ABSTRACT

In his critique of Theory U, Kühl suggests that this approach resembles a management fashion based on four specific characteristics and claims, namely: (1) The simultaneous transformation of nearly everything, (2) The suspension of the differences between science, economics, politics, and religion, (3) Resolving conflicts of interest according to a community ideology, and (4) Reliance on purposive-rational thinking. The first part of this response to Kühl's critique argues that these four claims are unfounded or misguided and outlines why that is the case. The second part explores the questions not raised by Kühl. Finally, the third part of this response explores the blind spots of the framework that underlies Kühl's critique (Luhmann-inspired autopoietic social systems theory) and ways in which Theory U actually addresses these. Reflecting on the origins of Luhmann's approach in the early work of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela [1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Shambhala Publications, Inc.], the question is asked what an alternative approach to social systems theory might look like if it were instead grounded in the more evolved and later work of both Maturana and Varela – which in fact turns out to be the case for Theory U.

摘要

库尔在对理论U的评论中建议，这种方法类似于基于四个特定特征和主张的管理方式，即：（1）几乎所有事物的同时转变，（2）暂停科学，经济学，政治之间的差异，以及宗教；（3）根据社区意识形态解决利益冲突，以及（4）依靠目的理性思维。对库尔批评的回应的第一部分认为，这四个主张是没有根据的或被误导的，并概述了为什么会这样。第二部分探讨库尔没有提出的问题。最后，此回应的第三部分探讨了构成库尔的批判（卢曼启发的自体社会系统理论）基础的框架的盲点，以及理论U实际解决这些问题的方式。知识树：人类理解的生物学根源。[Shambhala Publications，Inc.]提出的问题是，如果社会制度理论以Maturana和Varela的更先进和后来的工作为基础，它的替代方法会是什么样？事实上，事实证明确实如此。理论U.