Codes
Part of coping has to do with how we use words. In terms of language, the things that appeal to managers also are things that allow us to make use of codes. Codes are items that, in theory at least, have a one-to-one mapping with something in a hypothetical lookup table. If one was omniscient and could write the lookup table that encompassed the entire world and thus knew everything, in theory, there should be a code that would match every item and could be looked up. We do not believe that such a codebook exists.
But, we observe there are plenty of people, especially managers, who when they speak seem to believe in that codebook. Such people speak as if they are speaking in code, and as if everyone listening has a copy of the codebook. When they use a word, they believe that all of their listeners know exactly what was meant because, in theory, this codebook is out there. With that belief, the manager is free to speak in code. Indeed, if the world were fixed and stable or only slowly evolving, there is even a reasonable possibility that the codebook could work. Codes can be looked at as an ascribed label. One can assign a label to something, and it’ll match the codebook.
You do not believe that sucha codebook exists – do you think it should? I wondered this on my first read of that line – and my own thinking is that the answer is both yes, and no. IN order to create coherence – and shared meaning making, we need to build an infrastructure/code – AND we need to cultivate the capacity to be willing to let the code emerge. Thanks for your interesting writing/thinking – I hope my musing is helpful.
good luck
Stacie Chappell
March 3, 2008 at 5:07 am
Regarding codes (symbols) and knowledge…An off the wall view.
Principles, Axioms, Theorems and Premises for the Art and Science of Knowledge
Principles:
1. Knowledge exists unbounded
2. Knowledge can neither be created nor destroyed.
Axioms:
1. Knowledge can be discovered.
2. Access to Knowledge can be lost.
Theorems:
1. Knowledge discovered conjoins with the reality of the discoverer.
2. Knowledge conjoins can be represented symbolically.
3. Knowledge cannot be directly revealed.
4. Multiple discoveries may reveal the same knowledge.
5. Observation of symbolic representations of undiscovered knowledge may assist
discovery.
6. Each discoverer’s reality is unique and bounded as a sum of conjoined knowledge.
7. Knowledge conjoins embrace multiple dimensions of discoverers’ realities, i. e.,
physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual (social.)
8. Knowledge conjoins are partitionable.
9. Scientific “truths” must be based on multiple sets of identical discoveries.
10. Simple truths are easily discovered through direct observation and reasoning.
11. Complex truths are not simple.
12. Complexity science strives to establish complex truths.
Premises:
Ontological: Theoretical entities represent real entities initially through scientific
intent and establish truth only in as much as phenomena tend to follow hypotheses.
Epistemological: Knowledge is absolute–Truths are relative. An observation language
provides a “coordinate system” for symbolically establishing truths. Both the observations
and the coordinate system are subject to interpretation, error and adjustment.
marty grogan
April 5, 2008 at 4:06 pm