Subject: AW: AW: choreography and dynamic structures - making a circle out of 1-4 bodies?
3 glasses of wine, are sometimes the right medium to think and see clear! Thanks. The only thing, I am not sure about is, whether it has always to be the best choreographers we look at. I believe that not so great artists sometimes can produce quite interesting stuff, which might not be interesting for the dance/art community (yet), but may give us insights in our questions, and if it is only the question, what/why things do not work so well. What do you think?
I still think it’s helpful to think about, how big the teams reporting to one manager in organisations might be in minimum and maximum.
I am about to prepare an open workshop (everyone artist or non-artists may attend), where I would like to play with some of our thoughts in “choreographic” practice. The “scale” effect might be an interesting topic. For example: with 1-4 dancers it is difficult to create a shape, which we would perceive as a circle of bodies (two could hold hands, but still it will be rather the picture and feeling of two people facing each other or at least “a pair”, with 3 it will rather be a triangle and 4 we usually see a rectangle. From 5 on, everyone will see immediately a circle rather than a pentagon.
But as I write this, I found a way to make a circle of small numbers of bodies: by laying them down to the floor in a round shape.
What insight could give us this exercise if we think of organisations? More Exercises like this, which come to your minds?
I myself will now go back to thinking about this further
Thanks for this ongoing contributions!
Katrin
Von: Stephen Carroll [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012 02:28
An: Katrin Kolo
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: AW: choreography and dynamic structures -numbers
Let's not forget the real purpose of this exchange and the question originally presented. To explore how insights from the profession and practice of choreography can help organizationsof of all types (some small, some large) function more efficiently and effectively. Even large organizations are composed of much smaller units which are faced with the problems of adapting to multiple change imperatives whether generated by outside forces or inside pressures. What principles can be derived for management practice , organizational design, and the management of change from the behaviors and insights of the best choreaographers? Is this nonsense after 3 glasses of red wine?
Stephen (Steve) Carroll
Maryland Business School
301/405-2239
[log in to unmask]
-----"Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Katrin Kolo
Sent by: "Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network"
Date: 05/01/2012 03:53PM
Subject: AW: choreography and dynamic structures -numbers
I just searched for some numbers on the Ratio of Staff to Managers, which is of course not independent of the number of Layers of Management. The latter also being a very interesting one to think about within this context of choreography. For the ratio of staff to managers I found, that it starts to be quite ok around 1:10 depending on kind of business and job to be done, by management and its employees. If anyone has a good overview over these kind of statistics, would be great.
Dunbar’s number seems also very interesting to me. Didn’t know about it and my first reaction was to think of my own quite big network of real friends (which I met and keep in touch with in real life and not on virtual networks). Will try to count them ;-)
Best wishes
katrin
There is some research on social networks that suggests an upper limit of 150 on the number of people that anyone can "know" ( this is known as Dunbar's Number) and further research suggests that human social networks generally consist of a core group of around 5 on average with a wider group of around 20 that are intimate friends and acquaintances. I have not found much research on how this relates to organisational structures but it seems very relevant. I am trying to get some work going here at Oxford University in collaboration with Robin Dunbar who discovered the "Dunbar Number" on group size and how it relates to ensemble working.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 8:54 PM
Subject: AW: choreography and dynamic structures - follow up and WSCI
It’s really exciting how this conversation goes on! I agree about the size, even I would say there are choreographic or other artistic works with more than 150 people involved (just imagine big events in big sport stadia.) And those usually don’t leave much space for improvisation or individuality of the performers.
But as Brenda says, also in organisation group size is ususally even more limited. Would be interesting to find out what is the highest and what is the average number of employees who directly report to one boss. Does anyone of you know?
I also would like to raise my other question, if anyone knows something more about service choreography? I only found on Wikipedia the following – quite interesting explanation:
The intuition underlying the notion of service choreography can be summarised as follows: “Dancers dance following a global scenario without a single point of control"
What Do you think about this?
Looking forward to reading more of you!
