Hi Rol and all...
Just a quick note to thank you and let you know that I found your last
posting "Life in Organisations LO9875" very informative. Your comments
that "such concepts as mental models, systems thinking, and personal
mastery are all components of culture" and "Developing and fully
implementing a new tool is necessarily a change in culture" in particular
enlightening.
In addition your interpretation of David Scott's query appears very
insightful. Could you elaborate on how if the system is dependant on the
culture, we can differentiate enough to say "Faulty system, but healthy
culture"? Am I correct in my assumption that culture is multifaceted?
Therefore, would the faulty system reflect poorly on some aspect of the
organisation's culture but recognising the fault reflects well on other
facets?
I am also feeling somewhat uncomfortable with what sounds at times like
people slipping between a positivistic conceptualisation of culture - that
the organisation itself has a "real" set of "beliefs, perceptions, mental
models" existing separately from people in interaction, as opposed to the
interpretivist's view that culture is a metaphor, the truth lying within
the human experience, without an observer having the ability to ever know
objectively what is in their minds.
What are others thoughts?
Colin Marshall
Education Department of Western Australia
E202446@zexecsupp2.eddept.wa.edu.au
--"MARSHALL Colin @ ZEXECSUPP2" <E202446@zexecsupp2.eddept.wa.edu.au>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>