Jim Campbell's scenario for stewarding the learning process has
mighty (apparent) economic efficiencies . but it gives me the willies on a
personal level. My personal learning may be ideosyncratic, "kooky" and
quite individualistic, yet this scenario suggests that the group will
"let" only those who serve group needs learn . The dilemma, of course, is
massive potential for group-think (Janis): everybody convinces everybody
else of the righteousness of the common vision, while jointly colluding to
ignore the frightening, dangerous and divergent views that are not so
comfortable, not so supportive of what "everybody knows."
Discussions about how to induce learning and manage the process
for an organization continually come up against the interface between
individual human cognitive characteristics and group needs and processes,
it seems to me. First, people - all of us, not just "dummies" - rely to a
tremendous extent on what our experiences have been. And we bias that,
because it's more comfortable to remember our successes and retain what
makes us feel good. Especially in times of massive change (rapid
technological development; significant change in the degree of market
interconnectedness; heterogeneous and divergent cultural contact; and
shifts in underlying paradigms of science, or society), the experience of
the past may NOT be a good guide to the future, especially the more
comfortable parts of the past. If the group's culture affirms and
encourages "comfort" rather than "reality" (admitting up front that
"reality" isn't a unitary concept!), Cleopatra, the Queen of Denial,
reigns!
To make real headway in designing learning organizations and
learning societies, IMHO we must begin with what we know about how people
screw up their understanding of what goes on around them. This isn't
(quite) a cynical approach; I see the task as figuring out how to backstop
cognitive limits and bolster cognitive capabilities. For instance,
organizational norms rooted in bureaucracy (the original, not the
perjorative version), emphasize stability: this has real benefits, but
also genuine costs (which is where the perjorative comes in). "Bad
bureaucracy" is what we get when the rules & procedures so dominate action
that the organization is massively out of fit with its environment. So the
question can be reframed: "learning" is the acquisition of new knowledge,
while much contemporary organization has its underlying philosophy in the
century-old tradition of bureaucracy that is, in its essence, rooted in
the past, how do we build organizations that are BOTH/AND instead of
EITHER/OR?
The "bureau" (office, in French) and its files and records of what
worked before: when conditions change (and all those rapid shift elements
I mentioned, and more, seem poised to continue changing the conditions
around us), the very certainties that give us comfort may lead us to
disaster. Examples include General Motors (the consumate bureaucracy!) and
its very comfortable, slow change process that has genuinely endangered
the survival of the firm in an era when "Japanese" lean manufacturing
processes have become the worldwide norm. That GM is STILL late to market
with new products that are "ho-hum" and flawed, in 1995 (WSJ this
morning); and that its manufacturing processes are still behind the curve
after investments on the order of $65 billion (!) says loudly that the
problem is systemic, organizational, and thus at its root cognitive:
people inside GM still don't "get it."
What would consensus inside GM be for what training is needed? For
what change? Clearly, there has NOT been a consensus for the needed change
thusfar. Indeed, change seems "illegitimate" at GM. Back to Jim's
scenario, which may be carefully crafted to highlight just this point:
group resources can be used to reinforce the status quo, and often are. At
GM, unconscienable amounts of money have been wasted to little result.
Former GM chairman Roger Smith bought off Ross Perot, to get him off the
Board rather than listen to a divergent voice; was the price $750 million,
or something like it? What a massive DISincentive to learning in that
organization!
Well, this tirade has gone on long enough: Jim, you certainly got
my attention! ; )
Sam
MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU
Mariann Jelinek
Richard C. Kraemer Professor of Business
Graduate School of Business,
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23185
Tel. (804) 221-2882 FAX: (804) 229-6135