by Therese Ong
After a whole one term of going to my OCHANGE class, I now understand the purpose of why we need to study it especially as organizational communication majors. It's really a helpful subject and I find it very conducive in the future. In every organization or business, change cannot be avoided. The only thing that does not change is change. Organizational change is inevitable. It is needed to keep up with the challenges of business growth. Nowadays, everything seems to be competitive. Some organizations are worried about change because it goes beyond the way things are usually done or normally done in an organization resulting to uncertainty. I learn ways on how to solve a particular problem in an organization. I learned that being part of an organization, we need to learn and study how the organization works, the background of it, and as much as possible, everything about it, because this way, whenever we encounter problems, that something needs to be changed, then we can come up with a solution perfect and suitable for the organization. The 10 organizational methods such as the SimuReal, Open Space Technology, Preferred Futuring, and the likes are really interesting to know. I never know about these things before, and learning these methods will be extremely helpful in the future because I now know which method is suitable, whether that method is appropriate or not. The main lesson I learned in OCHANGE class is that, change is good. Sometimes, we fail because of our resistance to change. We should not be afraid of change because change is inevitable. And being a part of an organization means working as a team. And for organizational change to be a success, there must be the right attitude between and among its members and the management.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Reflection: What I’ve learned
Learning in OCHANGE
By Joanna Ng
This class has taught me about the importance of Organizational Change. It’s a very informative class and vital to our course. It helped me understand what the different kinds of OD interventions which I think would be very useful once I’m already working. By doing the research for our reports, assignments, and blogs, I’ve realized how much opportunities are available for OD consultants. It made me appreciate my course more. If given the chance, I would want to pursue a career related to Organizational Change because I think it’s inspiring that you see how this organization actually improved and you’ve took part to it. Although I know it’s not an easy job, even just by doing or planning a large group intervention is already stressful and you still have to collect, study, and feedback those data. It’s a big responsibility because you’re paid by companies to diagnose the problem and give the best possible solution to improve the organization. Just as what I’ve learned in this class, “change is a process, not an event.” It’s true. I will bring with me all these rich concepts and change process such as Open Space Technology, Simureal, Whole-scale change, whole systems. These learning that not all people know about and I think that gives us an advantage because even if we/I don’t get to work as an OD consultant, I can still suggest these interventions to help my organization.
The concept I liked and will surely remember is the definition of GAP for OD. It says that gap is the distance between the desired vision and the reality. That’s why we should always have a goal so we’ll know how we could fill the gap and make our dreams/visions work and come true.
Reflection: What I've learned in OCHANGE class
Honestly, during the first weeks of school I didn't know what to learn or what to expect in this class. I figured it's a class wherein we would be loaded with xeroxed readings and papers. But overall, I learned a lot. The things I learned during Organizational Theory class was somewhat incorporated in this subject.
In this course, I learned how to communicate effectively in an organization. I also learned ways in handling change and resolving problems in the organization. The 10 organizational methods such as Future Search, Whole Scale Change, Open Space and others will be really helpful in the future especially when we are part of an organization that is experiencing problems. One important incite that I learned that, the organizational members as a whole makes up the entire organization. Therefore, they should work as a team and that they should have good leadership amongst them. The success of its members will ensure the success of the whole organization. There should be order and a definite system to followed, a shared vision so that no one will be left behind or make an error.
I believe that the things I've learned in this class will be put into good use someday :)
By: Vina Almeda
Lesson 20: OD Practitioner, OD Values and Ethics
OD Practitioner, OD Values and Ethics
Organizational development (OD) is a planned system-wide change that uses behavioral science and humanistic values, principles and practices to achieve greater organizational performances, productivity and performances. Thus, OD practitioner has to have values to be in harmony with the organizational performance.
Values are set of manners that individuals learn while growing up. It is different from ethics because ethics are publicly agreed on, and publicly stated, guidelines for a practice in a profession. Why is it important for OD practitioners to have his/her own values? It is important and necessary because mostly, his/her judgment will depend on his/her values. It is also important that the OD practitioner and the organization have aligned values to that they could be able work hand in hand and there would be purpose in what they are doing.
