IV.
Means to evaluate suggestions
“There is nothing quite a practical as a good theory.” – Kurt Lewin
Do you believe everything you read? Why not? The usual reason is that there is something contradictory in it. For example, when a salesperson says, “I exist only to serve you,” we might not believe that because we have previous information about rewards. Or, “I can be objective about the solution to your software man¬agement and development problems,” said by an SEPG member! We have reason to doubt this, as any SEPG member would have a bias about the solution, and that would interfere with the perception of the problem.
你相信你读的每本书吗?为什么不呢?通常的原因是在里面或多或少有一些令你感到矛盾的地方。举个例子,当一个售货员说:“我的存是只是为了服务您。”我们可能不会相信,因为我们有以往的经验教训。或者,“我能很客观地解决你的管理和开发的问题。”一个SEPG成员的声音!我们有理由去怀疑它,要知道任何一个SEPG的成员可能对这个解决方案抱有偏见,这可能会妨碍对这个问题的理解。
But when we read a book or article the author’s biases might not be evident. How do we know whether we should take the advice being offered? The short answer is that if I can find the theory that supports what is being said, then I can evaluate the advice by comparing the underlying theory with the theory I hold about the world. If the theories match, then I am inclined to believe the story (= advice).
当是当我们读一本书或是文章的时候,作者的偏见也许不是很明显。那我们怎么知道是否应该接受这个建议呢?简而言之,如果我能找出一种理论来支持它所说的,那么我就能通过我对这个世界所持有的理论与它潜在的理论来对比。如果它们相匹配,我就倾向于相信这个建议了。
We all have theories, whether we articulate them or not. We use them to screen what perceptions we let im¬pact us (some of us do not see “flying saucers,” for example), how we make sense of the perceptions, and how things tie together into something that is useful for us. Theories are the induction we make in light of our experience. They contain the patterns we have sensed, but in a shorthand, an abbreviation, a generaliza¬tion.
我们都有一套理论,只是看能否将其阐明清楚。我们用它来明确我们的信念(例如,我们中有些人不相信“飞碟”)我们如何理解这这些认知及事物如何联系在一起以形成其它对于我们来说会有用的东西。理论都是我们经验的种种映像。它们囊括了我们所感知的,只是被速写、缩写、一般化罢了。
There are many useful synonyms or terms related to theory: paradigm, world view, model, framework, lens, and school of thought. The words and phrases are defined and differentiated in more precise terms in (Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1970) and (Burrell & Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organisa¬tional Analysis : Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, 1979). The picture I have of theory is:
有很多的同义词或术语与这个理论相关:范例、世界观、模型、构架、透镜、学派。这些词或短语在Kuhn在1970年出版的《科学变革的结构》和Burrell & Morgan 在1979年出片的《社会范式与组织分析:企业生命之社会无素》中被冠以更准确的述语加以定义和区分。关于此理论的图片如下:
Figure 1 – The flow of theory to action.
The intuition is this: I have a theory that is “floating” around in my mind and I write it down in some abstract way, at the highest level of abstraction, in fact. We call that highest level a model; it shows the major boxes and arrows, and at least implies flow, collaboration and communication among the boxes. Constructs are what we call the constituents or components of our mental model. “Morale” is an example of a construct, so is “resistance to change.” These are the names we have invented of collections of properties of things we may have invented. Con¬structs are m a d e up of things that can take on values, variables. If I want to say something about an instance of a construct, such as how high morale is or how much resistance to change there is, then I would collect data on the value of variables. I would analyze the collected data to ascertain if I could see any patterns, and then, based on what I infer from the patterns, I might take action.
给我们的直觉就是:有一种理论正漂浮于我的脑海之中,我以某种抽象的方式将它记载下来,事实上是在抽象的最高层。我们称这个最高层为模型;它表示主要的框架和指向,最起码这些框架意味着流程、协作与交流。构建就是我们说的组成或我们精神模型的组成。“信念/士气?”就是构建的一个例子,它是“阻碍变革”的代名词。我们发明的这些事物属性的集合也许早己有之。构建是由能表明值与变量的种种事物组合而成的。如果我想举例说明构建的话,如士气有多高,对于变革的阻力有多大,也就是,我会收集变量的值的相关数据。我会分析收集到的数据来决定我是否能看出一些模式,然后我可能会对从这些模式中推理出来的东西采取行动。
Here is an example to illustrate the use of theory. Ever notice that there is great excitement when a new leader is announced, such as CEO, or Chairperson, or President? We all rally around that person and then, usually slowly, perhaps ineluctably, we part ways with the new leader and begin to form a coalition to depose the new leader. The shine is off, the honeymoon is over. In fact, this seems to happen even with new (improvement) initiatives, such as TQM, Six Sigma, and, dare I say, CMM. Is it just my imagination, or does it always seem to happen?
