John Gunkler asked:
>Any ideas out there about a short list of typical "brakes" that prevent
>organizations from learning? How can they be removed?
(This mail became quite long. So for those of you interested only in a
direct response to these questions with practical value, go down to where
I write "Let me analyse the anatomy of resistance." Easy to find, because
followed by 6 paragraphs counted 1. until 6. - my short list)
Edwin Goad concluded in LO22045:
>I realize that I tend
>toward a pre-judgement that says all friction is bad. How to think more
>creatively to enhance the dignity and usefulness of this friction (which
>in these metaphors seems like a natural part of the system)?
>
>I am know trying to think of systems (especially natural ones) that use
>the side effects of internal friction in a useful way ...
Thank you for asking John and Edwin.
I see the situation this way:
In an organization, motor and brakes are linked together as discribed by
the limits of growth systems archetype. The heavier the motor tries to
work (push changes) the stronger will the grip of the brakes force the
system back to equilibrium. We know from systems dynamics, that in such a
system the lever is not to enforce the motor but to release the brake.
In an organization, motor and brakes are human behaviour, and for this, John stated clearly: "Everyone's behavior makes sense to that person." The motor/brake image indicates, that it may make also sense for the whole system. The positive purpose of brake
s for the system is, not to crash the system. Brakes do this by transforming resistance into friction, eating up the free energy of too high speed.
Therefore I changed from "brakes" to "cruise control system" in my reply
to Rick, At and Eugene. Leaving the mechanical metaphor behind, the cruise
control system allow to transform high speed (danger for crash) into new
emergences (something that cannot be expressed in a purely mechanical
metaphor, I tried it by switching the metaphor from driving a car to
building a house).
Before coming to explain how to release the brake, I would like to
distinguish releasing the brake from removing the brake. John wrote:
>In order to change an organization one can try to add a "motor" that will
>support some new kind of behavior. But doing only this is like running a
>vehicle with the brakes still on. It is much more efficient and (for some
>subtle reasons) much more ethical to first remove the "brakes" as much >as possible. That means to first change the culture so that the old ways >are no longer being sanctioned.
Nazi-Germany was a typical example for a system with an high-power engine
and effectively removed brakes by the GeStaPo (state police).
I think we can agree, that we don't want to remove the brake. In case of
resistance against change, there still should be the possiblity to apply
the brake, to cause friction. The guys suggesting change are not smarter
than I and they also have a restricted perspective, which in many cases do
not include mine. Why should I assume that I will benefit from the
suggestion? How often did I make the experience, that it was clear for me
from the beginning that a suggested change would be an improvement also
for me? Rarely. Resistance to a suggested change that is not perceived as
an improvement does make sense - for the individual, but also for the
system.
Now releasing the brake get the meaning of doing something more
constructive with the resistance than to brake by friction. What could
this be? Why not take the resistance as a guideline to design the cruise
control system in such a way that riding the car becomes a pure pleasure
(no resistance left)?
How?
Let me analyse the anatomy of resistance. I perceive 6 layers, may be
there are more:
1. layer: One does not agree on the problem. Every department knows those
symptoms hurting them and tend to call them "problem". The task is to find
common causes for most of the symptoms of ALL departments, the
organization as a whole system.
2. layer: Achieving consens on the core problem does not mean achieving
consens on the direction of the solution. The core problem is not there,
because some evil placed it there but for some vital reasons which need to
be respected. Try to do the opposite of the core problem and you will
know, what a real problem is. So usually there is a conflict at the heart
of a situation rich in problematic symptoms. The question about achieving
consens on the direction of a solution is how to solve the conflict, and
not to compromise.
3. layer: It is not understood, how a concrete suggested solution in the
agreed on direction create a world without the well known symptoms.
Understanding can be achieved only by explaining. It would not be the
first time that there are one or more fallacies detected by explaining to
all parties.
4. layer: The suggested solution is accepted as solving the symptoms, but
negative side-effects are anticipated (which even might we worse than
todays symptoms). The only way is to polish the suggestion until all
negatives are trimmed. Now you really have designed a powerful cruise
control system.
5. layer: the design of a solution is not a solution in action. It need to
be implemented. If you have to give up here, this is the highest rate of
frustration possible. The only way is to remove the obstacles to
implementation one by one.
6. layer: still there might be shere personal fear to get started. I think
here (and only when you are sure that you have reached this layer and the
other five are perfectly met) is the point, where the famous kick in the
ass is appropriate. Which is a real pleasure, because people will be most
grateful for it.
What do you think how often such a thorough attempt to deal with
resistance is taken? Do manager have time to think it through? No. They
are too busy dealing with all the problems they have because they haven't
applied it in the past.
Applying Eugene Taurman's distinguishing of process and method, I have
dealt so far only with the process of designing the cruise control system
in order to release the brake. You may wish to sort your own methods, your
"how to" into this process, as Eugene suggested for the leadership
process. I would be too happy, if you could share your results with me or
the list. Therefore I offer the process again as a short-cut summary:
1.) Identify the core problem
2.) Solve the basic conflict
3.) Explain the suggested solution
4.) Polish the suggested solution
5.) Remove obstacles to implementation of the polished solution
6.) Get started
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>