Whether we choose to love or hate science we cannot escape the reality that it has a profound impact on the way we think and act - that is, it shapes our world-view. The beginning of last century saw the emergence of the school of scientific management, however, this was based on a 400 year old mechanistic view of the cosmos. As we move into the new Millennium,  a new form of scientific management is emerging, however, now it is informed by such fields as neuroscience (the 1990s was the decade of the brain - using MRI and similar technologies, we began to understand the workings of the brain as never before), quantum theory, complex systems theory, chaos theory, and so on.

Margaret Wheatley was one of the first to describe key aspects of the new scientific management. Two passages from her book, Leadership and the New Science,  had a particular impact one me so I share them here with you in anticipation you may find them equally powerful:

We social scientists are trying hard to be conscientious, using the methodologies and thought patterns of seventeenth century science, while the scientists, travelling away from us at the speed of light, are moving into a universe that suggests entirely new ways of understanding. Just when social scientists seem to have gotten the science down and can construct strings of variables in impressive formulae, the scientists have left, plunging ahead into the vast "porridge of being" that describes a new reality. (Wheatley 1994, p. 141)

Wouldn't we all welcome more laughter in the halls of management? I would be excited to encounter people delighted by surprises instead of the ones I now meet who are scared to death of them. Were we to become truly good scientists of our craft, we would seek out surprises, relishing the unpredictable when it finally decided to reveal itself to us. Surprise is the only route to discovery, the only path we can take if we're to search out the important principles that can govern our work. The dance of this universe extends to all the relationships we have. Knowing the steps ahead of time is not important; being willing to engage with the music and move freely onto the dance floor is what's key.
        One of the guiding principles of scientific inquiry is that at all levels, nature seems to resemble itself. For me, the parsimony of nature's laws is further argument why we need to take science seriously. If nature uses certain principles to create her infinite diversity, it's highly probable that those principles apply to human organizations. There is no reason to think we'd be the exception. Nature's predisposition toward self-similarity can be extremely useful. It can even help us evaluate current management practices, providing a guide through the fads and ideas that plague us, directing our attention to those things that have merit at a deeper level. I feel better able to distinguish real nourishment from fast-food guru advice because of my awareness of the directions science is taking. (Wheatley, 1994, pp. 142-143)

I've found Wheatley's notion that the principle - at all levels, the universe seems to replicate itself - can be used to guide one's scientific inquiry, particularly insightful. For example, the basic pattern of dialectic-synthetic logic seems to permeate all levels of our values model which gives us a high degree of confidence we are on the right track.

The pattern of dialectic-synthetic logic between world-views is represented as:

That is to say, for the conscious human being, there is always a dialogue taking place between our past and our future ( Greenfield 2000). From this dialogue is synthesised our current world-view.

At a higher level, the dialectic-synthetic relationship between those in society who hold a tacit view of reality and those who do not is represented as:

A dialogue is always in progress between those who insist the world is different from the prevailing world-view of society, and those who accept, without question, that their view of the world is actuality. At some point, a critical mass of people see a new world-view and a new tacit world-view emerges and everyone in society behaves differently. And so the cycle continues.

At a lower level, there exists a dialectic-synthetic relationship between goal values and means values which impacts on the nature or qualities of other values we hold (Colins & Chippendale 1995). Thus if our highest priority goal value is family and our highest priority means value is control, then, if our next highest priority goal value is play, our mental dialogue around our highest priority goal and means value will result in an entirely different type of play than if our highest priority means value was care/nurture:

Let me know if you can find any other dialectic-synthetic relationships in our values model.

References

Colins, C. & Chippendale, P. 1995, New Wisdom II: Values-based development, Acorn Publications, Brisbane.

Greenfield, S. 2000, The Private Life of the Brain, Penguin Books, England.

Wheatley, M. 1992, Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.