The code of ethics are being used by the practitioners so that they would have common reference and to enhance the practitioner’s sense of identity as a global professional community. The presence of the code of ethics, values, and beliefs is that to prevent the occurence of ethical concerns, issues or problems in the helping-consulting process. OD pratitioners also encounter ethical dilemmas especially when consultants have to make difficult choices or decisions based on values. Here are some example:
1. A decision that requires a choice between two or more personally held values
2. A decision that requires a choice between personal values and the values held by another person or the organization
3. A decision that requires a choice between basic principles and the need to achieve a desired outcome
4. A decision that requires a choice between two or more individuals or groups to whom one has an obligation
OD practitioners are guided by:
P – Personal values and Beliefs
U – Universal Beliefs and Direction
L – Legal Implications
P – Policies and Procedures
Also OD practitioners might work in a manner similar to "organizational physicians" intending to improve the effectiveness of people and organizations by:
1) Establishing relationships with key personnel in the organization (often called "entering" and "contracting" with the organization);
2) Researching and evaluating systems in the organization to understand dysfunctions and/or goals of the systems in the organization ("diagnosing" the systems in the organization);
3) Identifying approaches (or "interventions") to improve effectiveness of the organization and its people;
4) Applying approaches to improve effectiveness (methods of "planned change" in the organization),
5) Evaluating the ongoing effectiveness of the approaches and their results.
by: Kathy Chang
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/od-field/OD_defn.htm
Organizational development (OD) is a planned system-wide change that uses behavioral science and humanistic values, principles and practices to achieve greater organizational performances, productivity and performances. Thus, OD practitioner has to have values to be in harmony with the organizational performance.
Values are set of manners that individuals learn while growing up. It is different from ethics because ethics are publicly agreed on, and publicly stated, guidelines for a practice in a profession. Why is it important for OD practitioners to have his/her own values? It is important and necessary because mostly, his/her judgment will depend on his/her values. It is also important that the OD practitioner and the organization have aligned values to that they could be able work hand in hand and there would be purpose in what they are doing.
The code of ethics are being used by the practitioners so that they would have common reference and to enhance the practitioner’s sense of identity as a global professional community. The presence of the code of ethics, values, and beliefs is that to prevent the occurence of ethical concerns, issues or problems in the helping-consulting process. OD pratitioners also encounter ethical dilemmas especially when consultants have to make difficult choices or decisions based on values. Here are some example:
1. A decision that requires a choice between two or more personally held values
2. A decision that requires a choice between personal values and the values held by another person or the organization
3. A decision that requires a choice between basic principles and the need to achieve a desired outcome
4. A decision that requires a choice between two or more individuals or groups to whom one has an obligation
OD practitioners are guided by:
P – Personal values and Beliefs
U – Universal Beliefs and Direction
L – Legal Implications
P – Policies and Procedures
Also OD practitioners might work in a manner similar to "organizational physicians" intending to improve the effectiveness of people and organizations by:
1) Establishing relationships with key personnel in the organization (often called "entering" and "contracting" with the organization);
2) Researching and evaluating systems in the organization to understand dysfunctions and/or goals of the systems in the organization ("diagnosing" the systems in the organization);
3) Identifying approaches (or "interventions") to improve effectiveness of the organization and its people;
4) Applying approaches to improve effectiveness (methods of "planned change" in the organization),
5) Evaluating the ongoing effectiveness of the approaches and their results.
by: Kathy Chang
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/od-field/OD_defn.htm
Lesson 19: THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION
According to Peter Senge (1990: 3) learning organizations are:
…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.
The basic rationale for such organizations is that in situations of rapid change only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For this to happen, it is argued, organizations need to ‘discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels’ (ibid.: 4).
While all people have the capacity to learn, the structures in which they have to function are often not conducive to reflection and engagement. Furthermore, people may lack the tools and guiding ideas to make sense of the situations they face. Organizations that are continually expanding their capacity to create their future require a fundamental shift of mind among their members.
When you ask people about what it is like being part of a great team, what is most striking is the meaningfulness of the experience. People talk about being part of something larger than themselves, of being connected, of being generative. It become quite clear that, for many, their experiences as part of truly great teams stand out as singular periods of life lived to the fullest. Some spend the rest of their lives looking for ways to recapture that spirit. (Senge 1990: 13)
For Peter Senge, real learning gets to the heart of what it is to be human. We become able to re-create ourselves. This applies to both individuals and organizations. Thus, for a ‘learning organization it is not enough to survive. ‘”Survival learning” or what is more often termed “adaptive learning” is important – indeed it is necessary. But for a learning organization, “adaptive learning” must be joined by “generative learning”, learning that enhances our capacity to create’ (Senge 1990:14).
