Good Morning, Cara:
The decision point you're facing in your expanding organization is
enviable. I can't prove or disprove your theory about the best
organizational structure but would like to offer some observations.
You may have seen the posting of Marilee Taussig on 10/27 (Subject:
Passion to Participate Here LO19648). she said:
>Upon close examination, the systematic exclusion of "Diverse" people from
>meaningful contribution to organizational life is only superficially based
>on race, age, gender, language, etc.. If we got beyond those barriers,
>(hard enough, admittedly!) there was an even deeper barrier of rejecting
>people because of a different way of thinking. Left brain thinking styles
>have a long track record and great deal of power in many of our
>organizations, and they often feel uncomfortable with right brain
>processes or channels of communication.
She also stated:
>David Isaacs (who does great work with Juanita Brown regarding the ablity
>of conversation to be our primary knowledge container) talks about the
>importance of "system thinking" .. snip
My work has increasingly focused on the implementation process of systems
thinking philosophy. A question keeps coming up: if a concept like ST
sounds and feels so good to so many people, why hasn't it advanced farther
than it has? Are there some fundamental barriers to consider and handle
creatively? Marilee's post suggested some ideas.
If one assumes the validity of 'conversation being our primary knowledge
container', then a goal within any organization would be create conditions
for that container to thrive - to not only hold knowledge but to encourage
the creation of knowledge. Thinking of 'conversation', then, as an
potential emergent process, what supports it and what hinders it?
Since conversations occur between people - whether face to face or by some
virtual means - it seems we'd have a better chance of growing knowledge by
having lots of people with a broad spectrum of views ( more tacit
experiences, varied sensory abilities ). Yet, as organizations grow
larger, something happens to our ability to deal with the variety - the
diversity - of talents and orientations. Throw complexity of action into
the mix, and we're even less able to handle diversity. Add shortened time
response, and we're looking for instant understanding leading to right
actions in 'no time flat'.
Cara, if 'right action' is indeed a product of the community, maybe we
should be looking more closely as what it takes to develop an
understanding of our comrades and vice versa. If I know - really
understand - how someone views or could contribute to a situation in
advance of having to take action, we collectively will 'perform' better.
Trust, respect, openness and compatible 'language' all come into play. How
well do I really know the person.
The problem is that trust, respect, etal require time to develop among
most people. An Indian colleague cautioned me early in my industrial
career to shy away from being neutral when I meet someone the first time.
Not that I was necessarily reserved, rather watchful for their behavior
and orientation during the 'courtship'. My friend said not to be neutral,
rather be more open, encouraging the relationship. Within my ability, I
try to take this to heart.
Each of us has a capacity to develop relationships and we can improve or
regress over time. This happens to be the reality of the community: the
players are all different with different abilities to develop the kind of
relationships that - in a strictly action oriented sense - work for the
success of the organization. This brings me to your question, Cara,
whatever structure is chosen needs to consider the diversity of people,
and the complexity and timeliness of required action.
Again, if excellent 'conversations' are fundamental to excellent
performance, shouldn't we choose a structure that permits excellent
relationships to thrive. That's probably one of the reasons why firms like
Gore have consciously placed limits on the physical number of people at a
particular operational site: people need to have the trust, respect and
understanding of each other to work well together. Expecting too many
people to work within a community wherein they're expected to collaborate
effectively is unrealistic .. UNLESS (and here's the other side of the
equation) there's some way to improve the conversation process to
compensate for the constraints imposed by our individual limitations at
effective relationships.
That's another story that we're working on (and we think there's great
opportunity for this improvement), but enough for now. I hope these
thoughts - partially baked ( I really appreciate Sherri Malouf's
willingness to accept emerging ideas - someday I may fully cook some of
mine ) - are helpful.
Best Regards,
Terry Priebe
Decision Support Associates mailto:insight@de-sa.com web at http://www.de-sa.com
29 Hill Road, Wilmington, DE 19806 Phone 302-654-1673
--"Terry Priebe" <insight@de-sa.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>