Learning Stories
by
Mario deSantis
mariodesantis@hotmail.com
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to
oppose what I believe wrong, and free to choose those who shall govern my
country.” - -The Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker, Canadian Bill of Rights,
1960
“The whole judicial system is at issue, it's
worth more than one person.”--Serge Kujawa, Saskatchewan Crown
Prosecutor, 1991
“The system is not more worth than one person's
rights.”--Mario deSantis, 2002
Ensign Stories © Mario deSantis and Ensign
| |
Need of Transformational Changes in
Saskatchewan
The Learning Organization, and Knowledge Economy
By Mario deSantis, September 20, 1998 |
In the past articles we have seen how the theory of
living systems--web of life--provides an effective utilitarian
framework for building healthy human communities. We also introduced
the notion that the Learning Organizations and Knowledge Economy are
excellent metaphors for describing what our societal web of life
should be in order to support a healthy and global economic system.
In Saskatchewan, most of our political and business leaders are
still operating under the obsolete worldview that life is a struggle
for the survival of the fittest rather than a cooperative effort to
increase the collective intelligence and wealth of our communities.
Therefore, we will begin our journey on the need of transformational
changes of our organizations by describing the management philosophy
of the Learning Organization and the new emerging Knowledge Economy
[2].
THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION
Interdisciplinary studies of living organisms have provided
a convergent understanding of the complexities and interdependencies
of our social system with nature [3]. As a result of these studies,
the System Theory of evolution was developed [4]. This system theory
has been accepted by the scientific community and it is the only
theory which can reconcile science and religion, and which can
explain the common patterns of systems dynamics of biological,
social, cultural and cosmic evolution. The classical theory of
evolution focuses on the linear processes of adaptation or survival
of the species to the environment. The Systems Theory, instead,
focuses on the natural ability of living organisms to i)self-organize
and cooperate with others while in continuous state of chaos, and
ii)create new structures within the higher living environment. This
natural ability of organisms materializes through a patterned and
continuous exchange of energy and matter within the organism and
between the organism and the external living environment. The
ability of living organisms to self-organize and create new
structures has been called "mind." This mind proces can therefore be
associated with what we understand to be the phenomena of thinking,
learning, communicating, coordinating and memory for people. As a
consequence, the continuous exchange of energy and matter between
organisms has the same conceptual understanding of the continuous
exchange of information which occurs between people in societies.
The theories of evolution are very important since they provide
two divergent and contradictory understanding of human nature and of
the related evolution of cultural values affecting our behaviour.
The Newton's view of an entropic universe along with the Darwinian's
concept of life as a struggle for the survival of the fittest have
provided a social cultural behaviour which has caused and sometime
justified the worst forms of social injustices and exploitation [5].
We are finding out that the premises of this aggressive and self
destructive cultural behaviour are not true [6] and that we can
redesign our way of thinking and acquire again the spirituality we
have lost. The Systems Theory provides this latter image of man, a
man who is creative, cooperative with other human beings and lives
peacefully and harmoniously with nature. We will be using this
positive image of man to appreciate the evolution of social
organizations as living organisms and to support the
transformational changes our organizations must undergo to adapt to
the reality of a global village and a new economy. |
A
research commissioned by the Shell Group on a number of centuries
old companies, described these establishments in this way
"financially conservative with a staff which identifies with the
company and a management which is tolerant and sensitive to the
world in which they live!" [7] This simple definition does not make
reference to any special financial or technological wizardry for
surviving so many years. These companies weathered political
difficulties, wars and changing consumer demands, simply because
they were creative living organizations, that is businesses built
for the survival of the employees and the welfare of their
communities. This definition is very different from today's
"economic" company, a business which is run for profit and which at
the time of crisis either restructure its work force or shuts down!
These two definitions of companies reflect the different cultural
values with respect to our appreciation of human nature, and point
to the compelling need for a new way of thinking on how to
reorganize our social setting and sustain healthier communities. The
organizations of the future will be those organizations which will
rediscover how to tap the natural capacity to learn of their members
at every level of the organization and create growth for their
employees, their organizations and their communities. This new way
of thinking is embodied in the definition of the Learning
Organization as presented by Peter Senge in his book "The Fifth
Discipline [8]."