The dimension that distinguishes learning from more traditional organizations is the mastery of certain basic disciplines or ‘component technologies’. The five that Peter Senge identifies are said to be converging to innovate learning organizations. They are:
Systems thinking Personal mastery Mental models Building shared vision Team learning
He adds to this recognition that people are agents, able to act upon the structures and systems of which they are a part. All the disciplines are, in this way, ‘concerned with a shift of mind from seeing parts to seeing wholes, from seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing them as active participants in shaping their reality, from reacting to the present to creating the future’ (Senge 1990: 69). It is to the disciplines that we will now turn.
Systems thinking – the cornerstone of the learning organization
A great virtue of Peter Senge’s work is the way in which he puts systems theory to work. The Fifth Discipline provides a good introduction to the basics and uses of such theory – and the way in which it can be brought together with other theoretical devices in order to make sense of organizational questions and issues. Systemic thinking is the conceptual cornerstone (‘The Fifth Discipline’) of his approach. It is the discipline that integrates the others, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice (ibid.: 12). Systems theory’s ability to comprehend and address the whole, and to examine the interrelationship between the parts provides, for Peter Senge, both the incentive and the means to integrate the disciplines.
Here is not the place to go into a detailed exploration of Senge’s presentation of systems theory (I have included some links to primers below). However, it is necessary to highlight one or two elements of his argument. First, while the basic tools of systems theory are fairly straightforward they can build into sophisticated models. Peter Senge argues that one of the key problems with much that is written about, and done in the name of management, is that rather simplistic frameworks are applied to what are complex systems. We tend to focus on the parts rather than seeing the whole, and to fail to see organization as a dynamic process. Thus, the argument runs, a better appreciation of systems will lead to more appropriate action.
‘We learn best from our experience, but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions’, Peter Senge (1990: 23) argues with regard to organizations. We tend to think that cause and effect will be relatively near to one another. Thus when faced with a problem, it is the ‘solutions’ that are close by that we focus upon. Classically we look to actions that produce improvements in a relatively short time span. However, when viewed in systems terms short-term improvements often involve very significant long-term costs. For example, cutting back on research and design can bring very quick cost savings, but can severely damage the long-term viability of anorganization. Part of the problem is the nature of the feedback we receive. Some of the feedback will be reinforcing (or amplifying) – with small changes building on themselves.
‘Whatever movement occurs is amplified, producing more movement in the same direction. A small action snowballs, with more and more and still more of the same, resembling compound interest’ (Senge 1990: 81). Thus, we may cut our advertising budgets, see the benefits in terms of cost savings, and in turn further trim spending in this area. In the short run there may be little impact on people’s demands for our goods and services, but longer term the decline in visibility may have severe penalties. An appreciation of systems will lead to recognition of the use of, and problems with, such reinforcing feedback, and also an understanding of the place of balancing (or stabilizing) feedback. (See, also Kurt Lewin on feedback).
A further key aspect of systems is the extent to which they inevitably involve delays – ‘interruptions in the flow of influence which make the consequences of an action occur gradually’ (ibid.: 90). Peter Senge (1990: 92) concludes:
The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the long-term view. That’s why delays and feedback loops are so important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; they’re inconsequential. They only come back to haunt you in the long term.
Peter Senge advocates the use of ‘systems maps’ – diagrams that show the key elements of systems and how they connect. However, people often have a problem ‘seeing’ systems, and it takes work to acquire the basic building blocks of systems theory, and to apply them to your organization. On the other hand, failure to understand system dynamics can lead us into ‘cycles of blaming and self-defense: the enemy is always out there, and problems are always caused by someone else’ Bolam and Deal 1997: 27; see, also, Senge 1990: 231).
The core disciplines
Alongside systems thinking, there stand four other ‘component technologies’ or disciplines. A ‘discipline’ is viewed by Peter Senge as a series of principles and practices that we study, master and integrate into our lives. The five disciplines can be approached at one of three levels:
Practices: what you do.
Principles: guiding ideas and insights.
Essences: the state of being those with high levels of mastery in the discipline (Senge 1990: 373).
