Emergence as a core complexity construct tells us that innovators can’t determine in advance what will happen, so evaluators can’t determine in advance what to measure. We have to be watching for whatever emerges. We have to expect the unexpected. We have to be prepared. In a lecture on scientific discovery given at the University of Lille in 1854, Louis Pasteur asserted: “Dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits prepares” (In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind).
Bron: Patton MQ (2011) Developmental Evaluation – applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: The Guilford Press. [p.126]
A mistake follows an act. It identifies the character of an act in its aftermath. It names it. An act, however, is not mistaken; it becomes mistaken. There is a paradox here, for seen from the inside of action, that is from the point of view of an actor, an act becomes mistaken only after it has already gone wrong. As it is unfolding, it is not becoming mistaken at all; it is becoming.
[Bron: Marianne Paget, geciteerd in: Weick K.E. (2009). Making Sense of the Organization: the impermanent organization. West Sussex: Wiley. p.32]
Strategic plans are a lot like maps. They animate and orient people. Once people begin to act (enactment), they generate tangible outcomes (cues) in some context (social), and this helps them discover (retrospect) what is occurring (ongoing), what needs to be explained (plausibility), and what should be done next (identity enhancement). Managers keep forgetting that it is what they do, not what they plan, that explains their success. They keep giving credit to the wrong thing— namely, the plan—and having made this error, they then spend more time planning and less time acting.
[Bron: Weick, K.E. – Sensemaking in Organizations. – Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995, p.54-55]
Antonio Damasio beschrijft in zijn boek Self Comes to Mind uitgebreid hoe hij denkt dat het menselijk bewustzijn is ontstaan en welke mechanismen in het brein aan dit bewustzijn ten grondslag liggen. Hij beschrijft wat de wetenschap ons nu al kan vertellen en hij levert een hele reeks hypothesen. Centraal in het boek staat het samenspel tussen gedachten/beelden en gevoelens, het samenspel tussen bewustzijn en onbewuste – en de verschillende onderdelen van het lichaam/brein die daarin een rol spelen. In het laatste hoofdstuk zegt hij ook iets over moreel gedrag … dat het een vaardigheid is (die veel oefenen vergt). Continue reading Moraliteit is vaardigheid
Naturalizing the conscious mind and planting it firmly in the brain does not diminish the role of culture in the construction of human beings, does not reduce human dignity, and does not mark the end of mystery and puzzlement. Cultures arise and evolve from collective efforts of human brains, over many generations, and some cultures even die in the process. They require brains that have already been shaped by prior cultural effects. The significance of cultures to the making of the modern human mind is not in question. Nor is the dignity of that human mind diminished by connecting it to the astonishing complexity and beauty to be found inside living cells and tissues. On the contrary, connecting personhood to biology is a ceaseless source of awe and respect for anything human. Last, naturalizing the mind may solve one mystery but only to raise the curtain on other mysteries quietly awaiting their turn.
[Damasio, A. (2010) Self Comes to Mind. New York: Pantheon books, p.29.]
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.
[Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Alan Lane. p.201]
Nurses (and physicians) like everyone else, make sense by acting thinkingly, which means that they simultaneously interpret their knowledge with trusted frameworks, yet mistrust those very same frameworks by testing new frameworks and new interpretattions. The underlying assupmtion in each case is that ignorance and knowledge coexsist, which means that adaptive sensemaking both honors and rejects the past.
[Weick K.E., Sutcliffe K.M. & Obstfeld D (2009). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. In: Weick K.E. (2009). Making Sense of the Organization: the impermanent organization. West Sussex: Wiley. p.137]
Innovators treat the world as a question mark, rarely working on autopilot and constantly challenging the accuracy of their mental maps about the territory (whether products, services, processes, geographies, or business models). Suspended comfortably between a faith in and doubt of their maps, the best innovators remember that their views of the world are never the actual territory. Intuitively, they rely on a rich assortment of questions to develop a deep understanding of how things really are, before probing intensely into what they might be. (p.71)
[Bron: Dyer J., Gregerson H. & Christensen C.M. (2011) The Innovator’s DNA — mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.]
“If evaluators wish to be sincere in their imitation of the experimental method, we suggest some changes in the ranks of those who should be flattered. Perhaps it is time to abandon Hume and Mill (and their model of the experimentalist-as-logician), and celebrate Galileo and Huygens (and their practice of the theoretician-as-experimentalist).”
[Bron: Pawson, R., en N. Tilley – Realistic Evaluation. – London: Sage, 1997, p. 63]