John, you warned us about:
> This is not directed at Malcolm his
> statement, I think it was the word leverage (leverage what? for what
> purpose? to benefit who?) , sparked a sensitive point in me. I sometimes
> tire of the dominate thesis which places the "good" of the organisation as
> the supreme end.
And I warn everybody for the length of this e-mail, please excuse me.
Well, applying my newly found breakthrough thought that learning is biased
towards conforming to groups - tribes, families, flocks, herds, peoples,
nations, race, teams, departments, associations, schools (university is
called Alma Mater in The Netherlands: feeding mother), unions, parties,
religions, colleges, churches, parishes, (social and other) classes, -
conforming to groups in order to enhance the propagation, the survival,
the continuation of our species, this makes perfect sense. By nature we
are social beings, equipped with emotions to develop relations easily.
Because we can only survive in a group, we have a craving to belong-to.
Organisations, groups, tribes, were means to an end: survival. Now they
are so successful they have become "ends" in themselves. You may have
noticed that we still think that resources are scarce, that we need
savings and profits for who-knows-what.
We had to learn to adapt to living in a group. The only disadvantage is
that we also had to stop learning, something that already occurred
naturally. In primitive tribes learning stops formally with the
initiations rites. In not so primitive tribes it ends with the first job.
In stead of 40 days in the desert or killing a tiger or taming a horse or
killing an enemy, getting high and learning some sacred words and getting
a new name, we're now initiated with introductionary courses on the firm
(firm, terra firma, solid earth) - mine was 3 months long, good old days -
, making the first deal (taming a wild customer), having a new-years party
- getting very very drunk -, learning new three letter abbreviations
(TLA's) and, loo and behold, a new, second name called job-title. What's
new?
> We are bombarded with messages from all quarters (media,
> elected officials, the courts, religious figures-those that are reported
> by our media) that the welfare of human beings is tied to the welfare of
> our organizations (both public, private, profit and non), and the
> maximization of profit (please note I did not say the creation of profit I
> am referring to the maximization of it) is the virtuous goal , some
> maintain a moral obligation of the organization. A word about profit; I
> construct this to mean not only money but power, influence and control and
> their maximization to attain a desired goal. This could end up a larger
> discussion but it isn't just money, that is why I include non-profits.
> Many of our (i.e. consultant, managers etc.) jobs are the advancement of
> that notion within the organization. Often through these threads I hear
> concern for human beings as a function of what we do to/for/with
> organizations. The center, the underlying essence, is occupied by the
> organization (but what is the organization really? - a vehicle for the
> privileged to maintain their privilege?). In a country that is one of the
> most industrialized and wealthiest (I now speak from a very USA
> perspective) where we have one of the highest percentage living below the
> poverty level ( in some parts 1 in 4 children live in poverty), have one
> of the highest infant mortality rates, where the distribution of all our
> efforts (wealth) is highly polar I wonder if we have it all backwards.
> And if we do, what is our complicity in furthering the organizational
> agenda? As change agents do we have a greater obligation to move human
> beings to the center? To deconstruct the current mainstream view of the
> organization? ... ... ...
Correct, a bit of a blurr, but right. This is my way of deconstructing:
Organising as an end is done with the best of intentions. A big
organisation is more safe (look: success!!) , more prone to sustain its
members (with the added bonus of a more interesting spouse!). But
organising and learning have become trapped in a vicious cycle, a very
basic and simple cycle, one of the most elementary of system archetypes:
shifting the burden.
People care for each other, for next of kin and others. I'm responsible
for myself and serve myself best by taking care of others in our group.
This creates first of all in- and out-groups, with all their symbolism.
This reinforces the "group bubbles" and guides the learning process:
during socialising we must learn not to leave our group for the next one,
even when it looks more attractive. And, the other way around, we can not
accept new members without having them pay for it, work their way up... or
they are of value for us by virtue of their talents. So we learn to live
in OUR group and are programmed to stop learning.
As organisations take care of people (i was once told that in the US the
biggest problem is the health CARE system, because companies have to pay a
lot for the care demanded by their employees) people tend to take less
care for themselves. A big problem within groups are the "easy riders", no
work and easy living. Can have that. So work ethic has to be learned and
to prevent "easy riders" learning has to stop, as some of us would learn
to adapt and suggest they are working while doing nothing at all....
Finally, we have to learn to belong. And, being all almost equal, the
small differences are blown up to show to what group we belong. We have to
have the right dresses, shoes, shirts, skirts (tartan in Scotland),
hairdo, moustache, beard and ties (wondering why they are called ties?
Because we are tied to the right in-group!). And we have to learn some
common values, ideas, structures and action, some things that sets our
group apart from the "others". These common ideas used to have a survival
reason: a king, a commander, a lord is very handy in battle. Some rituals
have had a function for survival, but all that remains are the motions to
keep the group together. Important is that these values, ideas, rites and
structures are not questioned. For doubting the values, the system, the
rites of a group could undermine it. Learning is important, but unto a
point. It was probably also why woman were not allowed to study. So we
have learned to live in an organisation AND have learned to stop learning.