Each discipline provides a vital dimension. Each is necessary to the others if organizations are to ‘learn’.
Personal mastery. ‘Organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning occurs’ (Senge 1990: 139). Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively’ (ibid.: 7). It goes beyond competence and skills, although it involves them. It goes beyond spiritual opening, although it involves spiritual growth (ibid.: 141). Mastery is seen as a special kind of proficiency. It is not about dominance, but rather about calling. Vision is vocation rather than simply just a good idea.
People with a high level of personal mastery live in a continual learning mode. They never ‘arrive’. Sometimes, language, such as the term ‘personal mastery’ creates a misleading sense of definiteness, of black and white. But personal mastery is not something you possess. It is a process. It is a lifelong discipline. People with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas. And they are deeply self-confident. Paradoxical? Only for those who do not see the ‘journey is the reward’. (Senge 1990: 142)
In writing such as this we can see the appeal of Peter Senge’s vision. It has deep echoes in the concerns of writers such as M. Scott Peck (1990) and Erich Fromm (1979). The discipline entails developing personal vision; holding creative tension (managing the gap between our vision and reality); recognizing structural tensions and constraints, and our own power (or lack of it) with regard to them; a commitment to truth; and using the sub-conscious (ibid.: 147-167).
Mental models. These are ‘deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action’ (Senge 1990: 8). As such they resemble what Donald A Schön talked about as a professional’s ‘repertoire’. We are often not that aware of the impact of such assumptions etc. on our behaviour – and, thus, a fundamental part of our task (as Schön would put it) is to develop the ability to reflect-in- and –on-action. Peter Senge is also influenced here by Schön’s collaborator on a number of projects, Chris Argyris.
The discipline of mental models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to scrutiny. It also includes the ability to carry on ‘learningful’ conversations that balance inquiry and advocacy, where people expose their own thinking effectively and make that thinking open to the influence of others. (Senge 1990: 9)
If organizations are to develop a capacity to work with mental models then it will be necessary for people to learn new skills and develop new orientations, and for their to be institutional changes that foster such change. ‘Entrenched mental models… thwart changes that could come from systems thinking’ (ibid.: 203). Moving the organization in the right direction entails working to transcend the sorts of internal politics and game playing that dominate traditional organizations. In other words it means fostering openness (Senge 1990: 273-286). It also involves seeking to distribute business responsibly far more widely while retaining coordination and control. Learning organizations are localized organizations (ibid.: 287-301).
Building shared vision. Peter Senge starts from the position that if any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of years, ‘it’s the capacity to hold a share picture of the future we seek to create’ (1990: 9). Such a vision has the power to be uplifting – and to encourage experimentation and innovation. Crucially, it is argued, it can also foster a sense of the long-term, something that is fundamental to the ‘fifth discipline’.
When there is a genuine vision (as opposed to the all-to-familiar ‘vision statement’), people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to. But many leaders have personal visions that never get translated into shared visions that galvanize an organization… What has been lacking is a discipline for translating vision into shared vision - not a ‘cookbook’ but a set of principles and guiding practices.
The practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing shared ‘pictures of the future’ that foster genuine commitment and enrolment rather than compliance. In mastering this discipline, leaders learn the counter-productiveness of trying to dictate a vision, no matter how heartfelt. (Senge 1990: 9)
Visions spread because of a reinforcing process. Increased clarity, enthusiasm and commitment rub off on others in the organization. ‘As people talk, the vision grows clearer. As it gets clearer, enthusiasm for its benefits grow’ (ibid.: 227). There are ‘limits to growth’ in this respect, but developing the sorts of mental models outlined above can significantly improve matters. Where organizations can transcend linear and grasp system thinking, there is the possibility of bringing vision to fruition.
Team learning. Such learning is viewed as ‘the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results its members truly desire’ (Senge 1990: 236). It builds on personal mastery and shared vision – but these are not enough. People need to be able to act together. When teams learn together, Peter Senge suggests, not only can there be good results for the organization; members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise.
