On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 12:28 PM, Mariann Jelinek wrote:
> Agruably, Ford (where Deming's methods to "drive out fear" were
> apparently taken seriously over a decade ago), has made the most progress.
> GM, even in its Saturn division, seems still to struggle (costs are high,
> work methods seem not entirely rationalized, according to reports,
> staffing is high). Chrysler outsources LOTS, so its cost structure is
> different, but despite occasionally inspired design, quality has been an
> issue. What benefit naivity here? Ford says they need production skills,
> people inculcated with quality ideals, problem solving skills and a deep
> commitment to doing the job right, improving over time, and taking
> initiative toward constant improvement: doesn't sound naive to me. GM
> seems to have a long way to go to get past its historically adversarial
> relationship with workers (and vendors): MUCH UNlearning, in other words.
> "Insider" accounts underline how bureaucracy continues to loom as a
> barrier to learning, and to the needed unlearning. Chrysler, at a guess,
> has a bit less to unlearn simply because they have outsourced so much, but
> by the same token, has thereby eliminated potential for benefitting under
> a culture of quality and learning to improve.
> My two cents worth!
My thoughts on the importance of naivity come from an article by Harold
Shiaken (sp?) that can be found in:
Title
Cognition and communication at work / edited by Yrjo
Engestrom, David Middleton
Published
Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA : Cambridge University Press,
1996
Shaiken has done comparative studies of labor in the automotive industry.
The main focus of his work in this article was a plant that was set up
in Mexico (I believe) that was purposefully devoid of experienced workers
(although they did fly in some managers to train other managers and
staff).
The rationale centered around management not wanting their
state-of-the-art produciton facility to be contaminated by poor work
practices - they wanted to start from a clean slate. They results as I
recall were very favorable (although I do not remember the specifics).
Perhaps it was due to the fact that the workers did not have to UNlearn
work practices in order to become assimilated into the new plants
operations (as you have suggested). This would seem to confirm my
suggestion that naivity is valuable under some circumstances. The
automotive industry probably should not be taken as a model for a learning
organization but is LO framework appropriate for all business
circumstances?
Paul
MALLnet Global Corp.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
--Paul Meagher <meagher@cs.usask.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>