Responding to At de Lange in LO28052 --
At the beginning of his post, At provided some other possible subject
lines:
>I could also have called this topic:
>Using wrong solutions for same problem over and again.
>I could even have called it:
>Using the same solutions for different problems over and again.
>Let us see why.
At its end, he writes:
>When an OO (Ordinary Organisation) wants to transform itself into a LO, it
>will have to face the fact that it will have to solve several complex
>problems authentically. It will have to avoid rote problem solving. My
>question now is: "Is the use of the Fifth Discipline and the Fieldbook as
>the blueprint for the transformation into a LO rote problem solving or
>not?"
I'll tell you what I think.
If well-meaning people in an OO pick up Senge's book and the Fieldbook
and, armed with nothing more than their good intentions and what I will
for now label "ordinary education and experience," set about creating a LO
from their current OO, the odds are they will (a) fail and (b) leave all
concerned with a bad taste in their mouths regarding LOs. That's probably
a convoluted way of saying that it is one thing to formulate (or seize
upon) a vision and an altogether different matter to bring that vision to
fruition. Or said a little differently, and in terms of skill sets, skill
set A is admirably suited for living and working in an OO, skill set B is
admirably suited for living and working in an OO and skill set C is
admirably suited for transforming an OO into an LO. There is no doubt
some overlap among the three skill sets but they are nowhere near
identical to one another.
"Rote problem solving" (as I understand it from your post, At), is
commonplace in OOs and rare in LOs. Odds are, those who approach the
problem of transforming an OO into an LO will invoke much more rote
problem solving (and thus "wrong" solutions) than they will invoke
"authentic" problem solving. (And, to be perfectly honest, I'm not at
all sure I know what you mean by that term -- but I don't need to at this
point; all I need to know right now is that there is a distinction to be
made between rote and authentic problem solving). Odds are, the people
who populate an OO do not yet have skill set B (the LO skill set). And,
odds are, they also don't have skill set C (the transformational skill
set).
To some extent, what I've just said is an example of thinking rooted in
rote problem solving; that thinking has its roots in systems thinking,
organizational theory, planned change, OD and a host of other, related
concepts, theories, principles, practices, experiences and conclusions
therefrom. It is a view of the problem of transforming an OO into an LO
through a planned, purposeful effort, one that is unquestionably and
unequivocally supported from the top of the organization if not actually
led from there. In short, it views that problem as an exercise in change
management. But what if that's the wrong model? What if the
transformation of an OO into an LO is not an exercise in change
management? What if it's really a matter of wholesale and largely
self-initiated change on the part of all (or at least most) of the
individuals who make up the organization -- from top to bottom? What if
the conversion of an OO into an LO is best begun at the bottom instead of
the top? How would you set about facilitating that? And, if the
transformation of an OO into an LO requires deep and fundamental change on
the part of large numbers of the individuals who make up the organization,
who has the right to launch such an effort? And what rights are held by
those who oppose such a change -- for themselves if not for others? Or,
as always seems to be the case, are the only rights we have those we are
willing to claim and fight to defend? Converting an OO into an LO is
indeed a complex problem.
So, to answer your question directly, At, "Yes," I think people who pick
up Senge's book and the Fieldbook then march happily and naively off into
transformation land are engaging in rote problem solving.
Finally, what's really interesting to me about all this ruminating is that
I couldn't think of a single instance of the successful conversion of an
OO into an LO. Can anyone point me to such example? Are there case
studies of such successes? If this has in fact been done and something
has been learned from doing it, why isn't that learning at the forefront
of my own thinking. I must be ignorant.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
740.397.2363
nickols@att.net
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm
--Fred Nickols <nickols@att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.