The discipline of team learning starts with ‘dialogue’, the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine ‘thinking together’. To the Greeks dia-logos meant a free-flowing if meaning through a group, allowing the group to discover insights not attainable individually…. [It] also involves learning how to recognize the patterns of interaction in teams that undermine learning. (Senge 1990: 10)
The notion of dialogue that flows through The Fifth Discipline is very heavily dependent on the work of the physicist, David Bohm (where a group ‘becomes open to the flow of a larger intelligence’, and thought is approached largely as collective phenomenon). When dialogue is joined with systems thinking, Senge argues, there is the possibility of creating a language more suited for dealing with complexity, and of focusing on deep-seated structural issues and forces rather than being diverted by questions of personality and leadership style. Indeed, such is the emphasis on dialogue in his work that it could almost be put alongside systems thinking as a central feature of his approach.
Leading the learning organization
Peter Senge argues that learning organizations require a new view of leadership. He sees the traditional view of leaders (as special people who set the direction, make key decisions and energize the troops as deriving from a deeply individualistic and non-systemic worldview (1990: 340). At its centre the traditional view of leadership, ‘is based on assumptions of people’s powerlessness, their lack of personal vision and inability to master the forces of change, deficits which can be remedied only by a few great leaders’ (op. cit.). Against this traditional view he sets a ‘new’ view of leadership that centres on ‘subtler and more important tasks’.
In a learning organization, leaders are designers, stewards and teachers. They are responsible for building organizations were people continually expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models – that is they are responsible for learning…. Learning organizations will remain a ‘good idea’… until people take a stand for building such organizations. Taking this stand is the first leadership act, the start of inspiring (literally ‘to breathe life into’) the vision of the learning organization. (Senge 1990: 340)
Many of the qualities that Peter Senge discusses with regard to leading the learning organization can be found in the shared leadership model (discussed elsewhere on these pages). For example, what Senge approaches as inspiration, can be approached as animation. Here we will look at the three aspects of leadership that he identifies – and link his discussion with some other writers on leadership.
Leader as designer. The functions of design are rarely visible, Peter Senge argues, yet no one has a more sweeping influence than the designer (1990: 341). The organization’s policies, strategies and ‘systems’ are key area of design, but leadership goes beyond this. Integrating the five component technologies is fundamental. However, the first task entails designing the governing ideas – the purpose, vision and core values by which people should live. Building a shared vision is crucial early on as it ‘fosters a long-term orientation and an imperative for learning’ (ibid.: 344). Other disciplines also need to be attended to, but just how they are to be approached is dependent upon the situation faced. In essence, ‘the leaders’ task is designing the learning processes whereby people throughout the organization can deal productively with the critical issues they face, and develop their mastery in the learning disciplines’ (ibid.: 345).
Leader as steward. While the notion of leader as steward is, perhaps, most commonly associated with writers such as Peter Block (1993), Peter Senge has some interesting insights on this strand. His starting point was the ‘purpose stories’ that the managers he interviewed told about their organization. He came to realize that the managers were doing more than telling stories, they were relating the story: ‘the overarching explanation of why they do what they do, how their organization needs to evolve, and how that evolution is part of something larger’ (Senge 1990: 346). Such purpose stories provide a single set of integrating ideas that give meaning to all aspects of the leader’s work – and not unexpectedly ‘the leader develops a unique relationship to his or her own personal vision. He or she becomes a steward of the vision’ (op. cit.). One of the important things to grasp here is that stewardship involves a commitment to, and responsibility for the vision, but it does not mean that the leader owns it. It is not their possession. Leaders are stewards of the vision, their task is to manage it for the benefit of others (hence the subtitle of Block’s book – ‘Choosing service over self-interest’). Leaders learn to see their vision as part of something larger. Purpose stories evolve as they are being told, ‘in fact, they are as a result of being told’ (Senge 1990: 351). Leaders have to learn to listen to other people’s vision and to change their own where necessary. Telling the story in this way allows others to be involved and to help develop a vision that is both individual and shared.