The Learning Organization distinguishes itself from the
traditional authoritarian and controlling organization for the
lifelong mastery of the five disciplines:
Personal Mastery-- the discipline which continually clarifies our
personal vision and allows the capacity to grow and see reality
objectively.
Mental Models-- they represent our view of the world, the way we
see our organization, our market and our competitors.
Shared Vision-- the building of a common sense of commitment for
all the stakeholders of the organization and the alignment of all
the personal visions with such sense of commitment.
Team Learning-- the ability to dialogue with our members and
develop a collective intelligence which is greater than the sum of
the individual members'.
Systems Thinking-- this is the discipline which links all the
others. It is the ability to look beyond personalities and events
and understand the underlying patterns and structures which shape
the organization as a whole.
The major philosophical differences between the Learning
Organization and the Traditional Controlling Organization can be
summarized as follows:
The Traditional Controlling Organization sees the organization as
a producer of goods and services whereby employees are considered
expendable resources. The Learning Organization sees the company as
a living being where the interactions and the stories of their
members make up their company.
The Traditional Controlling Organization sees its growth as
dependent on how bigger and influential it can become in the
marketplace. The Learning Organization sees its growth as dependent
on its capacity to create new wealth for the members and their
communities.
The Traditional Controlling Organization uses collaborative
management teams to maintain the appearance of a cohesive team,
while avoiding any issue which would effect their members' turf or
hierarchical position. Argyris, Professor at Harvard University,
called this ability to get along with each other "skilled
incompetence," that is the ability in being proficient at keeping
themselves from learning. The Learning Organization is a living
organization and its members use the dialogue as a means to learn,
to reason, to think together and build a collective intelligence.
The dialogue is becoming the cornerstone for pursuing organizational
learning and transformational changes throughout the world [9].
The Traditional Controlling Organization is a hierarchical
organization where domination and control are transmitted through
orders from the top down. The hierarchical organization is
symbolized by the pyramid. The Learning Organization has a
multilevel stratified structure which encourages participative
processes at all levels of the organization. The symbol representing
the structure of the Learning Organization is the tree. The tree
finds its nourishment from both its roots and its leaves, that is
the power in a systems tree flows in both directions with neither
end dominating the other.
The Traditional Controlling Organization is mostly concerned with
casual events and simple linear relationships to their causes. The
paradox of this mentality was succinctly explained by Frederick
Brook: "nine women can't make a baby in one month [10]." The
Learning Organization recognizes that problems are complex and that
there is no single solution or quick fix to solve them. Therefore,
the Learning Organization encourages the development of multiple
perspectives for finding solutions to complex problems, and in this
respect uses Labs/IT modelling techniques and simulations in
general.
The leadership of the Traditional Controlling Organization is
represented by the assertive "captain of the ship" who makes the
tough decisions. In a Learning Organization, leaders play the roles
of teachers, stewards, and designers, that is they feel accountable
for the well being of the organization and they operate in service,
rather than in control. In this environment, we surrender the
presumption of being in control and we feel confident in revealing
our weaknesses, uncertainties and ignorance since these are
essential preconditions for learning.
The Traditional Controlling Organization is based on the top down
percolation of power characterized by fragmentation, compromise,
defensiveness, intimidation and fear. In this environment, the need
to tell the truth clashes with other loyalties. Instead, in the
Learning Organization the dialogue among employees build an
atmosphere of openness, commitment and collective intelligence where
the only sustaining loyalty is loyalty to the truth.
The Traditional Controlling Organization promotes a climate of a
deterministic and intolerant world where the concepts of operational
uniformity, centralization, and physical wealth permeates every
aspect of the organization. Instead, the Learning Organization
accepts the living reality of a simultaneous ordered and complex
world, and promotes an operational environment which encourages
diversities, multiple perspectives and the creation of intangible
wealth in the form of learning and knowledge.
The Traditional Controlling Organization assesses its performance
with numbers: How much money can we save by laying off so many
employees and how much of that money can we take to raise our
executive compensation? What's the market value today of our
company's stock? Did we achieve the sales target?... etc. As we can
see, management by numbers supports an organization which is
speculative, short term oriented and where the immediate results of
accidental events take priority over long term structural changes.