这里有一个例子可用以阐明理论的使用。以往只要一有新领导被任命,像什么CEO、董事长或总载,我们就会兴奋得不得了。我们都围着他。然后,通常慢慢地、不可避免地,我们中部分人形成一个联盟来踢除这位领导。没有了明媚的阳光,蜜月也随之消逝。 事实上即使再来一次还会如此,就像TQM(全面质量管理)、Six Sigma(六西格玛),我敢说还有CMM(能力成熟度模型)。它只是我的假想,还是它似乎总会发生?
The answer is in (Bion, Experiences in Groups, and Other Papers, 1961) : all groups elect or appoint a leader and then try to kill her/him because he/she does not meet our unstated, unlimited, infantile wishes. This applies to the leader of an organization and to a leader of an initiative, like software process improve¬ment. The lesson for me is that it’s not personal, and I really appreciate that there is a theory I can read and come to understand that will explain what happens in all groups. Incidentally, the really astonishing revela¬tion to me is that this happens in work groups and in therapy groups!
答案就在Bion1961年出版的《团队的经验及其它论文》中:所有团队选举或任命一个领导而后再将其“斩杀”,因为他(她)不
能满足我们没有明确说明的、无条件的、幼稚的希望。这同样适用于一个组织的领导及有首创精神的领导,就像软件过程改进。这个教训对我来说不是个人的,我非常感谢一种理论,读了它后,我开始明白了一点,这我稍后会解释的:在所有团队里会发生什么。还有,真正令我感到农业惊讶的是:这种也会发生在工作组和医疗组!
Why have or use theories? For me the reason is that my brain is small, I cannot remember very much, so having a shorthand for a really big thing – such as Bion’s theory on how all groups work – is helpful to me. It is a parsimonious representation of a possibly complex thing. Other reasons include the ability to predict the future (where the billiard ball – or missile – will be in a few minutes), see things I didn’t know mattered (the spin on the billiard ball), and deepen my under¬standing of how interaction takes place (the angle of inci¬dence is equal to the angle of reflection).
为什么存在或使用那些理论呢?对我来说理由就是我的大脑很小,我不能记住很多,因此对于大事情用速记法-就像Bion的所有的团队如何工作的理论-这对我来说受益匪浅。这就是以简约来代表可能地复杂的事情。其它的理由就是包括种种能力:对未来的预知(台球或导弹接下来几分钟会在哪儿),明白我不知道是什么一回事儿的东西(像台球的旋转),及加深我对交互是如何产生的(入射角等于反射角)。
Why don’t more of us use theories? Why isn’t there a track at the SEPG conferences on the theory of imple¬mentation? After all, we are all trying to implement process improvements. I think (Thorngate, "In General" Vs. "It Depends": Some Comments of the Gergen-Schlenker Debate, 1976) has put his finger on it. He says that a theory (model, framework, etc.) cannot simultaneously be general, accurate, and simple, which is depicted in Figure 2.
为什么我们中使用理论的人不多?为什么不会在SEPG会议上存在基于实施的理论陷井?毕竟,我们都在尝试着实现过程改进。我认为Thorngate1976年出版的《“一般情况”VS“具体情况”:Gergen-Schlenker辩论的一些评论》己经指明这点。他说,一种理论(模型、框架,等等)不能同时达到一般化,精确及简单,就像下图描述的那样:
Figure 2. Thorngate’s one-armed clock. (Adapted from Thorngate, 1976, p. 406)
图2.Thorngate的只有一个指针的钟(摘自Thorngate,1976,406页)
What I see at SEPG conferences is that some people are disappointed in theories, claiming that they are not general enough, or simple enough, or accurate enough. But, of course, any one theory cannot be all of those at once. It is a comfort to know that. In fact, we can select theories that best suit our usage, if they exist.
