Rick asked about learning in authoritative organizations.
>A colleague of Rick's is looking at how concepts such as OL, KM and
>>intellectual capital mangement can be applied to police forces. While the
>>principle is fine, it would be good to get some thoughts on the
>>implications of applying these principles in a traditional command and
>>control hierarchy.
Any organization that wants to get better at what they do must set aside
time to communicate. Time to discuss what went wrong and why, what went
right and why.
The police in my city seem to respond to complaints form the public with a
firing or suspension. As long as no time is spent opening up discussing
errors then no progress can be made. Political pressures and behaviors
tend subvert that possibility.
I do not see learning or knowledge management as impossible in a command
and control organization. It is more about willingness to explore mistakes
and listen to each other. As long as the 'management looks for people to
blame rather than using experience to provide feedback about what went
wrong there can be no improvement. Constant comparison of what happened to
what is desired is the core of improving and learning. Openness about this
is the key to passing on knowledge. We will not have knowledge management
or learning in political cultures or cultures focus on looking good and
staying out of trouble.
The difference is not in command and control versus participation but in
management's willingness to explore errors and admit mistakes. That is
what it takes to learn and that can occur in the most authoritative
organizations. The question is what are they being authoritative about. Do
it my way or learn and do it a better way.
Toyota is highly authoritative , highly participative and has exhibited
learning to a phenomenal level.
et
--Eugene Taurman <ilx@execpc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>