hello, Gene--
yep--you got me. I did write this.
"I have a problem with the criticism of management. Management is not the
problem. The system, and the people in the system, are the problems you
are describing. There are great people--great managers--working in
terrible systems. There are terrible managers, dysfunctional or untrained
people, working in terrible and wonderful systems. Mostly, there are
dysfunctional systems, poorly trained managers and laborers who look for
someone to blame. As Barry Oshrie has said, the problem includes the
"tops, bottoms and middles."
and you asked:
> Who has the power to change the system? Who created it? Who is
> responsible for how well it works? How can they tell?
you ask some tough questions!
I'll do my best to respond to your questions--but I'd really like to hear
(see) some of your thoughts behind these questions, and perhaps hear from
some others too.
I believe that it takes the will of the people in the system to change the
system. I also think that people have a variety of roles to play in
changing the system. The person with the fiscal and legal authority to
initiate change (president, boss, director, etc) is certainly a key
person. At the very least she needs to support (in her actions and words)
the principles and methods of change. I'm convinced that a key to
changing the system relies on reminding people why they are there--and why
the organization exists. This is the statement of purpose, or mission.
It needs to authentic, terse and memorable. The organizational vision
(what it wants to be) needs to be in view also. The leaders' job is to
ensure that purpose and vision are imbedded, intwined, integrated into
every fiber of the organization, what I've called "inculcating the
culture."
Some thoughts on this system that I've described:
The organization is the system -- the system is the organization. It
relies on sets of relationships--a self-making network pattern in which
the function of each component is to participate in the production or
transformation of other components in the network. The order and behavior
are not imposed from outside, but are established by the system itself.
The network is a set of relations among processes of production of
components. They must continuously regenerate themselves to maintain
their organization.
Imagine an organization (business, agency, community^Wyou pick) in which
each person participates in the production or delivery of the
organizational product(s), and in the transformation of each other person
in the organization. The order and behavior in the organization are
self-imposed. However, despite its^R autonomy, the organization interacts
with its^R environment through a continual exchange of energy (people and
revenue) and matter (other resources). Now, the continual self-generating
network of relationships within this organization also includes the
ability to form new organizational structures or patterns of behavior.
This human network is a set of relations among processes of production and
delivery of components. This network must continuously regenerate itself
to maintain the organization.
I also believe that organizations are systems that are structurally open
but organizationally closed (dissipative). This is important to keep in
mind, because we know that a living system needs a continual flow of
resources from the environment through the system in order to stay alive
and maintain its order. The network of processes keeps the system far
from equilibrium and through the feedback loops gives rise to
bifurcations, and thus to development and evolution.
Finally, the organizing activity for everyone in the organization should
rely on mental activity. This is why vision and purpose are critical--and
why everyone in the system must be "cognitive" or aware of why they are
"relating" to one another in the organization. Cognition (the life
process) consists of all activities involved in the continual embodiment
of the system^Rs (autopoietic) pattern of organization in a physical
(dissipative) structure.
Now, you'll probably recognize Capra's influence here--and things that
I've been stating for the past year. It's our collective success in
relating to one another, organizing around our organizational purpose and
transforming our organization based on a collective vision--and ensuring
that our structure is sound, yet open to the environment in which we live.
I think that the measure of success should be very similar to the same
measures we use for ourselves as individuals. Are we robust and thriving?
Are we flexible and continuously adapting? Can we sustain ourselves in
our current environment--and in the future? Are we internally and
externally integrated (employees, owners, stakeholders, community)? Are
our "autonomous entities" (people) encouraged and taught to be creative,
independent and connected?
How we measure these characteristics is another matter--I believe that
many organizations do measure some aspect of these characteristics
already.
Finally, I'm confident that the only way out of dysfunctional systems is
by becoming a learning organization, in practice as well as theory.
Richard Goodale, in his response to the question "does LO work?," offers
some good examples and reasons why they do. He provides the following
quote from David Garvin (the stress is Richard's):
"How, for example, will managers know when their companies have become
learning organisations? What concrete changes in behavior are required?
What policies and programs must be in place? How do you get from here to
there?
