Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
As far as my experiences and investigations go an OO (Ordinary
Organisation) emerges through a definitive event into a LO (Learning
Organisation). This event can be described as "hanging together in a
stressful period for the benefit of all". Thereafter the LO has to grow to
maturity.
The stressful period points to a ridge of chaos where an ordinate
bifurcation happens. The "bifurcate" means that one of two outcomes are
possible. The "ordinate" means the outcome is either a constructive
emergence or a destructive immergence. The 7Es (seven essentialities of
creativity) give an indication which outcome will be the case. They are
liveness, sureness, wholeness, fruitfulness, spareness, otherness and
openness. When one or more of them are seriously impaired, the outcome
will be a destructive emergence, a wasting of what had been acquired
formerly.
The following question now arises. Can an OO also immerge into a WO
(Wasting Organisation) rather than a LO? With a WO i mean the dialectical
opposite of a LO. In a WO the five disciplines of a LO play little, if any
role. There is little personal mastery, little team learning, little
shared vision, little discerning of mental models and little systems
thinking.
Do we have examples of WOs? The past couple of months the plight of
Zimbabwe (its people and its nature) often occupied my thoughts. The
government of a country is also an organistation. I do not know of any
government at present which is a LO. Unfortunately, not all of them are
OOs. For example, the government of Zimbabwe may have become a WO.
Why do i think that is the Zimbabwean government is a possible WO? Allow
me to list a few reasons.
(1) It hired a Canadian businessman Ari Ben-Menashe for consultancy work.
Two weeks before the presidential election was held, the leader of the
opposition was charged with high treason. It eventually appeared that
Ben-Menashe was the government's key witness. During the trial the past
couple of weeks, it became evident that the witness is a shady character.
The defence of the opposition leader and two other accused is that they
had been framed by Ben-Menashe.
--Is a government which tries to destroy opposition parties not a WO?
(2) It promised black people land for agricultural purposes. That land
would be bought from white commerical farmers. They were formerly
responsible for nearly all of the agricultural output of the country. But
two years ago this land reform changed into the so-called "fast track
seizures". Thousands of white farmers were simply driven of their land
with no recompensation. Less than a thousand are left over. Even worse,
close to a million of blacks employed by these farmers were also driven
from these farms. Many farms were given to "war veterans" to squat upon
who self had no farming experience. Worst of all, it now comes to light
that many farms had also been given to the close supporters in the
government of president Mugabe. They use these farms as relaxation
resorts. As a consequence the agricultural output of Zimbabwe has
plummeted. Add to this the present drought and millions of Zimbabweans
suffer famine, hundreds dying every week.
--Is a government which destroys the food infrastructure not a WO?
(3) It clamps down on any person reporting on any social disorder in the
country. Taking a picture of a que of hundreds of people waiting to buy a
loaf of bread or a bag of meal will land that person without charges in
jail to be tortured and perhaps even to be killed. Reporting on corruption
in government and parastatal organisations will result in the same action.
--Is a government which gags open report and critique not a WO?
However, despite reasons such as these, i think it will be difficult to
prove that a government is a WO. A typical example is the present
international trail at the Hague of Slobodan Milosevic, strongman of the
Serbian government. Some accuse him as a national disgrace while others
will bear witness to him as a national hero. He is on trial, but the
Serbian government not. I wonder whether it is not the same with any other
WO. Those who benefitted by it depite being a WO will praise it while
those who suffered by it will accuse it. Only some leaders will get the
pointed finger. Furthermore, much becomes complicated by leaders saying
one thing, but doing different things. For example, last night i listened
and looked at a speech delivered by Mahathir of Malaysia. It was
impressive. Or is it merely another sandiwara (drama) to fool everybody?
For example, browse through the site < http://www.malaysia.net > to see
how much the opinions on Mahathir differ.
What is needed to characterise an organisation as a WO? I think that the
five disciplines (5Ds) of an LO put into reverse gear will not do.
Malpractices such as intimidation, extortion, bribary, nepotism and
corruption will still not be uncovered by the 5Ds in reverse gear. Just
try to do it for Enron and WorldCom and see how far you will get.
Furthermore, the kind of organisation will also have to be taken into
account when trying to characterise an organisation as a WO. A
governmental organisation usually becomes a WO when it allows itself
draconian, internal security acts. A business organisation usually becomes
a WO when it seeks maximum profit despite all other declines. A religious
organisation usually becomes a WO when it sanctifies dogma with
fundamentalism.
It is not nice to think of WOs. It is also difficult not to become
judgemental or negative when thinking of an organisation as a possible WO.
The worst is that one's creativity become destructive. I would rather
suggest strongly that the antidote to WOs is not to characterise them as
such, but to advance the emergence of LOs among OOs. Setting up a
positive, constructive example is far better than seeking out a negative,
destructive example.
However, setting up a positive, constructive example is also far more
complex than seeking out a negative, destructive example. It requires
learning of a higher order than that which takes place in the Ordinary
Organisation (OO). It requires that learning which characterises a
Learning Organisation (LO), something which is different from any
organisation for learning. The difference is most clear in creativity. A
LO foster and encourage boundless creativity whereas in an organisation
for learning it gets frowned or even trampled upon.
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
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.