The Learning Organization rejects this kind of management by numbers
and uses well documented learning histories to assess its overall
performance [11].
The Traditional Controlling Organization aims at an
administration which is "a tight ship" or "lean and mean." Instead,
the Learning Organization management philosophy allows for some
slack in its operational activities. This slack allows employees to
overcome the anxieties associated with learning and provides an
atmosphere of reflection and experimentation where mistakes are
tolerated as natural part of the learning process [12].
The Learning Organization is a management philosophy closer to
our "true" human nature and supporting the vision of a global
village where all people have the natural right to live in peace and
progress. We must redimension the role of business organizations to
"make money" at the expense of others, instead, we must focus our
efforts in expanding our capacity to create wealth for the
employees, the organizations and the communities. The new knowledge
economy is reinforcing the need for these transformational changes
and many organizations are beginning to embrace the philosophy of
the Learning Organization and putting people before money. As an
example of such a trend, Johnsonville Foods (Sheboygan, Wisconsin)
changed its management style and allowed people who do the work to
make decisions relating to their own jobs; in doing so the company
changed its focus '...from using people to build the business to
using the business to build great people... ' [13]. In Saskatchewan,
another example of an organization, which emphasises the highest
value of employees is the Office of The Provincial Auditor where
"...Our employees are our strength and major resource in achieving
our mission and values. We value fairness and equity; personal
development; creativity, challenge, and innovation; teamwork; and
leadership. We also value balance and harmony between work, home and
community responsibilities..." [14] |
THE KNOWLEDGE BASED ECONOMY
As already mentioned at the beginning of the previous section, a
very important component of the social organization is the evolution
of its collective intelligence through the exchange of information
among people within the organization and with the environment.
Today's environment is evolving through dramatic rapid changes
brought by the application of new technologies and only
organizations with the best management of their collective
intelligence will be able to adapt synergistically to such changes
and acquire a competitive advantage over less intelligent
competitors. |
The
importance of knowledge in the work place was first recognized
by Drucker when some 20 years ago he introduced the concept that in
the future the competitiveness of the new corporation would be
dependent on the "knowledge worker," and later it was reiterated by
Arie deGeus, former head of planning for Royal Dutch/Shell, when he
said that "...The ability to learn faster than our competitors...
may be the only sustainable competitive advantage..." Today,
everybody agrees that knowledge has become the most important asset
of any corporation and yet accountants, banks, and conventional /
traditional wisdom can't put a number on it. Thomas Stewart,
business
writer for Fortune 500 Magazine, is one of the best authors who has
been able to popularly describe the new knowledge economy and the
transitional challenges and opportunities waiting business
organizations. Recently, while on the Internet, I have come across
some of his excellent, poignant and humorous writings. I report
below an extract of one of his articles [15] which highlights the
current widespread ignorance in appreciating the corporate's
intangible assets: |
"...Your boss is an idiot. You've got this great idea, a
strong staff, a half-finished project that all evidence suggests
is worth tens of millions, and the idiot kills it. You quit...
and make an appointment with Harry at the bank... You show Harry
the business plan... And Harry... asks just one question before
turning you down: "What do you have as collateral?"... I mean,
you have assets, lots of assets, but they're intangible--between
your ears, on this little diskette, in that patent filing. The
whole point is to build a virtual corporation; you'll contract
out the manufacturing, warehousing, distribution. You don't have
brick and mortar, and you don't want it. But banks don't know
the difference between assets and a hole in the ground. A memory
stirs--a smirking, familiar voice: Welcome to that corner of the
Information Age that is known as... The Twilight Zone..."
|
The above situation is not unique, but it repeats itself over
and over again. Another article is the introduction section of
Stewart's new book "Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of
Organizations [16]." This introduction is a piece of artistry per
se; the writing style, the humour in portraying leaders with their
cadaverous secretive way of thinking, the laugh at the sprouting of
new management trends and fads "...in the Land of OZ...," and the
meaningful insights of the revolutionary economic changes presently
occurring, are all compelling reasons why everybody with a concern
and an appreciation for the future should read and enjoy this book.
