Wheatley on Self-Organizing Systems

I am fascinated by the idea of a functional self-organizing system in a work environment as discussed by Wheatley in Chapter 5. It makes perfect sense to me that disturbance to a chemical system could result in self-organization, but in a human system, it seems the parameters for just the right environment are overwhelming. Wheatley discusses the parameters in the context of disequilibrium on page 83, "While a self-organizing system's openness to disequilibrium might seem to make it too unpredictable, even temperamental, this is not the case. It's stability comes from a deepening center, a clarity about who it is, what it needs, what is required to survive in its environment." This notion of a crystal clear centering declaration of a mission, a goal, and a context, seems absolutely vital for the proper self-organization of a system. The example of the European company with mobile desks is inspiring, but it only worked because everyone was on board from the CEO and down. I have been a witness to many failed self-organized groups due to lack of a commitment. It seems in order for a group to successfully self-organize all participants must maintain a serious commitment. This is comforting and disheartening at the same time. Comforting, in the sense that groups whose hearts are not fully in it will likely fail. Do we really want half-ass groups to be successful? What happens when they get what they sought, and then they don't have the means to manage it? Disheartening in that groups with ill intentions can be very committed. Oil companies vs. Environmentalist for example. Often $$$ enable organization (look at the Republican party). I would like to look deeper at successful low-budget grass root campaigns to see what the common parameters were between groups (based on this chapter, I suspect adaptability would be a key ingredient).

Wheatley talked a lot about the spiral in this chapter. She mentions them as a symbol for change and creation, and as I foreshadowed in my previous blog post, "Spirals & Shells," they are a symbol for the wholeness of nature, the wholeness of the universe. Spirals are common in self-organizing chemical reactions, and thus are likely common in self-organizing groups. It would be fascinating to model the behavior of a successful self-organized group onto a spiral.

I love the discussion of succession in a new ecosystem in this chapter. If ecosystems have much to tell us about self-organizing groups, I wonder what habitat restoration projects can tell us about renewing groups that have failed in the past?

The concept of the NEED for disequilibrium in this chapter is very interesting. I am curious how just a concept is seen in the eyes of learned Buddhists. Clearly, one can not grow without discomfort, and I think this is the same notion Wheatley applies to self organizing groups.