Toluu

What is the (Next) Message?

"I don't want them to believe me, I just want them to think." - Marshall McLuhan

What is Organization?December 17 2008

I'm working on a chapter for an upcoming volume, Effects of Technology: Multidisciplinary perspectives, that is to be published next year in honour of the 40th anniversary of the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology. I spent five interesting, exciting, sometimes frenetic years there before coming to OISE, and I'm honoured to be able to contribute my thoughts on the effects of technology as they pertain to one of the most significant and fundamental structures of society, the organization. Outlining the chapter has led me back to the foundation question for my research, namely, What is Organization?

As my regular readers will know, I've come up with a definition of organization as a distinct entity in terms of Valence Theory. But I'm talking about organization in the very general, very philosophical case that is itself a precursor, if you will, to Valence Theory. This morning, I think I chanced upon it. Tell me what you think:

Organization is an expression of the dominant effects of the structuring force of culturally and historically contextualized human interaction.

[Technorati tags:

EMD III: Dealing with Disagreement, Dissent, and Outright OppositionDecember 15 2008

If you have arrived at this post directly, and are not familiar with my research, you may want to also visit some of the posts under the Valence Theory and Thesis labels, as well as reading the very quick primer.

How does an organization, and its leadership, deal with disagreement, dissent and outright opposition to decisions and processes in the organization? When does “drinking the Kool-Aid” become mandatory in an organizational culture, and when do opposing viewpoints cause a leader to question whether the dissenting individual is “playing on the same team?” The semantic of “dealing with” itself needs to be unpacked and probed: in what contexts does “dealing with” necessitate ensuring compliance, as opposed to finding a way to create consensus, as opposed to being able to manage polarities and hold tensions? Under which circumstance is it important for specific, pre-conceived objectives, approaches or outcomes to prevail, irrespective of secondary (or tertiary) effects, as opposed to those circumstances for which a new, synthesized approach, objective or effect is appropriate? Are there characteristic behaviours relative to this situation of dealing with dis

EMD II: How Does an Organization Scale?December 15 2008

If you have arrived at this post directly, and are not familiar with my research, you may want to also visit some of the posts under the Valence Theory and Thesis labels, as well as reading the very quick primer.

There are two ways to scale an organization, depending on whether one wants to scale the objectives, goals, outcomes and purpose, or the effects of that organization.

In the former case, the organization adds resources under the control of legitimated leadership that augment the functional ability of the organization to accomplish its purpose. This can be accomplished either by internally growing resources – adding people, raising capital, increasing production capacity and ability – or by acquiring an already existing organization that has an appropriate suite of resources, ideally with a minimal amount of redundancy. (As an aside, reducing redundancy requires an expenditure of resources that does not directly contribute to the purpose or objectives, and thus is counter-productive to the BAH organization. It is akin to externalizing waste products. A Valence

The World's First UCaPP GovernmentDecember 2 2008

The United States may have elected the first Internet President - one who seems to truly understand the messages of the UCaPP* world. Canada, on the other hand, is about to form the very first UCaPP government in the world - one that appears to be problematic when viewed from a BAH perspective, but very much in tune with a Valence Theory reading.

If one considers this situation with a fogey mind, the proposed coalition government between the Liberals and NDP, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, appears to be an act of political opportunism, with the objective being the acquisition of legitimated power (i.e., the Prime Ministership and Cabinet posts) for the sake of power. Particularly for those who support our now hapless Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, the game has always been about acquiring power, and wielding paternalistic influence to create a right-wing, reactionary, neo-liberal government.

Sorry... my political biases are showing.

But those who consider the world from today's perspective - with the eyes of the 21st century, rather than the 19th - a collaboration among three political parties that have each put aside their purposeful objectives and carefully considered each other's contexts, is entirely consistent with the dominant effects of a UCaPP

Big Ideas: No Educator Left BehindNovember 29 2008

It's a weird feeling, watching yourself giving a talk. I-the-watcher felt tremendously nervous since I was unprepared to give the talk I-the-lecturer was about to give. Strange, no? Fortunately, the guy on the TV was indeed well prepared, and didn't do that bad a job, if I do say so myself. TVO describes the talk like this:

"No Educator Left Behind" is the title of this lecture by Mark Federman. In it Federman contends that, as a result of the changes the internet has brought to the way students communicate and interact, universities, if they are to remain relevant, must move from the current model of education as skills centered to one that is more focused on connectivity.. If you missed the live broadcast, you can download the video.

Update: If you'd like to pass the link around, here is a more manageable URL: http://snipurl.com/noeducator

[Technorati tags: big ideas | education | educator reform]