Arnold Wytenburg cited
>a bit of poetry, attributed to Schopenhauer and quoted in Wheatley and
>Kellner-Rogers latest book:
>
>"Thus the task is not so much to see
>what no one else has seen,
>but to think what nobody has yet thought
>about that which everybody sees."
(enableing the task to create
what no one else has seen before.)
Dear Arnold and LOers,
I like this, thank you! And when action is taken on such thought, tomorrow
everybody may see something else, hopefully better. And the fights of
today may be understood as being as ridiculous as they are in the light of
the new thoughts.
Especially valuable in my eyes are thoughts which have the power to
evaporate conflicts (the fights of today which everybody sees) instead of
just compromising (which everybody thinks).
I think, this is at the heart of Goldratts "Thinking Process":
1.) Drill down a set of undesirable effects (symptoms which everybody can
see) by means of cause-effect relationships to a common root cause.
2.) Check, why that root cause is in effect. Usually a conflict can be
found of the kind: Do one thing and simultanously do the opposite as well
to reach a common goal. (Simple example: In order to increase my
wellbeing, I MUST smoke a cigarette AND I must NOT smoke a cigarette. In
another thread, I wrote on this with respect to pay and performance.)
3.) Find an assumption behind the cause and effect scheme of the conflict
that can be changed, and when changed, would evaporate the conflict. Take
this new thought as the fundamental injection to eliminate the undesirable
effects.
4.) Anticipate what new undesirable effects may arise as a consequence of
the new thought and build a set of injections, that would trim the new
undesirable effects.
5.) Create an implementation plan, based on cause-effect relationships.
Peoples "resistance to change" are the main driver to complete this task.
Not all changes are improvements. The driver is the assumption that people
do not resist change, when a specific set of conditions is met:
a) People recognise a suggested change as an improvement. Therefore people
must invent the suggested change themselves (team learning and shared
vision).
b) All reservations on possible negative side-effects are expressed and
taken care of (tacit knowledge has been made formal and taken care of)
c) The same for reservations on obstacles in implementing the suggested
and under b) refined change.
People do not resist changes if these are perceived as implementable
improvements without major negative side-effects.
Everybody involved in change processes should be interested in meeting
these conditions. So peoples "resistance to change" is not a problem but
the most powerful resource in designing change progams.
Just give the tacit desire for wholeness and sureness some pull from the
formal level of knowledge.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>