Replying to LO28090 --
Addition to LO28067 --
Years ago, years before the 5th Discipline, when i studied for my MBA, i
was struck by a sentence from Chris Argyris on Organizational Learning:
"Learning in order to control behaviour inhibits learning", and I thought:
"What's new?". I didn't realize that this paradox haunts organizations.
Organizations are about controlling behavior, because that seems to be the
only way (or the safest, or indeed the only "rule based") to implement
responsibility. The notion (idea, culture, meaning) that one can be held
responsible for all of ones behavior (and actions and learning and
choices) regardless the origin, the need and the reasons, is still very
weak developed. Perhaps, this thought occurred as i write, perhaps that is
the reason we long for a purpose of the universe. If there were a purpose,
we might excused for not feeling responsible for our (in)actions. Again
there are at least two ways to show responsibility and ask for it. Back to
the main subject.
The paradox is, that a teacher (mentor, coach, manager, hrd-er) wants to
teach something: to change the behavior of the pupil and at the same time,
he can not change the behavior by trying to control it. He - or she - will
have to wait for the pupil to be ready. People, in my opinion, must choose
to change, to learn, to take responsibility themselves. Funny enough, they
have to learn this first.
It is a true paradox: nobody can learn something without being controlled
by something or somebody. Everybody wants to learn, but nobody wants to be
taught. And yet, you only learn, when you're willing to be taught. This is
the tension that drives us. "Feedback" is at the very hearth of learning.
I cannot teach without using control, authority, seniority, parent ship.
The thing is to wait, until the tension is so great that the pupil is
ready to choose to learn, to feel free to change behavior. Sometimes this
is phrased the other way around: "when the pupil is ready, the lesson will
appear".
An organisation IS control. organ-IS-ation. The very notion, the hearth,
the essence is controlling behavior of people. An organisation has a goal
and it wants to attain that goal by using resources. People. Sometimes
they're even called "hands". The responsibility of people is taken away
from them in exchange of money. I'm all right with that. Because people
will start to behave in ways that create a distance between them and the
organisation. They'll lack commitment, they'll ask for a raise, they'll
steal office supplies. So now you'll start to notice the paradox: at some
point in time, an organisation will need commitment form its employees.
Needs people who are involved, creative, open and responsible.
The message i wanted to convey is that the best "solution" - you cannot
"solve" a paradox - is to be explicit on the paradox: that there are
"hidden" messages in HRM and in human resource management and in your
behavior as a human resource manager. The same is true of the words
"learning organisation". There you have a combination of two mutual
exclusive processes too: learning and organisation. The way i like to
tackled such a problem is by taking the extreme standpoint: HRM should not
feel responsible for creating a learning organisation: that is the best
way to be responsible.
I apologize for the inconvenience,
Jan
Jan Lelie wrote:
> Rick and student, are we not all students at the Universety* Of Life
> (UOL)! Good question,
>
> Is see no role of HRD in creating a learning organisation. The best thing
> HRD can do: HRD should proclaim it has nothing whatsoever to do with
> creating a learning organisation. First of all, because it is a three
> letter acronym. Always be aware when there are three capital letters used.
> Especially when these are "stable" letters, like I, M, H or R. The hidden
> message is: control.
>
> Secondly, because i've been taught never to consider a fellow human being
> a means. I think that being a resource implies that you're considered a
> means. Now, an organisation is a set of common means, common means to
> acheive individual goals. Being a goal - making an exception for being the
> target of somebodies love - is not the purpose of a person. In my view
> that is not the point of human beings - of no being at all. People should
> be considered an end, a goal, becoming - in themselves. I do know that
> most HRD-people have the best of intentions, know this to be true, but
> still, they seldom call themselves Personell Department. Be what you would
> seem to be.
>
> Thirdly, developing, creating, sustaining a learning organization is the
> responsibility of line management, of the leaders of an organization (See:
> Leadership Is An Art by Max DuPree). More often than not, i encounter a
> process of shifting the burden: the burden of creating a LO is shifted to
> the HRD-people. Because these people are often well-intended, social and
> good educated, they take over this burden and start to develop all kinds
> of programms, interventions, supports, trainings etc. HRD will take care!
> They'll hire experts and set op projects. They'll write brochures and
> memo's, start communication programms. The worst sign is "managing
> competencies". In the end HRD will be frustrated because the management
> will not truely adopt the ideas of a learning organisation. And you cannot
> blame them: that problem has been shifted to HRD. So, after some time the
> organization start to enter the fields of the common tragedy. Factor-T.
>
> Most HRD-ers - again, fine people, nice people, there is nothing wrong
> with the people, it is the structure that is to blame or to point to the
> cause: the self-referent nature of the structure is to blame - become
> trapped in the trap they tried to avoid: defensive routines. Theory
> espoused is not equal to theory in use. No double-LOop learning.
-- With kind regards - met vriendelijke groeten,Jan Lelie
LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development mind@work est. 1998 - Group Resolution Process Support Tel.: (+31) (0)70 3243475 or GSM (car): (+31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl info@mindatwork.nl
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.