>Andrew Moreno wrote:
>> Many of the models for thinking and working that we
compose are based upon two dimensional diagrams. (snip)
HankHeath@aol.com wrote
> It is interesting that the major reason given for down-sizing
is the amount of overhead in American companies Whenever I worked
for a large corporation, I was part of the overhead. (snip) That
is to say, I contributed thoughts and directions rather than
production. (snip)
>Andrew Moreno replied:
>It took me a long time to learn how to position myself to other
people so that they put a high value on my contributions. And
I still haven't got it right.(snip)
>Producers and thinkers unconsciously apply persuasion patterns
to position their contributions as valuable in a company to the
shareholders. (snip)
>The solution for thinkers? Automate their thought contributions
in software, patent them and then sell the software to
corporations and then work as external consultants to facilitate
application and usage of the software. (snip)
Hello everyone,
I've been reading the list for a while and decided that today was a good
day to begin. I'm involved in one of those "thinker" related professions
that common business practice relegates to the "non-productive" sector,
i.e. the performing arts.
As an Artistic Director of a chamber opera company involved in the
production of live performances, the recording of CD recordings and the
training/development of company personnel as well as the evolution of
company direction as a part of company training, we deal with all sides of
the LO equation. I will talk about this at another post but for now I
would like to explore the issues raised by Heath/Moreno.
I
As I understand many of the posts thus far, we are involved in exploring
the possibility of a for-profit company exist- ing as a functioning
Learning Organization. The idea of productivity in a Learning
Organization revolves around skill, quality and what we call ensemble
(teamwork) in the performing arts, in short "Mastery." As I understand
it, the traditional definition of productivity in a "for-profit"
situation revolves around: "the development of a quality product capable
of being marketed in quantity at a price substantially higher than the
cost of manufacture but lower than the nearest competitor unless the
product is under patent or copyright in which case the consumer price is
determined by how much you can get for it."
If as Moreno/Heath indicates, the "thinker" function in a company is
considered less valuable than the "quantity productivity function" and
that the down-sizing of a high quality functioning loyal home ensemble is
a preferred method of cutting "overhead" (thus stimulating internecine
office wars that become the point of the work) then I see an inner
conflict that would make such a company a poor candidate for a Learning
Organization approach. Companies that are good candidates must have a
more non-linear systems growth approach. The learning has to be built into
the manufacturing of the product.
It seems to me that the "downsizing" approach to productivity is a more
bureaucratic approach to administration. Unfortunately bureaucratic
approaches demand an immediate, almost patriotic goal, like a war, a space
race or a sports team in order to succeed. Primarily because they are at
their very center authoritarian in their process and over the long haul
create "revolutionary" animosity. It then becomes convenient for some
"warrior" to make the company a proof of his virility. Not a very high
grade system, short term gains but big overall insecurity. Eventually
towns and cities throw these types out unless they happen to like bull
riding.
On the other hand, a for-profit structure that integrates the process of
learning into the product becomes a developer of expertise:
(I am defining learning as the development of
Mastery, not simply the development of a linear
sellable program. Learning for me involves the
integration and availability of knowledge to the
whole, of the entity that is learning, as well
as the basic elements of data, order and time.
This is both individual and ensemble learning.)
A learning company is essential for high technology as well as high art.
In high technology and high art there is no possibility of productivity if
ignorance is a part of the orders of the day. Expertise in highly
technical situations demands that mastery be considered equal to the cheap
duplication and movement of products. Remember the Hubbell mirror.
I am aware that some products do not demand the expertise of the Hubbell
or of the Metropolitan Opera however expertise is a guarantor of quality.
It seems that the person who defines the language creates the world, until
of course someone screws up following that script. (A wrong French Horn
entrance in Carmen's death scene, or a mirror that is slightly off on a
world class telescope)
II
Andrew, as you pointed out in the 2-D post, the problem is in the
narrowness of the conception of the whole. In my work I've found that
only a "holistic" model that includes:
1) an accurate evaluation of potential,
2) a clear intention of the company,
3) an ORGANIC (some would say "Chaotic")plan in
time and space of the formal organization
4) a cognitive company wide feedback loop to
register and affirm completion and success,
to be the bare minimum for company success. "Thinkers" (Masters) are
necessary on every level and are not separated from doers.
