Theseus'Ship
The philosophical parable of Theseus[77] highlights a different aspect of change. The legend starts with Theseus' departure to kill the Minotaur. In the course of the odyssey, every plank of his ship is being replaced.
It is subject to ongoing change. The ancient philosophers discussed whether the repaired ship was still identical with the original one and what impact this answer would have on Theseus' story. The original state at the beginning of the voyage ceased to exist, but the function and basic system still existed without any restrictions. I don't want to continue the argument, but it clarifies the factors for change and identity. This ideal, that stability presents the unchanged functionality and yet still permits change, presents three important aspects of transformation:1. A temporal dimension—the transformation lasted the entire trip
2. A functional dimension—the ship remained a ship
3. A social dimension—the discourse on the meaning of travel and its effects
We will focus on number 3., in particular on the question: How does behavior change in relation to its context? How can plank by plank be exchanged, how can a system of self-empowerment develop without questioning the learned norm? It means that the modification of rules becomes the norm rather than the exception.[78] Philosophers discussed the factors time and functionality and the social question underlying change. Already back in the 1960s, Talcott Parsons und Niklas Luhmann tried getting to grips systemically with the transformation of the “structure mountain” into a stone, as described in the previous paragraph.
They were satisfied with the sociological role of the describing observer. Their intentions weren't to resolve anything, but rather than to help to understand the status of actions. They provided sorting instructions as in a puzzle: First, start with the pieces around the edges or with the sky.
It became apparent that this these kind of hints can help clarify even complex pictures. However, this approach requires mainly time and social awareness. In his book “Organisation for Complexity”,[79] Niels Pflagling describes the ideas of sociology and merges them with the aspects of change. He refers to this as a social, functional and temporal gap (see footnote 3).The social gap appears when management decisions prioritize functional and temporal dimensions, negating the social process. Decisions and procedures are being accelerated, but excluding social interaction can lead to pressure resulting in anxiety. Learning processes are being blocked which can kill creativity and inventive spirit. Changes made under pressure can result in no more than successful reflexes, but they will never match the quality of sustainable inventions. The VW scandal following manipulation of car emissions is an example of what can happen when social gaps are not prevented. This means the risk of innovation does not lie in the risks of a functional environment, but in the social acts of actors. In the future, the focus of legal needs to align more to the consideration of social interaction and less to the formal processes that describe this interaction. However: How can we recognize the difference?
The Social Act
The “social act”[80] [81] in organizations is defined by interaction with one another via communication, thereby creating relationships and identity. Personal flexibility and relationship structures are frequently regarded as rivals. This may also be the case for rigid and clear concepts—a circle remains a circle. However, this does not apply to relationships between companies and people or societies. Relationships can lose their power if they are being formalized rather than being based on trust. A legal contract (i.e. an employment contract) may be a suitable instrument to close gaps in trust. However, it can turn into a boomerang if it becomes incomprehensible for the contractual partners, or if it creates the impression that the contract is more in favor of one of the contractual partners. Trust is created by a process of exchange of information and power. Thereby, relationship means sharing of information within a community. In Organizations that are deemed to be innovative we observe a different kind of exchange and collective awareness. In the past few years, our social relationships have transformed from a hierarchy of doers and executives to the desire for relationships at eye level. It is not surprising that an agile movement group in Germany named itself “eye level”11 for a film project. 1.3