Leader as teacher. Peter Senge starts here with Max de Pree’s (1990) injunction that the first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. While leaders may draw inspiration and spiritual reserves from their sense of stewardship, ‘much of the leverage leaders can actually exert lies in helping people achieve more accurate, more insightful and more empowering views of reality (Senge 1990: 353). Building on an existing ‘hierarchy of explanation’ leaders, Peter Senge argues, can influence people’s view of reality at four levels: events, patterns of behaviour, systemic structures and the ‘purpose story’. By and large most managers and leaders tend to focus on the first two of these levels (and under their influence organizations do likewise). Leaders in learning organizations attend to all four, ‘but focus predominantly on purpose and systemic structure. Moreover they “teach” people throughout the organization to do likewise’ (Senge 1993: 353). This allows them to see ‘the big picture’ and to appreciate the structural forces that condition behaviour. By attending to purpose, leaders can cultivate an understanding of what the organization (and its members) are seeking to become. One of the issues here is that leaders often have strengths in one or two of the areas but are unable, for example, to develop systemic understanding. A key to success is being able to conceptualize insights so that they become public knowledge, ‘open to challenge and further improvement’ (ibid.: 356).
“Leader as teacher” is not about “teaching” people how to achieve their vision. It is about fostering learning, for everyone. Such leaders help people throughout the organization develop systemic understandings. Accepting this responsibility is the antidote to one of the most common downfalls of otherwise gifted teachers – losing their commitment to the truth. (Senge 1990: 356)
Leaders have to create and manage creative tension – especially around the gap between vision and reality. Mastery of such tension allows for a fundamental shift. It enables the leader to see the truth in changing situations.
Issues and problems
When making judgements about Peter Senge’s work, and the ideas he promotes, we need to place his contribution in context. His is not meant to be a definitive addition to the ‘academic’ literature of organizational learning. Peter Senge writes for practicing and aspiring managers and leaders. The concern is to identify how interventions can be made to turn organizations into ‘learning organizations’. Much of his, and similar theorists’ efforts, have been ‘devoted to identifying templates, which real organizations could attempt to emulate’ (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999: 2). In this field some of the significant contributions have been based around studies of organizational practice, others have ‘relied more on theoretical principles, such as systems dynamics or psychological learning theory, from which implications for design and implementation have been derived’ (op. cit.). Peter Senge, while making use of individual case studies, tends to the latter orientation.
The most appropriate question in respect of this contribution would seem to be whether it fosters praxis – informed, committed action on the part of those it is aimed at? This is an especially pertinent question as Peter Senge looks to promote a more holistic vision of organizations and the lives of people within them. Here we focus on three aspects. We start with the organization.
Organizational imperatives. Here the case against Peter Senge is fairly simple. We can find very few organizations that come close to the combination of characteristics that he identifies with the learning organization. Within a capitalist system his vision of companies and organizations turning wholehearted to the cultivation of the learning of their members can only come into fruition in a limited number of instances. While those in charge of organizations will usually look in some way to the long-term growth and sustainability of their enterprise, they may not focus on developing the human resources that the organization houses. The focus may well be on enhancing brand recognition and status (Klein 2001); developing intellectual capital and knowledge (Leadbeater 2000); delivering product innovation; and ensuring that production and distribution costs are kept down. As Will Hutton (1995: 8) has argued, British companies’ priorities are overwhelmingly financial. What is more, ‘the targets for profit are too high and time horizons too short’ (1995: xi). Such conditions are hardly conducive to building the sort of organization that Peter Senge proposes. Here the case against Senge is that within capitalist organizations, where the bottom line is profit, a fundamental concern with the learning and development of employees and associates is simply too idealistic.
Yet there are some currents running in Peter Senge’s favour. The need to focus on knowledge generation within an increasingly globalized economy does bring us back in some important respects to the people who have to create intellectual capital.
Productivity and competitiveness are, by and large, a function of knowledge generation and information processing: firms and territories are organized in networks of production, management and distribution; the core economic activities are global – that is they have the capacity to work as a unit in real time, or chosen time, on a planetary scale. (Castells 2001: 52)
A failure to attend to the learning of groups and individuals in the organization spells disaster in this context. As Leadbeater (2000: 70) has argued, companies need to invest not just in new machinery to make production more efficient, but in the flow of know-how that will sustain their business. Organizations need to be good at knowledge generation, appropriation and exploitation. This process is not that easy:
Knowledge that is visible tends to be explicit, teachable, independent, detachable, it also easy for competitors to imitate. Knowledge that is intangible, tacit, less teachable, less observable, is more complex but more difficult to detach from the person who created it or the context in which it is embedded. Knowledge carried by an individual only realizes its commercial potential when it is replicated by an organization and becomes organizational knowledge. (ibid.: 71)
Here we have a very significant pressure for the fostering of ‘learning organizations’. The sort of know-how that Leadbeater is talking about here cannot be simply transmitted. It has to be engaged with, talking about and embedded in organizational structures and strategies. It has to become people’s own.
