John and fellow learners,
I have been wrong before and will be many times again - its part of the
process of learning. However, in this instance, and with reflection, I do
not believe that my statements are wrong, nor that that are simply wrong.
Seldom if ever is our understanding of anything simple - complexity must
also enter into our wrongness.
John writes (with some snip(p)ing on my part):
>People within an organization form (with or without intending to) an
>organizational "culture." This culture is more powerful in determining
>what the organization actually does than any pronouncements of "those who
>define the mission and objectives." As desirable as it is (and it is
>very desirable) to affect "those who define the mission," if the others
>within an organization truly wish to affect to mission and day-to-day
>behavior of the organization, they can choose to do so. I have helped
>many organizations change by such "subversive" tactics -- remember, it
>doesn't require a majority to create a revolution!
In my view of the world the "why" behind what the organisation actually
does is the driver, and this is unchanged by corporate culture and
practice. Shareholders, for the most part, invest in companies in order
to secure what they believe is the best return on their money (given a
particular risk profile). With sufficient liquidity shareholders will
vote with their feet if they believe that their financial returns are not
being maximised. I think that what organisational consultants are doing
is to ensure the best environment in which employees become most creative
in maximising returns for shareholders. Did someone say "appearance and
reality"? Being a hybrid constructivist I could not have done so... ;-0
>Further, isn't it about time we stop perpetuating the myth that, simply
>because they are designated as not-for-profit, non-profit organizations
>act more responsibly toward those they serve than for-profit
>organizations do? We can argue all day about minor points of difference
>between not-for-profit and for-profit organizations, but when you look at
>how they act, how they decide things, what they actually accomplish, how
>they treat their customers and other stakeholders, there is often very
>little difference that makes a difference. Yes, there are a few
>not-for-profit companies that have noble missions -- and I applaud them
>-- but one can point to many for-profit firms that act more nobly, more
>conscientiously, more sensitively to the environment or the community
>around them than do many non-profits.
No real argument here - but the underlying motive for the corporate
institution would still be maximising shareholder returns. In the profit
oriented corporation, sensitivity to community and the environment is a
strategy to secure either raw materials, markets or both. Many
not-for-profits on the other hand have as their driver the notion of
service, development, participatory learning or situation improvement, and
their return is the extent to which they achieve their goals and fulfil
their mission. In not for profits, the mission could be the driver. In
business, the mission is a mask - a strategic vehicle to maximise returns.
How many businesses succeed with broke shareholders?
>Nor is it strictly true that "the driving reason for ... business ... is
>really profit[.]" Some businesses act as if that were true, others act
>on the basis that they exist to serve and, to the extent that they are
>successful in serving, they will earn (and deserve) a profit. Those who
>act that way, not accidentally, happen to be those who make the most
>profit. But it is difficult for me to see how to distinguish this
>service-focused kind of for-profit business from a not-for-profit
>business.
I'm sorry John, but I just do not buy that businesses exist to serve. It
is true that unless they serve, or are seen to be serving, they will not
succeed over the long term. Some business will find more humane ways to
serve, but in the end, No "service", no sales, no
shareholders.....something like that. Or, are we really fooling the
investors that badly?
Businesses as learning orgs are, I think, wonderful ways to help provide
environments in which employees can grow as individuals, but always as
contributors to the business first. Learning orgs can evolve to better
reflect the diversity of experience, wisdom and help introduce some
humanity into the workplace. Learning orgs may even allow the emergence
of organisational learning... Still I ask myself the question - what
provides the lifeblood of these institutions? Service or simoleons,
salvation or shekels, sincerity or silver?
To tie somewhat into the thread of what is reality - my contribution to
this conversation is often in the form of statements. It gets rather
clumsy adding "in my opinion", "I believe", "I think" and such into each
conceptual expression. But in my reality those conditionals are implicit.
What you read here is my construction (please do not confuse with original
insight), reflections of my world view and therefore not statements of
fact - how could any of us be so arrogant as to describe an objective
reality? Would there be any room for emergence and learning?
Still learning,
/Les.
--"Leslie" <leslax@direct.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>