Challenge and harmony

Groupware Configurations of Challenge and Harmony: an alternative approach to alternative organization (Part #3)

One point of entry into the argument of this paper is that arising from the 'single communication mode' (point 4, above). The experiments appear to have concentrated on the flow patterns (possibly including directionality) without any attention to whether the flow between communicants was perceived as 'mutually challenging' or 'harmoniously reinforcing' - namely a unimodal rather than a bi-modal focus. This paper only considers bi-modai structures based on tensegrities. It is highly probable that whole families of psycho-social structures can be based on tri-modal, quadri-modal, etc structures whose architectural counterparts, if any, have not yet been explored. The mode chosen is partly a question of comprehensibility. Modes of value greater than two may depend upon multi-valued logics (30).

This raises the question whether what is perceived as alienating and boring in many conventional organizations, particularly bureaucracies, is not precisely a suppression of challenge or harmony relationships in favour of a neutral, uni-modal form. And what is rejected or attractive, in competitive organizations is the challenge, which may become dehumanizing and more than the individual cares to bear. Similarly what is attractive to many in networks is the harmonious nature of relationships and the absence of challenge. It is however clear that even in the case of the most staid bureaucracy, challenge will emerge. But it will not be openly recognised, as it is in competitive organizations. Harmony will also emerge, but only through the extensive informal networks in such bureaucracies). Use of 'challenge' and 'harmony' as terms obviously calls for a precise definition. The problems of clarifying their significance have been discussed elsewhere in relation to tensegrity organization (1, pp. 258-9), as well as in more general terms (15). Basically such precision would be premature. The implications of the difficulties of comprehending the significance of any verbal definition are themselves important. One interesting sense in which they may respectively be understood is as reciprocated negative and positive feedback relationships. Negative feedback is a challenge to a position and has to be 'dealt' or 'coped' with. Positive feedback reinforces an existing position, confirming the harmony of the relationship between the two parties.

Given the lack of attention to this aspect of communication in groups, the question is what kinds of challenge/harmony configurations might prove significant as a basis for alternative organization ? It would seem that no effort has been made to look into configurations of positive and negative feedback - and it is not even clear what would be involved. Attention has always been devoted to the 'processing boxes' in a system and not to the configuration pattern of the flows between them. It is only Fuller who has drawn attention to systems has being polyhedral structures (24, p. 95).

In contrast to the communication nets, the rules for interrelating challenge and harmonv relationships may be more complex.

Some of the possibilities are evident from Annex 1, where a compressive strut (stick) can be interpreted as a challenge relationship and a tension element (string) as a harmony relationship. The interesting clues to new types of structure seem to lie in configurations which:

separate challenge relationships by harmony relationships (embedding the former in the latter) and 'tensing' the latter by the former to avoid flabbiness; - are based on a 3-dimensional structure rather than on a 2-dimensional structure and thus encompass a volume rather than an area;
are symmetrical, or rather in which all the relationships are handled symmetrically;
avoid cluttering up the centre of symmetry or creating structural dependence on that centre.

The significance of these structural features for organizations is explored elsewhere at some length (1, 13).

Of great interest is the manner in which challenge/harmony configurations use 3dimensions to achieve symmetrical closure. Those which achieve closure in 2-dimensions (see Annex 1) do not bring out the unexpected features of the 3-dimensional. In fact they bear a predictable resemblance to those of the classic communication net experiments.

A further word on challenge relationships: if the mutual challenge is too great, this must necessarily result in the elimination of one (annihilated) or both (mutual destruction). Similarly, if a harmony relationship is too strong, the identity of one is lost, being merged into that of the other. In both cases such tendencies can be counter-balanced by harmony or challenge relationships respectively, provided they are appropriately positioned within the configuration. If this is not possible then clearly the configuration is not stable and other patterns could be explored. (Note that the stability of a communication net only arises, if at all, in terms of information overload).

Main menu

Directions

You are here

Main menu

Search form

Directions

You are here

Challenge and harmony