A question of sophistication and disposition. One of the biggest problems with Peter Senge’s approach is nothing to do with the theory, it’s rightness, nor the way it is presented. The issue here is that the people to whom it is addressed do not have the disposition or theoretical tools to follow it through. One clue lies in his choice of ‘disciplines’ to describe the core of his approach. As we saw a discipline is a series of principles and practices that we study, master and integrate into our lives. In other words, the approach entails significant effort on the part of the practitioner. It also entails developing quite complicated mental models, and being able to apply and adapt these to different situations – often on the hoof. Classically, the approach involves a shift from product to process (and back again). The question then becomes whether many people in organizations can handle this. All this has a direct parallel within formal education. One of the reasons that product approaches to curriculum (as exemplified in the concern for SATs tests, examination performance and school attendance) have assumed such a dominance is that alternative process approaches are much more difficult to do well. They may be superior – but many teachers lack the sophistication to carry them forward. There are also psychological and social barriers. As Lawrence Stenhouse put it some years ago: ‘The close examination of one’s professional performance is personally threatening; and the social climate in which teachers work generally offers little support to those who might be disposed to face that threat’ (1975: 159). We can make the same case for people in most organizations.
The process of exploring one’s performance, personality and fundamental aims in life (and this is what Peter Senge is proposing) is a daunting task for most people. To do it we need considerable support, and the motivation to carry the task through some very uncomfortable periods. It calls for the integration of different aspects of our lives and experiences. There is, here, a straightforward question concerning the vision – will people want to sign up to it? To make sense of the sorts of experiences generated and explored in a fully functioning ‘learning organization’ there needs to be ‘spiritual growth’ and the ability to locate these within some sort of framework of commitment. Thus, as employees, we are not simply asked to do our jobs and to get paid. We are also requested to join in something bigger. Many of us may just want to earn a living!
Politics and vision. Here we need to note two key problem areas. First, there is a question of how Peter Senge applies systems theory. While he introduces all sorts of broader appreciations and attends to values – his theory is not fully set in a political or moral framework. There is not a consideration of questions of social justice, democracy and exclusion. His approach largely operates at the level of organizational interests. This is would not be such a significant problem if there was a more explicit vision of the sort of society that he would like to see attained, and attention to this with regard to management and leadership. As a contrast we might turn to Peter Drucker’s (1977: 36) elegant discussion of the dimensions of management. He argued that there are three tasks – ‘equally important but essentially different’ – that face the management of every organization. These are:
To think through and define the specific purpose and mission of the institution, whether business enterprise, hospital, or university.
To make work productive and the worker achieving.
To manage social impacts and social responsibilities. (op. cit.)
He continues:
None of our institutions exists by itself and as an end in itself. Every one is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. Business is not exception. ‘Free enterprise’ cannot be justified as being good for business. It can only be justified as being good for society. (Drucker 1977: 40)
If Peter Senge had attempted greater connection between the notion of the ‘learning organization’ and the ‘learning society’, and paid attention to the political and social impact of organizational activity then this area of criticism would be limited to the question of the particular vision of society and human flourishing involved.
Second, there is some question with regard to political processes concerning his emphasis on dialogue and shared vision. While Peter Senge clearly recognizes the political dimensions of organizational life, there is sneaking suspicion that he may want to transcend it. In some ways there is link here with the concerns and interests of communitarian thinkers like Amitai Etzioni (1995, 1997). As Richard Sennett (1998: 143) argues with regard to political communitarianism, it ‘falsely emphasizes unity as the source of strength in a community and mistakenly fears that when conflicts arise in a community, social bonds are threatened’. Within it (and arguably aspects of Peter Senge’s vision of the learning organization) there seems, at times, to be a dislike of politics and a tendency to see danger in plurality and difference. Here there is a tension between the concern for dialogue and the interest in building a shared vision. An alternative reading is that difference is good for democratic life (and organizational life) provided that we cultivate a sense of reciprocity, and ways of working that encourage deliberation. The search is not for the sort of common good that many communitarians seek (Guttman and Thompson 1996: 92) but rather for ways in which people may share in a common life. Moral disagreement will persist – the key is whether we can learn to respect and engage with each other’s ideas, behaviours and beliefs.