A holistic understanding of the structure, product and struct- ural
evolution of the company is sometimes seen by the pure "doers" as a
distraction from their doing. In certain more bureaucratic performance
situations this can equate with failure, however, groups like the Orpheus
Chamber Orchestra and the Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble have been
able to achieve a higher level of doing as a result of each member taking
responsibility for some of the market thinking. Both have, at times, been
able to achieve a successful balance of individual fulfillment and group
thinking. When they have, their product has been extraordinary. The
importance of this very high level of conscious awareness and
communication, within a functioning holistic learning organization
illustrates the problem that I have with Andrew's solution to the
bureaucratic authoritarianism.
Become your own authority and own property:
<Automate their thought contributions in software,
patent them and then sell the software to corporations
and then work as external consultants to facilitate
application and usage of the software.>
I have an inherent problem with inhibiting the free flow of ideas,
(Thinker Turf) whether artistic or of necessary hardware on the internet.
I believe societies and companies have to be continually taught the
lessons of civilization and the efficiency of sharing information.
The temptation for the bureaucratic company is to steal the information
from it's thinkers and make them into "slaves." As I pointed out earlier,
the model doesn't work because it is an alienating, irresponsible one and
invites cultural revolution. When I was in school at the University of
Tulsa in the 1960s, the corporate world and academic world used the
writings of Huxley and Orwell as agitprop against the communist world, but
as my Cherokee Father used to say, you can't believe anyone unless they
have encountered what they condemn and choose differently. Maybe Huxley
and Orwell were not simply writing about the International Communist
Conspiracy. Plants in Poland and the Ukraine eerily resemble plants in
Peru and Bhopal, as well as the Shenango valley in Ohio.
Unfortunately, no matter how much allegiance they swear to individuality,
their systems analysis is profoundly tied to the idea of the "collective"
as a productive system. I was taught to mistrust companies who spend more
time demeaning the government as "socialist" while emulating the
"collective authoritarian model" within their own company. They are a
waste of practically everything. Learning Organization Companies have the
potential to balance the bureaucratic necessity of government and make it
more humane, (but that's another discussion).
If, in order to compete in this bureaucratic structure, "Thinkers" figure
out ways to patent and charge for everything , even "going to the John,"
eventually the drain clogs up and nothing moves until there is a war to
dislodge it. In the past 200 years there has been a war in Europe every
twenty-five years. I've even heard bureaucratic American businessmen
speak longingly of the efficiency of the destruction in Germany and Japan
in 1945.
III.
I believe a better idea is to work at educating the companies, students,
politicians etc. to realities that are more ULTIMATE, and ultimately
useful, then the old hunter-gatherer/slash and burn techniques of
productivity still prevalent in today's business community. Thinkers are
VALUE-ABLE, not as products but as holistic systems that are capable of
flexibility, change and improvisation. You have to "sell" the companies
(and company politicians) on the basic value of the human learning system.
Building more prisons to accommodate "naturally violent" children does not
indicate a believe in learning systems, not even the good ones run by the
hardened inmates with their "new recruits."
Statements like:
"Producers and thinkers unconsciously apply persuasion
patterns to position their contributions as valuable in a
company to the shareholders."
are, at heart, not business, but political statements. Is it good
business to make your personnel spend so much time plotting their position
in the "collective" because their expertise makes them "see" a little
clearer and thus are "challenging" to the authority structure? In the
Arts we have people who are able to position themselves in such a manner,
but the physical demand of Performance Mastery often destroys their career
once they have encountered the Gods. (the $175.00 a seat audience member)
The intent of artistic work is NOT politics, but is the expressive
testament to a society's significance. They don't have time to be Masters
of historical significance while moving beyond the "stock preconceptions
of the moment" into the truly creative, and be political as well. The
political is more seductive and so they do it until they are required to
perform. Then it becomes the traditional performance nightmare that our
"dreamers" have shared with all of us when we have been unprepared. I.E.
"you gotta go on stage but your lines aren't worth __________*." You have
to make your audience believe but you've got to be prepared, once they do.
-- Ray Evans Harrell Artistic Director Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc. Resident Company for NYC's International Theater of the Avant Garde, La Mama E.T.C. 200 West 70th Street #6c NYCity, 10023-4324 212 724-2398
-- mcore@soho.ios.com (Ray Evans Harrell)