knowledge, and
(4) internalization -- from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge (see Figure 1).
http://www.dialogonleadership.org/Nonaka-1996.html#three
([ this URL no longer exist; archive? ])
*/
(Peter M Serge, The Fifth Discipline Field Book)
____________________________________
The change management toolbook : a collection of tools, methods and strategies, by Holger Nauheimer
page 53/307 (pdf)
The map is not the reality (Alfred Korzybski)
... human being do not react to reality, but build their own mental model of reality.
... ... ...
Accepting this scientific fact has fundamental consequences: the mental models of individuals who meet and try to exchange information never match - virtually never! But people have the ability to widen their mental models through and understanding of other people's.
page 58/307 (pdf)
It goes without saying that many generalisations result in incorrect/erroneous judgments. This is one of the major traps of thinking. We are ready to accept information given to us without crosschecking, if it fits into our mental model.
page 61/307 (pdf)
At the start of a consultantcy assignment, the client usually focuses on his problems, often having deficit orientated perceptions of this working environment (such as team problems, etc.). As a result, adaptive behavioural patterns aren't explored.
page 61/307 (pdf)
An anaysis of group processes reveals that hypnotic patterns are self-generating and that on an unconscious level all actors contribute to the problem state: they hypnotize themselves.
source:
The change management toolbook : a collection of tools, methods and strategies, by Holger Nauheimer
https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/03/1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
was save as : change management toolbook.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZQYEwIfE7lzwHwa7jngoOLYQdA5QwGt2/view?usp=sharing
____________________________________
The change management toolbook : a collection of tools, methods and strategies, by Holger Nauheimer
page 50/307 (pdf)
Peter Senge has described the "Ladder of Inference" which is based on the inner confidence that "our map of the reality is the truth", and "the truth is obvious" as a sequence of cognitive steps (Peter Senge et.al. (1994), p.243]:
•─ We receive data [experiences] through our senses (observation).
•─ We select [experiential] data from what we observe (filter, subtraction).
•─ We add meaning to the data (colour, augmentation).
•─ We draw assumptions on base of the selected data and the meaning we added.
•─ We adopt beliefs (mental models) about the reality and continue to select data (as per step 2) that correspond to these beliefs.
•─ We act upon our beliefs.
A act - take actions based on beliefs
B believe - adopt beliefs about the world
C conclude - draw conclusions
A assume - make assumptions based on the added meanings
C colour - colour the data - add meaning (cultural & personal)
F filter - select or filter data to suit our beliefs
O observe - data & experiences [like] a video tape ("reality")
source:
The change management toolbook : a collection of tools, methods and strategies, by Holger Nauheimer
https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/03/1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
1a75f61d353397066eb0e83a0da69d2fd8ee2ef4.pdf
was save as : change management toolbook.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZQYEwIfE7lzwHwa7jngoOLYQdA5QwGt2/view?usp=sharing
____________________________________
Spirituality in Business and Life: Asking the Right Questions
Peter Senge
____________________________________
────────────────────────────────────
search term: Article_Senge.pdf
search program: www.bing.com
[[ your result may varied, for unexplained reason ...]]
http://www.integral-focus.com/pdf/Senge.pdf
https://www.siue.edu/~mthomec/LearnOrg-Senge.pdf
https://www.implicity.org/Downloads/Bohm-Senge-Team%20Learning.pdf
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1993/the-fifth-discipline-the-art-and-practice-of-the-learning-organization
[[ quick browse, did not like this ]]
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/dev/dwnld/lapn-eng.pdf
https://changingwinds.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/the-five-learning-disciplines.pdf
[[ quick browse, too academic and scholarly ]]
https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Learning-Organization-According-to-Senge.pdf
https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Systems%20Thinking%20-%20Senge.pdf
https://www.chuh.org/Downloads/feldman_senges_fifth_discipline.pdf
https://www.accncrleadershipacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/holding-creative-tension-senge.article.pdf
https://www.globalacademy.media/transcript-peter-senge-the-heart-of-transformation/
────────────────────────────────────
────────────────────────────────────
