Replying to LO28110 --
Hello Ed, greatings to you all,
Life is all about priorities, was my first reaction. My second idea was:
if you do not pratice what you theorize (so if you let reality take over
what you think is your responsiblity) how can you expect others to do so.
Then i tought, why not settle for sub-optimalization? But this is shifting
the burden in disguise. So i must say: smart, but not smart enough. If
theory doesn't fit the facts, that's too bad for the facts ;-).
Remember that we're sophisticated apes. We ape each other ("naäpen" we say
in Dutch), in fact, learning is just sophisticated aping. So when people
see that managers are overworked in running ("you have to run just to same
in the same place") the business, they'll assume that that is what it
takes and start running too, naäpen. So HRD starts to run and accepts the
running as a constraint. And HRD starts to make "token change": they act
as if running is part of a LO-business. And that one can make some small
concessions to principle. But one cannot. "Als apen apen naäpen apen apen
apen na" This is shifting the burden revisited.
I had a LO in place, in theory and in practice. I didn't run, in fact, i
had all the time in the world. I used to say that my work was not
intensive but extensive. Slowly everything began to unwind. People started
to relax AND - amazingly - to learn faster. We reduced costs, inventories,
errors. And we were also able to deliver goods of 100% quality faster than
the customer could ask. These were complicated telecommunication switches.
So i was visited by my director a few times and he told me that this was
no way to run a business! Then he went to HRD and the HRD-manager
suggested to fire me. Because, as he said to me, he didn't understand the
way i worked.
And i could cite another example, only that manager doesn't know that she
is running a LO. She doesn't know the theory. So you think you can tell,
heaven from hell?
Want to know more? Be careful out there,
Jan Lelie
eheinric@csc.com wrote:
> In the theoretical ideal this is true, and should be true in reality, but
> my experience is that in reality it is not. Line and Senior Managers in
> today's Corporation's "Run the Business", they are too overworked
> planning, budgeting, keeping the client happy/interfacing, etc. to be
> actively involved in LO activities, other than sponsoring and supporting.
> But, the sponsoring and supporting is critical, for without it, there
> definitely will be no LO. Many managers do support the LO concept, but
> they want it to happen with minimal involvement on their part and at
> minimal costs. This is where HRD gets involved, "make it happen within
> those constraints", the endless quest for the LO then begins... This is
> not the theoretically perfect development of the LO, but it is much better
> than an organization that does not pursue the LO goal/activities at all.
>
> My question is: Does anyone know of a large, successful, profitable
> organization that is a theoretically perfect LO? I think I know the
> answer.
--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.