Eugene, you wrote:
> So both sides (i.e those on the "people" side & those on the "organizational" side)
> have their points, and may concede the other side certain
> of its points. We've shared different mental models, in effect. But we
> in LO (on all sides of this thread) lack the one thing that could move
> this dialogue to a more common understanding: the process of actually
> creating and implementing a vision together to test our mental models.
> If all members of this list were members of the same organization (I'm
> not imagining a virtual organization here, but one with a purpose,
> customers, revenue or funding, employees, offices, some sort of measure
> of organizational performance, the need to hire, motivate, and retain
> employees, etc.), having collective responsibility for organizational
> results, and willing to live with and within the processes we create for
> ourselves, then we would be able to use a more action research-based
> approach to discovering the validity of our respective positions by
> developing processes to implement them and observing results.
You've suggested a most exciting possibility - an organization "game", a
game of life for an organization. The players could be Organlearners,
each with a particular role and "life" - with unique characteristics.
Essentially a role play, scripted with a cast, functions and purpose, as
you suggest. The synthesized organization would have a defined structure,
communication channels and methods, history, etc. It would be virtual, of
course, but, in my experience, when I'm given a role to play with
responsibilities, authority and opportunities, I'll play it for all I'm
worth. You may not agree with the way I play it (or behave), but from my
point of view, that's life, that's my reality.
And, I suggest, that's where the learning would come in. You and all
would see how the cast behaved given a time-line of events, possibly
stepping through one time period at a time, capturing what went on and
reflecting about what happened and what might have happened IF other
events, constraints, whatever, were in place. The game could be paused,
roles and structure revised to accommodate the new learnings, and
continued.
It'd be quite a design (possibly a task for a number of
organizations/groups to sponsor and coordinate). But having had an
experience with a global business team doing something similar with (in my
case) a computer simulation model as the "font of information and
analysis", as the business leader said at the end: the team (50 senior
managers playing different roles) learned more in 4 hours (time stepping
over 10 virtual years of events) than they had learned in the past 10
actual years.
It may be well worth the effort to explore. And, I think the internet
would be an excellent vehicle to accommodate such an experiment.
Regards,
Terry Priebe
Decision Support Associates
www.de-sa.com
e-mail: tpriebe@de-sa.com
--Terry Priebe <insight@dca.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>