Stewart describes the passing of the industrial world and the advent
of the new knowledge economy in this way: |
"...The economic world we are leaving was one whose main
sources of wealth were physical. The things we bought and sold
were, well, things; you could touch them, smell them, kick their
tires, slam their doors and hear a satisfying thud. Land,
natural resources such as oil and ores and energy, and human and
machine labor were the ingredients from which wealth was
created. The business organizations of that era were designed to
attract capital--financial capital--to develop and manage those
sources of wealth, and they did it pretty well. In this new era,
wealth is the product of knowledge. Knowledge and
information--not just scientific knowledge, but news, advice,
entertainment, communication, service--have become the economy's
primary raw materials and its most important products. Knowledge
is what we buy and sell. You can't smell it or touch it; even
that satisfying thud from a slammed car door is probably the
result of clever acoustical engineering. The capital assets that
are needed to create wealth today are not land, not physical
labor, not machine tools and factories: They are, instead,
knowledge assets..."
Stewart states that the Information Age and the omnipresence of
new technologies are the biggest stories of our time. In this new
knowledge based economy -- and of the Internet -- managing
knowledge, sharing knowledge and leveraging intellectual capital
have become the most important assets of intelligent organizations.
However, Stewart adds that we still have old fashioned organizations
which don't manage knowledge in the form we need today:
"...when knowledge is scarce, you hoard it, give it an
aura of magic and mystery, and bar the inner sanctum to all but
a few initiates. It's a form of knowledge management that
survives today in contemporary guilds... and of course, the
corporate computer services department..." and he goes on to say
"...We'll discover some surprising counterintuitive truths about
managing in the Knowledge Era; for example, we'll learn how
planned ignorance can sometimes be more valuable than knowledge,
and why business leaders, who spend much of their time trying to
construct management systems, would do better figuring out ways
to make those systems disappear... We'll see how intellectual
capital can free up other capital, such as equipment, cash, and
inventory, liberating financial resources, increase corporate
agility, and dramatically increase profitability; We'll learn
important new principles of managing people in an information
economy--so that companies can really mean it when they say
'people are our most important asset' "
|
We have neglected for a long time that the power of corporations
was to be placed on the "knowledge worker" and have used the experts
in Total Quality Management (TQM), Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
and Outsourcing to provide quick fixes to the corporation's
problems. Today, we realize that TQM cannot fix problems of a
systemic or structural nature; that BPR [17] or Downsizing were
quite often used as gimmicks to layoff employees, increase executive
compensation salaries and cut costs; and that Outsourcing is
expensive [18] and deprives corporations of possible critical
competencies. We are now definitely in the knowledge era, and
researchers and experts are providing additional confusion in the
business world by coming up with different definitions of
"Knowledge" and "Knowledge Management" in order to build new
sciences and specialized business consulting expertise. I would not
be surprised if these researchers and academicians are the same ones
who were preaching the new "Paradigm Shift" and the need for
"Collaborative Management Teams" and "Cross-functional
Communication." The futility of the intellectual work of such
experts and researchers in coming up with artificial fads was
expressed by Stewart "...There's even a fad denouncing management
fads..."
We recognize that business should not be driven by fads, and that
we require an understanding of the evolving marketplace so that we
can take intelligent actions to synergise our organizations. Some
perceived realities of the marketplace are the following:
The economic value of knowledge is nonsubtractive, abundant, and
unpredictable in its creative aspect. Knowledge breaks down the
conventional law of economics of "demand and supply" and that of
"diminishing return" and as a consequence organizations will be
challenged in pursuing new ways to manage and market their resources
[19].
Customers are becoming more demanding and they are asking for
complete solutions to satisfy their needs. This means that firms
will be required to partner to make individual contributions to the
customer's complete solution. Therefore, the marketing power of
organizations will shift from how well they perform their internal
competencies to how well partnered [20] they are in being able to
provide a contribution to complete solutions.
There is the need for suppliers to perceive customer needs as a
unique package. This perception has been recently reinforced by the
abysmal business flop of AOL to have a lower flat rate for all
customers. The marketing approach to satisfy customers through a
unique package has been called "management revenue" [21] and it is
in one way an opportunity for businesses to create their own new
market [22].
The need for partnering, to provide total solutions to customers,
and create new markets has evolved to become a new market phenomenon
called coopetition [23]. With coopetition, firms create
cooperatively new markets and compete in them.
