LOListers, hello. The following note was originally sent direct to Anthony
< anthony_padgett_za@mail.toyota.co.jp > who suggested I send it to the
full list...
Anthony, good morning:
I saw this morning that you wrote:
"I believe that Toyota along with many other Japanese firms in Japan are
finally starting to go through some serious soul searching due to the
overbearing recessions that continues to plague Asia."
At deLange in a later note (The Digestor and Obfuscation LO21645) talked
about "Learning Organisations have to learn how to deal with fear. " He
also reminded us in Logical Thinking LO21652 about the 5 elementary
sustainers of creativity :
dialogue
problem solving
exemplar studying
game playing
art expressing
Let me go out on a limb to try and make a stab at integrating some aspects
of these topics. Your description of the "political" behavior observed in
Asia sparked connections.
As background, I was CFO for a large, multinational US business unit,
another hierarchical organization, but, I must say, I wasn't confronted
with the degree of negative behavior you spoke about. If I think back, now
- outside the box - in that and other roles, I consciously had to
multi-process most activities: (1) create a satisfactory (acceptable /
excellent) "work product" and (2) "sell" that product to my "customers" -
usually those to whom I was responsible.
As I gained more experience in my career, I recognized "fear" as a normal
characteristic of my environment. This "fear" could also be viewed as
"reluctance" or "insufficient reason for a certain action". Maybe it was
that no known path had previously existed and they (or I) didn't want to
take the risk - whatever that was - to explore that option. Sometimes it
was "I don't have time to look beyond a certain path; it's too complex and
I've too much to do". Another: "you don't have the credentials to take me
down such an uncharted road". And, another: "I'm not paid to do anything
but what I'm doing".
Whatever it's called, it certainly is a drag! We are who we are and it's
unlikely we're going to change (unless something different happens).
In my last years as CFO of this successful business, I stumbled into
leading the development of a global business model for the product's
industry. It was a first. I don't believe anyone, anywhere had attempted
such an endeavor before - this was 10 years ago - and few have since, of
such a magnitude. To make a long story short: it worked and the issues
around what's important for creativity and change - leading to right
action - started to be driven home to me and others.
My reason for telling you this is that in one of the early presentations
we made to senior management (a bit of show off, but more importantly, a
description of what "could be" for the company and what now "was" for this
business) a VP, about 40 minutes into our show-and-tell, banged his fist
on the table and loudly and surprisingly exclaimed " My God, we're going
to have to think! "
What I believed happened was that this person - senior and many years of
being a shrewd and successful politician - saw that by putting together an
environment that supported creativity AND (and this is most important)
effectively performed a level of work that previously had occupied a great
portion of his time, i.e. assembly of relevant information, analysis,
evaluation support, comparison... all leading to whatever decision he had
to make... that he was given time to think - as well as do "what was
expected of him". This was a revolution to him, and it subsequently became
a revolution to others - obviously not everyone, but a start was made;
lessons were learned.
He was effectively "freed" of some constraints that limited his ability to
act.
I've come around to believe that "time" is a fundamental contributor here
and that "making effective time" is something to focus on. We've recently
put a piece on our website called "The BLP - A Tool to Make Time" at <
http://www.de-sa.com/time.htm > that talks a bit about these ideas.
The implementation process for this and similar efforts was gradual, and
determined by the natural rate of acceptance of each organization. Sound
technology, a common working language, relevant and valid information -
all combined with good organizational development processes (and they seem
to be widely abundant) make for a successful intervention. And then, of
course, it's necessary to keep "one's foot on the gas", so to speak. This
is where core LO facilitators support the "double-loop learning" activity
- vitally important to the long-term success of such an process.
Rocket science? No. But, it does take some fairly commonly available
components and combines them in a radically new way - naturally
integrating into the work flow for most organizations - reducing fear of
change and fostering a more creative approach to action. This was the
foundation of the Business Learning Platform.
Anthony, it must have been the second cup of coffee that caused me to
extend this piece. I obviously was struck by the synchronicity of ideas
from your and At's contributions today. I look forward to hearing from you
as to how these thoughts resonate in Japan.
Best Regards,
Terry
Terry Priebe
Decision Support Associates, Inc. 29 Hill Road Wilmington, DE 19806 USA
302-654-1673
mailto:insight@de-sa.com
http://www.de-sa.com
--"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>