|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
oamprimo
Posts:7
 |
| 11/06/2006 11:30 PM |
 Alert
|
Bonjour,
Governance seems to be a key concepts as with communities we are shifting from a hierarchical coordination process toward a network coordination process. To make it clear: classical coordination protocols in organization (science) are flintsones' technology.
One can use the concept of Hypertext organization crafted by Nonaka (first appearing in a 91 paper) but my view, based on management research, is that there is something missing: community is heterogeneous. There is no Community, there are communities. Nonaka missed the point because he focused on the internal side of organizations (mainly operations, the classical bias in translated Japanese Managerial litterature).
If we go for a broader perspective, i.e. companies in their environments (that's strategy) then there is a minimum of five communities:
- consumers
- employees
- shareholders
- social and natural environment
- senior management
All these communities have their on purpose, strategy, needs and governance should adress them all to make things work. The outcome is that we encompass a model of governance that is more Montesquieu-based than Fourrier-based.
If this makes sense, I can draft a preliminary text on this.
Let me know your thougths first.
Cheers,
Olivier
|
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/09/2006 10:52 PM |
Alert
|
Olivier,
I'm not familiar with neither Montesquieu-based nor Fourrier-based governance...could you expand a bit on the idea? In particular, how would the governance model affect each of the communities that you have identified?
I think the 5 contexts which you have identified are quite relavant to the book and perhaps by getting a little deeper into the idea, we can open this up for a better discussion.
cheers,
joe |
|
|
|
|
oamprimo
Posts:7
|
| 11/17/2006 1:56 PM |
Alert
|
Bonjour Joe,
Thanks for getting back on this and giving me the opportunity to develop slightly further.
Fourier and Montesquieu are two French policital thinkers.
You'll find more info on Wikipedia even if it's far from perfect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu
My understanding is that with the approach of considering organization as one community (as does Nonaka with his Hypertext representation) we are having a Fourier-based conception. And with this comprehension with miss some major points in today's economical and organizational lives.
Companies are tight with consumers, stockholders, environment and employees who pursue their own goals and impact company life. Governance is about coordinating this diversity to achieve common goals (strategy) thru negotiation.
We consequently have to look broader than mainstream currently does when it comes to community and go for a meta thing. By considering five communities - consumers, employees, shareholders, social and natural environment, senior management - I think we approach a more realistic understanding of real social life and we conveniently end up with Montesquieu's conception : separation of powers (here communities)
and dependency upon each other so that the influence of any one power would not be able to exceed that of the others.
I'm ready to write something down in that perspective. This would provide me>we with a meta-governance perspective that would provide free room for other, less meta/more local, perspective as affecting none of them "internally".
The choice of consumers, employees, environment and shareholders is based on business evolutions I'll need to develop specifically.
In "Chapter 1 discussion" forum, post 4, I wrote :
"I would suggest to have a specific part explaining how come we are finally ending in a community spirit while we have been raised for generations in an individualistic perspective. Obviously there is a need behind.
I can use part of my previous research work in management to craft an answer specific for organizations."
That is where the loop buckles-up : my suggestion for chapter 1 supports my suggestion for chapter 12.
'looking forward to receiving feed-backs.
Cheers,
Olivier |
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/17/2006 2:17 PM |
Alert
|
Olivier,
keep going...keep going. I often find the best way to work through an idea is to just get down on paper (or screen) everything that I know for the moment. Then by identifying the pertinent questions, we can begin to address each hole one at a time until the overall thesis is built up.
After looking through the wikipedia articles, I now understand the basic difference that you imply by moving from Montesquieu-based to Fourier-based governments (love learning new things ;). While I believe that both had interesting ideas, I also believe that their theories need to be totally rethought within the context of an internet world.
Expand on the idea of the social shift that we are seeing and the increased motivation to form communities. Is this a result of an underlying isolationist feeling that many westerners feel? Is it a global phenomena (take latin america or asia as examples, how are they different)? What can other trends exist to support the idea?
I work best by responding to questions (that's just how I am), so as you write, try to pick out questions that other members in the community can respond to.
Cheers and looking forward to your thoughts.
joe |
|
|
|
|
oamprimo
Posts:7
|
| 11/17/2006 2:39 PM |
Alert
|
Joe,
Thanks for the feed-back.
How do you think it is efficient to move forward?
Go straight to "write a book" or complement the current discussion thread?
Keep in mind that my playground is organization, not the wild wild web.