With the globalization of the economy, the sharing of information
and partnering have become key managerial issues for increasing the
collective intelligence of corporations. Therefore, globalization
reinforces the need for corporations not to reinvent the wheels and
use instead information and knowledge already available in the
market place. Information and knowledge are imbedded into the
products we buy and sell and any intelligent corporation must follow
the new value chain where knowledge is its most important component.
The concept of reusing information already available in the market
place is the fulcrum of the knowledge economy, yet we still have
many leaders who refuse to acknowledge this reality and who are
still reinventing the wheel and therefore creating fictitious wealth
by digging deeper into the ground.
In organizations knowledge is cultivated in the so called
"communities of practice" [24] where people voluntarily get together
to learn from each other on professional or other matters of their
interest. Such communities do not recognize structured boundaries
and they are the most important places where knowledge takes place.
Organizations are recognizing the need to leverage this intellectual
resource and they are facilitating their development through the
establishment of Intranet / Internet technologies.
The widespread usage of the Internet [25] [26] and related
applications of new technologies such as Intranet and now the NC
(Network Computer by Oracle) have become the most important
components of another quantum revolution which does not recognize
geographical and time boundaries. This revolution will be a spin off
of the inexpensive opportunities to network and communicate with any
person or organization around the world at any time either
simultaneously or sequentially. There will be virtual organizations,
such as universities or corporations, electronic commerce will
proliferate, there will be changes affecting every aspect of our
lives at work and at home. Therefore, strategic planning of
corporations must make room for including the impact of the ongoing
dynamic applications of new technologies even if such technologies
are not known yet.
REFERENCES
Remark: Almost all references were researched through the
Internet re: http://www.brint.com/
1. Extract from the paper "Coping with changes: the Learning
Organization, Knowledge Economy and current practices in Information
Technology applications", by Mario deSantis, June 1997
2. Knowledge Economy is also labelled as Network Economy, New
Economy, Internet Economy, Information Age,...
3. "Turning Point", by Fritjof Capra - 1982, Chapter 8: The
Systems View of Life
4. Among the main contributors of the Systems Theory are the
chemist Ilya Prigogine and Manfred Eigen, the biologists Conrad
Waddington and Paul Weiss, the anthropologist Gregory Bateson, and
the systems theorists Erich Jantsch and Ervin Laszlo
5. "The Inner Limits of Mankind", by Erwin Laszlo
6. "Promoting the Concept of Sustainability as a Global Goal",
Adapted from an NGO Position Paper For the United Nations Commission
on Sustainable Development (CSD), Second Session, May 16 -28, 1994,
Updated February 1997, Copyright 1994 - 1997 Global Vision
Corporation. All rights reserved. Written by Michael O'Callaghan
7. "Companies: What Are They?", Lecture given at the Royal
Society of Arts, January 25, 1995, A.P. de Geus Center for
Organizational Learning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
8. A personal story-Mario deSantis. In his book, "The Fifth
Discipline" Peter Senge introduces the Learning Organization as a
possible new management fad. However, when I first read the Fifth
Discipline in the Summer of 1995 I became exited about the potential
powerful changes this management philosophy could bring to any
organization. At that time, my wife and I went through very many
disconcerting job/business situations and the reading about how
dialogue, shared values and integrity could make any organization
grow provided a refreshing sense of relief: I discovered "...after
all, I am not alone in this world!..." I had not felt a sense of
satisfying intelligent surprise since the early 80's when I first
became conversant with the VisiCalc spreadsheet program and learnt
how to visualize and apply multiple and multidimensional
perspectives of business situations. In the Fall of 1995, when my
son James decided again to continue his academic preparation in the
field of accounting and business, I congratulated him for his
decision and provided him with two learning tools: i)the book "The
Fifth Discipline", and ii)a spreadsheet program. Since then, the
transformational changes of James have been amazing, he is growing
beyond his "280 lbs" and above all, we are now getting along and
learning how to learn together as well!
9. "The Dialogue Project Annual Report 1993-94", William N.