MOST DISCUSSIONS OF LEARNING ORGANISATIONS FINESSE THESE ISSUES. THEIR
FOCUS IS HIGH PHILOSOPHY AND GRAND THEMES, SWEEPING METAPHORS RATHER THAN
THE GRITTY DETAILS OF PRACTICE."
Ultimately, there is a change in attitude within the organization. The
behavior is focused on purpose and vision. Conflict is a tangible and
valuable part of the relationships within the organization. The labor
force moves from cynicism (usually based on their perception that they are
hired hands or brains only--and that the "fat cats" don't trust them and
that they care more about their money and privileges than their
organization); managers stop trying to control and direct--instead are
involved in permeating the organization with a sense of purpose and
direction and are integrating, training, mentoring and coaching the
organizational members; and employees become people (or associates without
the BS connotation without which most organizations use this word).
This list could go on--and someone could certainly put it more succinctly
and elegantly than I. We speak of ideals (systems, LO's, etc). These are
models toward which we choose to grow. I think the living systems is a
model towards which organizations should grow (moving through the LO model
is an transition, I think). The point is, like all models, others will
come along and parrot the talk but not know (or care to know) how to walk
the walk. Religions, societies, alliances, movements--all are eventually
enriched or deprived by our skills, or lack of skills--our commitment to
principles over our commitment to self-aggrandisement.
Finally--how did I get on this soapbox? Oh yes--Gene. You asked about
"who is responsible for how well it works?" This is the part where
"blame" comes in. There is usually a person who has role authority for
ensuring that "it works well." We've discussed (on this list) the need
for commensurate levels of authority and responsibility. When I hire
someone, and tell them that it's their job to make sure that "the system
works well" and I mention that it's been working fine for me, I really
have set them up, haven't I. If it hasn't been working well, then No
Problem! (we all prefer going into a "broken" organization as a leader,
don't we?)
We should expect high things of the people responsible for "systems
wellness." If they are holding the bottom line, the noise level isn't too
high and they can get promoted out of the position before all of the
problems they ignored or created come out--then they have Success! The
next person comes in--the place wasn't broken until the new manager showed
up, and Voila! It's a mess. They're a terrible manager--let's fire them
now!
This is just one scenario that comes with the territory of responsibility.
I've always liked Simon Buckingham's notion of branding. I recognized my
own notion of Neon Signs (I always felt that my name was blazing in a neon
sign over the places, functions, in which I had responsibility--and that
everyone could see my name on it. It was imperative that my work
group--however big or small--reflected my own desire for success.)
So--who is responsible. Each person is responsible to her or himself,
then to their co-workers and then to the person with the authority to hire
and fire them. There are many subsystems (smaller networks) within the
larger organization. The person who accepts the income and risk and joy
that goes with being the big Kahuna (leader) also accepts the
responsibility for how well the big system works. But, rather than
pointing fingers and blaming, I would encourage everyone to build up,
support, coach and mentor each other in a self-organizing activity around
the purpose and vision of the organization.
And thank you for challenging my statement. I understand about personal
and organizational responsibility. I also understand how difficult it is
to be one of the best managers in a totally dysfunctional (SNAFU?) system.
I need to add one more comment. LO'ers tend to be change agents, I
suspect. Change agents--love change, embrace it and can rationalize a
multitude of wonderful reasons why we should change. Change agents (among
whom I count myself) can sell visions, and models, and ideas and influence
organizations to change. But--we're not always good at sustaining change.
The 70% or so of the world we live in that resists authority or change or
both, generally resists change agents at some point in time. If we want
to successfully create and sustain LO's we need to model, and talk, and
live and eat and breathe what we believe. It is very difficult to
convince everyone to make this transition--and they'll be the ones who
remember the "good ole' days." We need to be aware of and sensitive to
EVERYONE in the organization--especially the silent resistors. They are
the ones who will kill the transition--they are the targets of inculcating
the culture of LO in the organization.
Gene--I got carried away here. I hope I answered your questions, finally.
thanks for your patience.
Doc
-- "Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two my life flows." -Nisargadatta MaharajThresholds <http://www.thresholds.com> Meeting Masters <http://www.thresholds.com/masters.html> Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Astoria, Or & Olympia, WA USA ICQ# 10849650 voice 360.786.0925
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>