We are the root cause of our own problem, an issue that has to do with the
taking care of people. Caring in itself is good, no problemo. Trust me.
Because we have to be cared for, certainly when we're young and because we
lived in a hostile, fearful environment. Remember the sable tooth tiger?
The grizzly? The shark? The thunder and lightning? Remember hell, heavenly
fields, the Styx, eternal darkness?
Because we organised care we were able to accommodate longer periods for
learning. Longer learning means better changes for survival. Better
survival meant more children, more learning and more organising. More
profit: the word may have its roots in force, life force or provision,
care, maybe both. Learning revolutionised organising! And vice versa: a
success to the successful loop! Accumulated returns on investments.
Organising has been done before, by ants, by bees, by termites, by birds
and fish. And also by herds of elephants, schools of dolphins and
matriarchal blind molerats. They lacked some of our abilities,
capabilities to sustain longer periods of learning. Or were in no
environment to develop these. Perhaps the rapidly changing climate,
ice-ages, prompted a rapid development. Perhaps some mutation had
accumulated, who knows.
Accidentally a common ancestor sparked a run-away growth. Because we are
cared for, we are able to have a long period of learning. Honour they
parents. This in turn leads to time and food for thought, ideas, stories,
culture. Whow! Learning is good for you. But we have to pay a price: we
also have to learn to live in a group, separate from other groups.
In the old days, before internet, people couldn't communicate that easily.
Also, an invention, a spear, copper, preparing herring, could be an
advantage for our group. We were still competing in a hostile environment,
hostility perhaps trade marked by armies, but none the less. Imagine, if i
would share an idea with you, while the group that has nurtured that
thought, had invested in me. That may not happen. Use the ability to learn
also to learn not to leave the group. Rather stop inquiring, stop
learning, stop researching than children leaving the clan.
So segregation, otherness, apartheid had a function. We had to learn to
distrust people from other groups, to try to beat them and only in a last
resort to join them. Learning was used to control people. And learning in
order to control inhibits learning.
As we have organised ourselves into a radical new environment, we are
being confronted with the old paradigms. "Suddenly" they have become the
issue. A tricky issue, because they are booby trapped. Try to make people
more independent of an organisation and both the people and the managers
of the organisation start to defend themselves. Learn people to be
responsible for their choices and they'll answer: no thank you, who will
take care of me? The last stance, a last resort, is the Learning
Organisation: look we can organise and learn at the same time. I know. It
has been done for ages. It has been named single loop learning: learning
that leaves the defence mechanisms intact, still we're being cared for.
I also know that it was not intended that way. Not by me, by Senge, by
Deming, by Argyris, by you, not even by the management and the board. The
paradigm of controlled learning, taking care, is however so deeply rooted
in our being, that we're not aware of it in our thinking. Our sea is care.
It shields us, with the best of intentions, from pain, the pain of
separation from the group, the pain of being responsible - and solely
responsible, for our own well being. Because we have learned. learned,
learned that we can not AND belong to a (number) of group(s) AND be on our
own. Either we're a free rider - unacceptable for the group - or we're
dead - unacceptable for ourselves - even if that is not the case. The
automatic defence mechanisms of an organisation are formidable, shields
are up.
Skip this illustration: - In the eighties years war (our war of
independence, 16th century, during the invention of the Dutch people, who
have, by the way, a real enemy: the sea) the slogan "liever turks dan
paeps" was coined: "rather a Turk (or Muslim) then a Catholic". Later we
exported this successful product portfolio - a mix of freedom of thought
(for men), international rights (for us), the shareholder owned company
(the VOC, Vereenigd Oostindie Compagnie, company meaning company of
friends, of course), democracy (for all, no, for all who pay taxes), a
national anthem, a national flag (that is why "we" have red, white and
blue stripes; why Rusland has blue, white and red - Tsar Peter on a
working visit - and Indonesia has red and white, stripping blue in their
war of independence), religion, work ethic, apartheid and war of
independence - to other countries: Russia, the USA, England, Ireland and
South Africa amongst others. -
> What all this has to do with MBTI and systems thinking inclination is
> obviously not glaringly apparent. It just struck me this Thursday morning
> as I was reading my e-mail. I intended to offend no one, I was just
> wondering if there were any kindred spirits ....
How you view the world is critical for defining your action, your
reactions and creations. I personally always experienced the world as a
world full of ideas on social relations, from my earliest childhood, i can
not remember a different view, colour, texture, sound, rhythm, meaning or
self. It was somewhat distorted by the way i had learned to see and how to
see to see that, that required some deconstructing. I had to learn the
hard way that this is not by default the same for other people. If you do
not want to be enslaved, captured, taken hostage by your worldview, you'll
have to experience and accept your personality AND accept the different
outlook of others. MBTI is a nice way to test your views and to learn from
the perspective of others.
Peaceful mind.
-- With kind regards - met vriendelijke groeten,Jan Lelie
Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM (Jan) LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development Mind@Work est. 1998 - Group Resolution Process Support Tel.: (+ 31) (0)70 3243475 or car: (+ 31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl and/or taoSystems: + 31 (0)30 6377973 - Mindatwork@taoNet.nl
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>