Isaacs Organizational Learning Center MIT Sloan School E60-309 Tel:
617-253-6543 Fax: 617-252-1998. The Center for Organizational
Learning is a research center at the Sloan School of Management at
MIT. Sponsored by a consortium of 19 member companies, the Center is
a partnership between researchers and management practitioners who
are working to advance the state-of-the-art in building learning
organizations. Current Consortium members include: Amoco Production
Company, AT&T, Chrysler, EDS, Federal Express, Ford Motor Company,
GS Technologies, Harley Davidson Motorcycle Company, Herman Miller,
Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel Corporation, Merck & Co., National
Semiconductor, Pacific Bell, Philips Display, Quality Management
Network, Shell Oil Company, Texas Instruments, US West. Researchers
associated with the Center include Jeff Clanon, Kaz Gozdz, Joe
Jaworski, Bill O'Brien, Ed Schein, Peter Senge, Ernst Diehl, Janet
Gould, Daniel Kim, Roger Oliva, Don Seville, Bill Isaacs
10. "WWW and the Demise of the Clockwork Universe", by Tom
Munnecke, Assistant Vice President, Information Technology
Laboratory, Science Applications International Corporation, 4110
Campus Point Dr. San Diego, Ca. 92121
11. "Creating a Learning History", George Roth & Art Kleiner, MIT
Center for Organizational Learning, 30 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, Ma
02139, tel. 617/253-8407 fax. 617/252-1998
12. "Learning Consortia: How to Create Parallel Learning Systems
for Organization Sets", by Edgar H. Schein, Nov. 1994, Revised Aug.
1995
13. "The Quest for Collective Intelligence", by George Poacuter.
This document is a revised version of the chapter The Quest for
Collective Intelligence in the anthology "Community Building:
Renewing Spirit and Learning in Business", New Leaders Press, 1995
14. "Report of The Provincial Auditor", Saskatchewan, Spring
1997. Refer to Our Vision, Our Mission, Our Values
15. "TRYING TO GRASP THE INTANGIBLE: The assets that really count
are the ones accountants can't count--yet. Here's one way to put a
dollar value on corporate knowledge", Thomas A. Stewart, Join Tom
Stewart in the Fortune Forum on CompuServe (GO FFORUM) or by E-mail:
74774.3555
16. "Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations", by
Thomas A. Stewart, Doubleday, 1997
17. "The Hocus-Pocus of Reengineering", by Paul A. Strassmann
18. Refer to the recent 10 year $4 billion outsourcing deal
between DuPont with Computer Sciences Corp. and Andersen Consulting
19. "Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations", by
Thomas A. Stewart, Doubleday, 1997, pages 169-180
20. "Q&A: Neil Rackham". Mr. Rackham is chairman of Huthwaite,
Inc. an international research and consulting agency, and author of
Getting Partnering Right (McGraw-Hill, 1996.)
21. Robert G. Cross , Chairman of Aeronomics Incorporated, a firm
dedicated to revenue management research, project development and
consulting. He is the author of "Revenue Management: Hard-Core
Tactics for Market Domination", Broadway Books, 1997
22. Note-M. deSantis: This new approach of "management revenue"
reminds me of the ancient marketing technique to optimize revenues
by price discrimination
23. "Q&A: Barry Nalebuff", Professor of economics and management
science at Yale University. He is co-author of "Co-Opetition: The
Game Theory Strategy That's Changing the Game of Business",
Doubleday, 1996
24. "THE INVISIBLE KEY TO SUCCESS: Shadowy groups called
communities of practice are where learning and growth happen. You
can't control them--but they're easy to kill", Thomas A. Stewart,
Reporter Associate Victoria Brown Join Tom Stewart in the FORTUNE
FORUM ON COMPUSERVE (GO FFORUM) or by E-mail: 74774.3555@compuserve.com
, Copyright 1996 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
25. Reporter's Notebook, from "The CIO and Cyberspace: The
Business/Technology Intersection" 1996, Anne Stuart and Cheryl Dahle,
For more details on the Perspectives conference, see the June 1,1996
issue of CIO. 1996 CIO Communications, Inc. Note: CIO means Chief
Information Officer
26. "CIOs who have already explored the Internet understand all
the excuses for delaying the journey into cyberspace. But, they warn
reluctant CIOs, move fast or you're headed for a nosedive", by E.B.
Baatz, e-mail: ebaatz@cio.com CIO Magazine, 1996 CIO Communications,
Inc. |
|
|
|