Katrin
Von: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Brenda Parkerson
Gesendet: Montag, 30. April 2012 12:57
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: choreography and dynamic structures - follow up and WSCI
This is an excellent point and I completely agree. There are limitations to applying arts processes to large groups. Even processes for ensemble group working or working within the feudal structures of an orchestra aren't useful for very large groups.
Having said that, most organizational work is done in smaller groups of people, perhaps for this very reason.
This is such an interesting conversation. I wonder of there is an element that we overlook when we talk about the qualities of artistic processes: and that is the question of group size. The silos and bureacracies that impede adaptability and creativity in organisations are a product of their size. Very large numbers of people cannot order their activities without them and their existence then reinforces the kind of status differences and ego games that make creative collaboration difficult. Large groups also cannot provide the quality of mutual trust and intimacy that frees people to take risks. Artistic collaborations only ever take place in small groups. Even the very largest artistic performances you can imagine have no more than about 150 performers in them and the vast majority of productions far, far fewer.
There is some interesting research going on around group size in primate societies that seems to sit very well with observations of what constitutes a stable, healthy, creative community. Thinking about organisations as relatively simple structures composed of huge numbers of people (I had a brief from a company that refered to their "top team" of 500 senior executives) is clearly missing something.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: choreography and dynamic structures - follow up and WSCI
I would venture to say that adaptation is par for the course in choreography and is indeed a very useful model for business and in particular for line management and leading teams. You work with what you've got and together you make it work to serve the artistic vision of the choreographer. It is a fascinating interdependent relationship between choreographer and performer that requires trust and a willingness to take personal risks. I believe that the relationship is really quite fragile. There is something here that is apolitical which I can't quite articulate. Perhaps when personal politics enters the equation (i.e. a dancer vying for a bigger role, promotion or other career move) the creative process is hindered or burdened.
This can be seen in the film Stricktly Bolshoi - about Christopher Wheeldon's struggle to set a piece at the Bolshoi. The star dancer was not able to take a risk with Wheeldon fearing he might end up in a bad piece. It was recast with dancers lower in rank (with nothing to lose). If you haven't seen this film, you should. Collaboration and artistic egos do not make for an easy ride!
Brenda
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Stephen Carroll <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thinking about Steve ‘s comments about his theatre experiences working with choreographers, I recently observed stage productions in which choreographers played a major role. In the last week I attended an opera –Havisham by Argento- and a play about Darwin entitled Sandwalk on my campus in which choreographers played major roles. By incorporating significant dance elements into both productions, the performances were enhanced significantly in an aesthetic sense as well as advancing the narratives. In the dancing elements of the performances , dance movements compatible with the capabilities of the singers and actors were introduced congruent with the usual space, music, lighting, and aesthetic limitations and considerations. The choreographers had to collaborate with actors, singers, as well as stage and musical directors and others to make these productions the memorable performances they were. Extensive rehearsals identified possible future problems which were then effectively made less probable. High adaptation skills for these choreographers were critical to their success.
Many management academics and consultants over the past forty years have described the inability of many organizations of all types to adapt and change effectively when faced with changing circumstances. Traditional command and control systems, bureaucracies, internal silos as well as differences in subunit cultures, often prevent necessary collaboration and problem solving from occurring. Awareness of the choreographic model might be very helpful in such organizational design and change programs.
Steve C.
Stephen (Steve) Carroll
Maryland Business School
301/405-2239
[log in to unmask]
-----"Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Katrin Kolo
Sent by: "Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network"
Date: 04/25/2012 05:37PM
Subject: choreography and dynamic structures - follow up and WSCI
Dear AACORNERs,
it’s impressing how many mails with great thoughts have already been sent. I am extremely grateful, that this network exists. Thanks to all of you, who make this such a remarkable meeting and discussing space!
I decided to collect emails and follow discussions individually, in order to summarize and then bring the theme back to all AACORNers. I hope this way, I respect also the people in the network, who are not too interested in this vibrant mail traffic. Hope this is fine for all of you.
There is only question I would like to ask right now: Is there anyone of you, who knows something about “service choreography” notation (WSCI)? I would love to learn more about this.
Thanks again
Best
Katrin
--
Brenda Parkerson
(347) 443-7373
http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendaparkerson
=