Organic projects : Thinking the world too tidy?

The main thought I got out of the Clay Sharkey essay on classification is the essential need for traditional classification systems to be hostages to the future. One example he gives is to consider the difference between the following two statements:

A: "This is a book about Dresden."
B: "This is a book about Dresden,
and it goes in the category 'East Germany'."

Well, East Germany turned out to be a temporary affair compared with Dresden. So statement A is still true, whereas statement B isn't. And of course, city names can change too.

But apart from classifications becoming out of date, and in the internet context of the essay, out of date very quickly, for me there is a greater risk. If we believe our classification for too long, we become increasingly out of touch with reality, but we also risk trying to impose our out of touch view on the world and other people.

This can mean at one level that no one knows what we mean when we talk about a 'beat combo'; it may mean our company goes down because we no longer have any idea what their customers think or want, or because we can't change and grow to match them; or it may mean that our views of the benefits of our technology colour our interpretation of disastrous consequences. Perhaps the most extreme level may be that leaders of countries and empires impose their classification, their view on reality, on the rest of the world.

Is this the greatest danger of this type of mechanical, non-organic approach to understanding the world?

On a project management level, the essay parallels my thinking on how the design and value of processes and structures for a project must be organic and grow, change and even die if that's right. Otherwise they take on a life of their own, and become increasingly detached and irrelevant for their purpose.

Why doesn't this happen anyway? I think it's because it's hard for most of us to deal with uncertainty. Too many of us like leaders who are certain, even if they're wrong. Too many of us like systems that are familiar and stable, even if they no longer do anything useful. I think a great challenge is to be able to foster ways for project teams, groups and individuals to be more comfortable with uncertainty in the present.

Many change management principles aim to map out the future, and for people to participate in that process. There may well be value in that; maximising awareness of the reality out there and its future has value. But I think it misses the point I'm trying to make. (I don't want to get into a critique of change management here, it's another converstaion entirely .)

My point is that there are huge benefits to understanding the origins of the fears that drive us to put too much faith on certainty. There are massive advantages in cultivating the skills and confidence to deal with uncertainty here and now, every day. Ontology, classification, rigid structures, whatever you will, these things can get in the way of creativity, growth, change and successful adaptation to a world that is changing in many ways at an increasing rate. I also firmly believe that this doesn't mean forgetting our history, or that there is no certainty, that there are no points of reference. I believe that these things are just more profound - more like principles than rules - and the natural world has numerous examples for us if we look for them.