In case you and others suggest that I write things down, I'll need some days to translate current writings from French to English.
Cheers,
Olivier
|
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/17/2006 4:06 PM |
Alert
|
I would use the following criteria to move forward.
1) locate the challenge and theme that most closely relates to one of your ideas.
2) Consider the state of your idea. Is it something that you would like the community to help you develop or is it a solid concept that speaks for itself?
3) If you would like help in developing an idea, start a thread in the challenge's discussion forum.
4) If the idea has solidified and you feel good about it, then by all means, get it in to the challenge's wiki page.
Just remember, take it in small chunks. This is a dynamic process and you'll need to give the other member time to absorb your ideas and offer feedback. So translate a few ideas, share them, get some feedback, translate some more, write some new stuff and so on and so forth.
The main thing is that you jump into the fray with confidence and an open mind.
hope this helps,
joe |
|
|
|
|
integrative
Posts:2
|
| 11/20/2006 10:22 PM |
Alert
|
| Let me start by offering this definition of governance which is a synthesis of those offered by others in the field. "Governance is the process by which government, business and civil society organisations gain, exercise and maintain power in relation to individual end-users/citizens and their physical, social and cultural environments." |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/24/2006 7:19 PM |
Alert
|
Olivier,
Thanks for your provoking ideas - like Joe I went and looked up Wikipedia and learnt a lot. BTW, I might be able to help with some French translation - much easier if you have some done roughly and send me also the original! It would keep my practice going.
I think your post brings up a very important point of view which shoul become a virtua of this process of community writing. It is that with global reach and diversity of backgrounds, we can create something where for a single theme we can explore several perspectives, all of which may be perfectly viable and valid id separate contexts and different cultures. I find that thought really exciting.
So, I have a plea for people who come from othe than Anglosaxon cultural background. Please tell us more about your thinking and the building blocks you use.
More meat please. And, Olivier, thanks again. Look forward to your meta governance ideas. Incidentally, that is a theme I have mostly been working on with a close colleague (who used to be in the Cabinet Office for Mrs Thatcher and originally came from industry - so not a politician)! Perhaps this thread may persuade him to take part in the discussion after all. |
|
|
|
|
montaigne
Posts:1
|
| 12/07/2006 3:53 PM |
Alert
|
Gentlemen,
I am neither an exegete of Montesquieu and the theory he in expressed in "L'Esprit des Lois" that I guess Olivier is referring to, thru this discussion. However I'd rather say that this theory is much more about the need for balance of powers (i.e. executive, parliament, justice ... ) than considering different communities of interest. The only one community that Montesquieu seem to always had in mind is what we will call nowadays the Nation, i.e. one single community characterized by its language, culture, geographic spread and other similar things. The concept of Nation as community was nascent at the time of Montesquieu with the strong power of Louis the XIV, and only took place with the French Revolution where the "people" was brought to be the sovereign (at least that was the expectation !). Hence to come back to what this discussion is about I am not that the fragmented communities we are talking about in this project has any need for balance of power as Montesquieu addressed for a nascent Nation State.
My 2 cents to reposition the debate into perspective.
Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
oamprimo
Posts:7
|
| 03/01/2007 3:36 PM |
Alert
|
Bonjour Montaigne,
Thanks for the perspective.
1 - Montesquieu.
It is correct that the proposed writting is influenced by Montesquieu but not only.
2 - Nation
Correct Montesquieu was done in a specific political context but tapping loads in Aristotle and the British politic experience.
However:
- the question of governance is a classical one in political philosophy and science. Both provide useful insights and models that can be used in other fields and thus prevent reinventing the wheel. Don't melt Politics and States or Nations (a tricky concept by itself).
- the question of governance is the one adressed in this chapter. Political models are consequently relevant. As such I don't feel like there is a need to reposition the debate.
Communities are groups of people with common traits (profile, interest, whatever really). While they possibly have distinct and contradictory interests, communities usually are subgroups of a bigger entity : society. How do you organize this to make the bigger entity understandable and manageable? By providing common understanding (call it sensemaking if you wish) and setting standards. That is the purpose of my proposition : display trends, craft coherent yet simple communities and provide a simple articulation of them. The influence of Montesquieu is there simply because the picture shows multi-stakeholders. In case there were only two, the Marxian vision of the world would have been relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
barry
Posts:72
|
| 03/02/2007 10:53 AM |
Alert
|
| Agreed on all fronts - marx would be proud of the emerging version of community. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|