On Mon, 22 Apr. Joan Pomo wrote -
>>We have found that change for these bosses is very similar to quitting
smoking -
>>1 - they first need to understand the effects of their current
behavior, positive and negative.
>>2- they need to understand possible alternative behaviors and their
effects, both positive and negative.
>>3- they need to understand the exact actions, not concepts, which they must
perform in order to change to the new behavior and the same for all of their
subordinates.
>>Our question: does LO theory and practice effectively address all three
elements I specified above?
Good questions, and well put. Yes. Here is my simple way of responding.
1. They first need to understand the effects of their current behavior,
positive and negative.
Two areas of practice in the 5 disciplines address this directly. It has
always been a key part of Argyris's work (which provides the foundation
for Working with Mental Model practice) to evaluate the result of behavior
and compare what actually happened with the result that was intended. So
leaders who practice this discipline get used to the idea that they
produce effects quite different from what they intended, effects which
they usually label as "negative", though I find it more "learningful"
(ugh) to frame these effects as "effects that I didn't want or didn't
consciously design for." (The idea of "negative" consequences too easily
triggers blame, shame and guilt, and doesn't encourage the "puzzle
solving" approach that I find leads to the best learning, where leaders
can ask - "Wow, that's not what I wanted. I wonder how that happened?"
Systems thinking supports understanding the systemic consequences of
actions - both anticipated and unanticipated - another way that the 5Ds
respond to your point 1 above.
2. They need to understand possible alternative behaviors and their
effects, both positive and negative.
3. They need to understand the exact actions, not concepts, which they
must perform in order to change to the new behavior and the same for all
of their subordinates.
(These seemed very similar to me, so I'm responding to them together)
Interpersonal alternative behaviors are the simplest to identify, again
using the Mental Model work. See Ross and Roberts in the "Fieldbook" on
Balancing Inquiry and Advocacy, Putnam in the same for "Conversational
Recipes" and McArthur (ditto) for "Opening lines" for both theoretical
principles and concrete suggestions - "In situation X, say this."
Systems thinking seems different to me. I usually see teams using systems
thinking (especially casual loops and the archetypes) as one tool among
several that helps them assess their present situation. While this
practice can lead to specific actions, I find it usually is only one of
several factors that informs what gets done, probably as it should be.
John Shibley
Portland Learning Organization Group
Portland, ME
JJSPLOG@aol.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>