我在SEPG议会上看到的是有些人对理论很失望,声称它们不够一般化或不够简明或不够精确。但是,当然没有一种理论马上可以在同时囊括所有这些。知道这些令人很安慰。事实上,我们能够选择最适合我们使用的理论,如果它存在的话。
Some people at SEPG conferences have suggested that organizations are like families and we can fruitfully apply a theory of families to the organizations in which we are trying to improve software processes. This raises the question of generality: are family theories sufficiently general to apply to our industrial, non-profit, and gov¬ernmental organizations? What is the equivalent of the “parental role” in our organizations? Does that make sense in the theory we already have in our minds of how our organizations work? Is the purpose of a family suffi¬ciently like the purpose of our organizations to be able to make the link, or does purpose not matter?
SEGP会议上,有些人建议 :团体就像家庭一样,我们能富有成效地将家庭理论应用于团体中,就依这点我们可以尝试来改进软件过程。这就产生了一个普遍性的问题:家庭论是完全地一般化,可应用于我们的产业,非赢利机构及政府组织中?那用什么来等同于企业中的“双亲角色”呢?这样做对于己存在于我们脑海中企业如何运作的那种理论有意义吗?家庭的目的和团体的目的能够充分地挂上钩吗,或者是目的不重要?
This brings us to the related question of “unit of analysis.” If my brain is small, I want a theory that works for the stuff I am dealing with so that I don’t have to tinker with (that is, personally extend) the theory. If I am dealing with the origin of the universe I may not want to use a theory about the start of life on Earth. Here is a table of the units we might be dealing with and their corresponding fields of study:
这就给我们带来另一个问题:“单元分析”。如果我的大脑很小,我希望有一种理论可以满足于我所处理的事情,那样我就不用胡乱地修改(即:个人扩充)这种理论这了。如果我正在处理宇宙的起源,我想我不会去使用什么地球生命起源的理论了。这里有一个单元表,它可能是我们会处理到的和它们相关的研究领域。
If we as SEPG members are dealing with collectives – groups, teams, organizations, companies, subsidiaries, divisions, subcontractors, branches, offices, etc. – then it might be beneficial to look at theories of social systems, the subject matter of sociology. Luckily for us, there is at least one such theory, Talcott Parsons’ General Theory of Action.
如果我们的SEPG成员在与各种集体打交道-团队、小组、组织、公司、子公司、部门、转包商、分支机构、事务处,等等-那么这就有益于看等社会系统的理论了,社会学的题材。对我们来说比较幸运的是至少还有这么一种理论:TalcottParsons的“行为的一般理论”。
Talcott Parsons is the most famous American 20th century sociologist. He tried to create a grand unified theory, like the one physicists are searching for. The good news is that he was a prolific writer and he wrote thousands of pages on his theory, and thousands more were written by others about it: the theory is accessi¬ble. The bad news is that Parsons’ style was “thick” and difficult to understand. The best entry point to the Theory of Action is (Bluth, Parsons' General Theory of Action: a Summary of the Basic Theory, 1982); for a critique of how difficult it is to understand Parsons directly, see (Black, The Social Theories of Talcott Par¬sons, 1961); for a bibliography of Parsons’ work see (Turner, The Talcott Parsons Reader, 1999); for a frame¬work that places Parsons into a larger fabric, see (Burrell & Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organ¬isational Analysis : Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, 1979) and (Van de Ven & Poole, Explaining Development and Change in Organizations, 1995). And there is an attempt to provide a deduc¬tive logic framework for the theory in (Brownstein, Talcott Parsons' General Theory of Action: an Investiga¬tion of Fundamental Principles, 1982).
