REPLY Why don't organizations function better? (SD6625)

[SDMAIL nickols (nickols at att.net)]

Posted by  nickols at att.net (nickols at att.net)

Jim Hines, picking up on something written by Tom Fiddaman, writes:
>> (Earlier, from Tom)
>>>>>> >>>> The organization has a problem: who is contributing
>> 
>> Tom's point is important.  In many organizations, hardly anyone makes a
>> contribution as an individual.  Rather the contribution is made as part of a
>> group.

I don't buy that, Jim.  Everyone makes a contribution as an individual.  Some 
individual contributions have little value unless integrated with other 
individual contributions, but that doesn't negate the existence of individual 
contributions.  Also, there are many people in organizations whose 
contributions are primarily individual and they are extremely valuable.  
Organizations even go so far as to identify them as "individual contributors" 
(as opposed to "team member" or somesuch other label).

More to the point, what's the point?

REPLY From Jim Hines
      Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:50:39 -0500

>>>> Everyone makes a contribution as an individual.  

I think you're saying that an individual is an individual -- and, it's
difficult to argue with that!  So, let me rephrase my earlier comment, which
is really very simple:  The impact of an individual is often more difficult
to discern than the impact of a group that includes the individual.  For
example, say a group of programmers succeeds in a software project.  It may
be difficult to say which programmer contributed most, which least.  It's
much easier to say that the group together succeeded brilliantly. 

>>>>  What's the point?

Organizational evolution can operate on **individuals** even in a situation
where only **group** results can be discerned -- as long as certain
conditions are met (including individuals moving between groups and
sufficiently low rates of innovation (mutation)).  

REPLY From  nickols
    Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:11:58 +0000

>> I think you're saying that an individual is an individual -- and, it's
>> difficult to argue with that!  So, let me rephrase my earlier comment, which
>> is really very simple:  The impact of an individual is often more difficult
>> to discern than the impact of a group that includes the individual.  For
>> example, say a group of programmers succeeds in a software project.  It may
>> be difficult to say which programmer contributed most, which least.  It's
>> much easier to say that the group together succeeded brilliantly.

I can relate to that; I've done a little programming myself and I once led a 
team that developed a rather sophisticated computer-based system to support 
an innovative new financial services product.  Of the three programmers who 
were members of the team (and there were more than just programmers), it 
would indeed be difficult to say which one contributed most.  However, I can 
very confidently say that one was mainly the architect, a second was a really 
sophisticated "how we gonna program this?" whiz, and the third was a capable 
young fellow who was steady as a rock.   I think the point here is that (a) 
you are correct in that it would be difficult to say which of those three 
contributed the most or which was of the most value; however, it is quite 
easy to point to the contributions of the three individuals involved.  This 
true of the other team members as well.  For example, a young actuary played 
a critical role in documenting the actuarial specifications in plain 
language.!

So, I'll leave it at we're both right.

Where can I read more about this "organization evolution" thing and how it 
"operates" on individuals?

[ Referencing earlier posts:
For more, once again, see http://web.mit.edu/org-ev/www/ and click on the
"publications" link.
]

Replies by Jim Hines incorporated inline.
Posted by  nickols at att.net (nickols at att.net)
posting date  Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:18:29 +0000