Thanks to all those who replied to my post. Sorry I haven't responded
sooner, but I've been electronically incommunicado for a while due to
hardware problems. I'm also going to send some personal replies, but I
just wanted to pick up on some points that semed relevant to learning
organisations in general.
Joan suggested that I check out her web site, which I will. I should
point out that the company had already found a good (IMHO, anyway)
management consultant, who used a combination of LO concpets and an
organisational "growth rings" model. There was an inital attempt to
implement his ideas, which petered out due to lack of support. It was
quite interesting - those who wanted to try then (including myself) were
experimental physicists by training, and were obviously felt it was worth
doing the experiment. Those who didn't want to were the pragmatic, cynical
business types who nodded enthusiastically while the consultant was there
and then decided his suggestions couldn't possibly work as soon as he'd
left.
This company only employs 12 people, and at one point it had the
management consultant, a QC consultant and two financial consultants
involved. With no plan at all to co-ordinate what they were doing! I think
this proliferation was due to
a) the two owners seem to feel the need to have an equal number of "allies
on their side" - since for some reason they acted as if those hired by the
other owner were on some other side.
b) the company seemed to me to be like a patient going to a doctor for a
prescription for a cough. On being told he unwelcome news that what he
really needs to do is give up smoking, he looks for another doctor... and
another.....
Bill suggsted (LO109460 that professional help might be required. The MS
is getting professional counselling. Unfortunately, although he could
explain his need to do that to me, he didn't explain it to his co-owner.
That put me in a rather awkward situation.....
Eric pointed out (LO10947) that depression is not necessarily a barrier to
creativity. I agree - Van Gogh would be an obvious example. But I felt
that this specific example was a case where depression was being a barrier
to learning. Not only are the people involved not able to create what they
want (a more effective organisation), they are also in practice creating a
system in which the other people in the company can't work effectively
either. In a small company with no financial reserves, if they cannot cure
this problem quickly, then they simply won't be in business much longer. I
have wondered if maybe sub-consciouly that's what they want to happen, so
that they can be free of the burden without having to be seen to want to
put it down.
Although John (LO967) is concerned about the Pandora's box this thread has
opened (especially as it seems to contain a can of particularly wriggly
worms, if you'll forgive the mixing of metaphors <g>), I found HIS post
helpful. It's reassuring to know that I'm not the only one who's been
confronted with a tearful and distraught manger who didn't feel up to his
reponsibilities. I just hope I was "quietly supportive" at the time.
I also found Ben's observation (LO1100) about Cigna's employees who get to
indulge in "bizzare behaviour" and aren't stressed out interesting. This
company was the least social organisation I'd ever worked for. Everywhere
else I'd ever worked, at least some people would get together after work
to go to the pub or play computer games or sport or whatever. Or socialise
at weekends. In this company they didn't. I think this did reduce their
ability to work together.
[Host's Note: there must be a digit missing in the last two msg
references... I'm pretty sure Alison is talking about recent msgs with
5-digit LO##"s. ...Rick]
When I joined, I had a "mental model" that in a small company where people
had worked together for several years, they would have had a good
understanding of eachother's capabilities and weaknesses. It turned out
that they didn't, and that the hardware and software sides of the company
acted almost as two seperate organisations. In fact, I think one of the
reasons the company is in an almost perpetual state of crisis is because
they can only work together when there is a crisis - the inverse of Chris
Argris' teams that break down under pressure.
Alison
--"Alison C. J. Glover" <acglover@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>