Talcott Parsons 是20世纪最有名的一位社会学家。他试着创造出一种大统的理论,就像那个时代的物理学家们寻求的一样。好消息是他是个多产的作家。他写了成千上万页关于他的理论的稿子,还有许多是由其它人完成的:这个理论还是可理解的。坏消息是Parsons的风格是“厚重”且十分难懂。最佳的切入点是行动理论(Bluth, Parsons' General Theory of Action: a Summary of the Basic Theory, 1982);关于Parson的作品如何难懂的,可以看看(Black, The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, 1961¬),关于Parsons作品的参考目录可以看看(Turner, The Talcott Parsons Reader, 1999),对于架构而言,把Parsons联系到较大的组织,可以看看(Burrell & Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organ¬isational Analysis : Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, 1979)和(Van de Ven & Poole, Explaining Development and Change in Organizations, 1995)。还有人尝试为这个理论提供一种推理逻辑,见(Brownstein, Talcott Parsons' General Theory of Action: an Investiga¬ tion of Fundamental Principles, 1982)。
His theory of social systems looks like this:
他的社会系统理论如下:
(Adaptation:适应,Goal Attainment: 实现目标,Integration:合成,Latent Pattern Maintenance:潜在模式维护。)
Figure 3 Model of Parsons’ General Theory of Action. (AGIL framework)
图3 Parsons 的一般行为理论。(AGIL 框架)
External energy begins the clockwise flow, into Adaptation. Parsons postulated that there were four pre¬req¬uisites that every organization has to address in order to survive and flourish:
1. Adaptation, the interface with the outside environment, scans for “interesting” items and takes in energy, usually in the form of new ideas, and if those ideas are worthwhile (that is, consistent with the behavior patterns of the organization) then
2. Set goals and allocate resources accordingly.
3. Based on the goals and resource allocation, integrate new processes into the behavior.
4. Maintain the patterns of behavior in the organization. This is often called “culture” at SEPG confer¬ences. The term “latent” means hidden, unseen.
外部力量开始以顺时针流处Adaptation。Parsons 假定有四个首要条件,每个想要存活和兴旺的组织都得解决这些问题。
1. 适应性,外部环境的接口,扫描感兴趣的条目并以饱满的热情来行动,通常 是新想法的形式,如果这些想法有价值(即与组织的行为模式相一致),那么
2. 从而设定目标和资源的分配。
3. 基于目标和资源分配,集成新的过程到行为体。
4. 维护组织中的行为模式。就是我们在SEPG会议上常说的“文化”。术语“latent”意味着隐藏的,不可见的。
The arrangement of the four prerequisites (that’s what the boxes are called: functional prerequisites) is the static structure, and the arrows among them are the dynamic exchange of information among the prerequi¬sites, which instantiates how each of the four boxes interacts with the others. In fact, the latent pattern main¬tenance one is different, special, as it impacts the rest of the boxes by forming the filter that lets in – or does not let in – the energy that travels clockwise around the circuit. In a sense, latent pattern maintenance tries to restore the organization to its form before being “disturbed” by the new ideas. Parsons likened latent pattern maintenance to the law of physics that for every disturbing force there is an equal and opposite restoring force.
这四个首要条件(这些条条框框称之为:功能性首要条件)的安排是一 个静态的结构,这些箭头是这些条件之间信息的动态变更,它显示着这四个框架如何与彼此互交的。事实上,这个潜在的模式维护是不同的、特殊的,因为它影响着其余的框架(通过形成一种过滤器来决定让围绕这个圈顺时针游走的外力进还是不让进。在某种意义上,潜在的模式维护尝试着在被新的思想“搅乱”之前恢复组织本来的形式。Parsons 将潜在的模式维护比作物理定律(对于每个干扰力总存在一个同等大小并相反力道的回恢力。)
When I look at organizations I ask myself how each of the four prerequisites are being met and whether the interchange among them is operating. That is, the Parsons framework can be directly used for organizational diagnosis and then action can be couched in terms of what the theory anticipates and expects. It’s the ulti¬mate of practicality!
每当我看到这些组织,我就会问自己如何让这四个先决条件得到满足且它们之间的互交是否是可操作的。即:Parsons架构能否直接用于组织的诊断之中及按照理论预测和期望的方式来行动。这也就是最终的实用性了!
I am going to say quite a bit about resistance to change in section VIII. As a preview, what do you think Par¬sons would say about resistance to change? He would say that it is a vital, fundamental function (latent pat¬tern maintenance) and if it didn’t work then the organization would suffer and die.
So, how do you know how to evaluate suggestions that come your way? Ask if they are consistent with a/the theory you are using.
我将会在第八节讲述许多关于变革阻力的东西。先提一点,你认为Parsons 对于变革阻力会说些什么呢?它会说这是至关重要的,根本性的功能(潜在的模式维护)并且如果它不能工作,这个组织将会痛苦不堪甚至消亡。
那么,你如何知道应该如何评估出现在面前的那些建议呢?试问他们是否与你正在使用的理论相一致呢!
---------------------------------------------------
译者权归“思步网(www.step365.com)”及版主“一啸长天”共同所有,未经许可,请勿转载
|