Rol
I've been following your insightful observations with interest. I believe
that organisations or sub-organisations (e.g., businesses, departments,
teams) can and do "practice" more than is readily apparent.
In the business I have been in for 25 years (strategy consulting), I would
say that at least 80% of the work that we do is effectively "practice."
By this I mean that all the work that stands behind our final "product"
represents the efforts of a team to identify, test and revise various
hypotheses which will ultimately be brought together in some sort of
knoweldge transfer to the client (a presentation, a report, an
implementation plan, or whatever). When one is interviewing top
management about their take on the various issues facing the organisation,
formulating business cases, analysing alternative futures and their impact
on possible strategies, etc., one is less "doing" than "practicing." It
is not for nothing that consultants often refer to their final
presentations as "showtime." No less than a symphony orchestra or a
baskterball team, the effectiveness of their performacne on the day will
relate significantly to their quality and quanitity of tyheir "practice"
for that occasion.
Other professional service firms have similar circumstances and
behaviours: the learning/practicing work that investment banks do in the
run-up to doing a deal; the work that attorneys do in preparation for a
court case; the work that accountants do in preparation for the
presentation of their audit findings. What distinguishes these situations
from those of other organisations is the concept of "showtime." In each
of these cases the end "product" is fully understood, by all members of
the team, as is the time and place for its "performance."
I would argue, however, that every organisation has "showtime"s and long
periods of practice for these "events." In a machine tool shop, much of
what a lathe operator is doing on a day-to-day basis is (or should be)
learning how to improve the productivity of his equipment and his task
towards some agreed to objective. He does this almost simultaneously with
the act of turning out fully machined parts. In a retail store, the sales
person is, or should be, continuously learning ways to improve customer
service towards an end objective of improving customer retention, AT THE
SAME TIME as he or she actually serves the customer. This is what happens
in learning organisations such as Toyota or Sears.
The difference with most organisations is that the latter do not have
clear and/or clearly communicated goals against which their people work.
So, they think that their only objective on a day-to-day basis is to work
to their basic job description. They are learning, but all the wrong
things.
At least that's the way I see it, this morning.
Sincerely
Richard
Richard Goodale
Managing Partner
The Dornoch Partnership
"Discovery, Creativity, Leadership"
goodale@dial.pipex.com
+44-1383-860660
--Richard Goodale <fc45@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>