Gene Bellinger asked:
>It would seem there is something besides the method which produces
>successful results. When multiple organizations can employ the same
>"formula" and produce everything from amazing success to abysmal failure,
>and multiple organizations can employ very different "formulas" and
>produce everything from amazing success to abysmal failure, it leads me to
>suspect there is something else operating here of which the practitioners
>and healers are not aware. Any ideas?
This highlights a key issue with formula-based organization and management
theory and practice. It seems an obvious course of action to analyze
organization and business environment trends, in order to attempt to
"distill the essence" of successful strategies and practices. An action
that has led to many best selling business books, from "In Search of
Excellence" through to "The Discipline of Market Leaders" -- even "The
Fifth Discipline" has a similar intent.
This essence is then advanced as a formula that can be applied to most
organizations. Even where no formula has been articulated, one is created
by the analyzing parties -- such as those on benchmarking visits, or
readers of a book where no specific formula is advocated. I recall Phil
Cosby's early speeches on his quality practices at ITT and his comments on
the people who came in for brief visits and then went off to reproduce the
more tangible aspects, such as posters and performance graphs, without
ever grasping the broader issues of TQM.
Unfortunately, the market is very responsive to simplistic formula
packaging, as evidenced in the success of such books as "The One Minute
Manager" and "Zap."
What then happens is that the given formula is adopted by organizations
but the level of adoption and integration will vary considerably, because
of issues such as resistance, its fit with other existing practices, and
the failure to comprehend the real changes that need to take place for its
successful implementation. Also, there may just be adoption of the "more
acceptable" aspects of the formula, acceptable because they are more
easily packaged or within the control of its champions. The use of
dialogue skills training, in isolation of the broader LO processes and
practices, is an example of the latter.
Even worse, the formula is applied in a business with significant root
cause issues, such as poor products or inappropriate technologies, that
the formula was never really designed to address. Or the formula becomes a
dominant theme at the expense of the core business practices -- which
seems to have happened in some Baldridge award winners who went on to have
problems.
Even the LO "five disciplines formula" is open to such problems. I
personally value LO concepts for focusing the need for organizational
learning, but do not endorse the view that this naturally leads to the
adoption of these five disciplines. However, systems thinking does help in
understanding that any apparent formula needs to be appreciated and
understood within its broader system. Also, Argyris's work on blockages to
learning help us to better understand why such interventions may fail.
So, to return to the thread and to respond to Gene's suspicion that "there
is something else operating here." There are many other things happening
within organizations that will determine their success or failure. As a
consultant on learning and training strategies, I know I can add value to
those dimensions and their integration with other organizational elements,
but to even claim that LO is half the answer fails to recognize the
complexity of doing business in today's world.
-- Peter A. Smith Orbis Learning Corporation 74363,3637@compuserve.com"Individual learning is a necessary but insufficient force for organizational learning." Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A.