Conclusion
John van Maurik (2001: 201) has suggested that Peter Senge has been ahead of his time and that his arguments are insightful and revolutionary. He goes on to say that it is a matter of regret ‘that more organizations have not taken his advice and have remained geared to the quick fix’. As we have seen there are very deep-seated reasons why this may have been the case. Beyond this, though, there is the questions of whether Senge’s vision of the learning organization and the disciplines it requires has contributed to more informed and committed action with regard to organizational life? Here we have little concrete evidence to go on.
However, we can make some judgements about the possibilities of his theories and proposed practices. We could say that while there are some issues and problems with his conceptualization, at least it does carry within it some questions around what might make for human flourishing. The emphases on building a shared vision, team working, personal mastery and the development of more sophisticated mental models and the way he runs the notion of dialogue through these does have the potential of allowing workplaces to be more convivial andcreative. The drawing together of the elements via the Fifth Discipline of systemic thinking, while not being to everyone’s taste, also allows us to approach a more holistic understanding of organizational life (although Peter Senge does himself stop short of asking some important questions in this respect). These are still substantial achievements – and when linked to his popularizing of the notion of the ‘learning organization’ – it is understandable why Peter Senge has been recognized as a key thinker.
REFLECTION:
As I have understood in the lesson, it takes a team to make an organization work. Their efforts should work as a whole in achieving their common goal. No one is perfect, therefore the organizational members should learn for the others mistakes to avoid repetition and it enables them to work faster and efficiently.
By: Vina Almeda
Lesson 19: THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION: Five disciplines
The antidote to these learning disabilities and to the high mortality rate among Fortune 500 companies is to practice the five disciplines of a learning organization: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.
Learning organizations learn to innovate constantly by paying attention to these five "component technologies." They are never mastered, but the best organizations practice them continuously.
1. Systems thinking. From an early age, we're taught to break apart problems to make complex tasks and subjects easier to deal with. But this creates a bigger problem-we lose the ability to see the consequences of our actions, and we lose a sense of connection to a larger whole. Systems thinking helps us see patterns and learn to reinforce or change them effectively to gain and sustain a competitive advantage. Systems thinking is a framework for seeing patterns and interrelationships. It's especially important to see the world as a whole as it grows more and more complex. Complexity can overwhelm and undermine: "It's the system. I have no control." Systems thinking makes these realities more manageable; it's the antidote for feelings of helplessness. By seeing the patterns that lie behind events and details, we can actually simplify life.
2. Personal mastery. The discipline of personal mastery includes a series of practices and principles. Three important elements are personal vision, creative tension and commitment to truth.
4. Shared vision. No organization becomes great without goals, values, and missions that become shared throughout the organization. A "vision statement" or the leader's charisma is not enough. A genuine vision breeds excellence and learning because people in the organization want to pursue these goals."What do we want to create?" The answer to that question is the vision you and your people come together to build and share. Unlike the concept of vision that's bandied about these days-the "vision" that emanates from one person or a small group and is imposed on the corporation artificially-shared visions create a commonality that gives a sense of purpose and coherence to all the activities the organization carries out. Few forces in life and the business world are as powerful as shared vision.
Shared vision is vital for learning organizations that want to provide focus and energy for its employees. People learn best when they strive to accomplish things that matter to them. In fact, you can't have a learning organization without shared vision. The overarching goal that the vision establishes brings about not just commitment but new ways of thinking and acting. It fosters risk-taking and experimenting. It also encourages a commitment to the long-term.
5. Team learning. Have you ever been involved with a team of people who functioned together superbly? It may have been in business, school or sports. People trusted each other, complemented each other's strengths, compensated for each other's weaknesses, aimed for goals higher than anyone might have dared individually-and a result produced an extraordinary outcome. In such teams, each member is committed to continual improvement, each suspends judgment as to what's possible and so removes mental limitations, each shares a vision of greatness, and the team's collective competence is far greater than any individual's. Team members also recognize and understand the system in which they operate and how they can influence it.
These characteristics describe the essence of a learning organization. As with any team, the organization doesn't start off great, it learns to be great. Team learning is the process of aligning a team to avoid wasted energy and to create the results its members want. Team learning builds on the disciplines of shared vision and personal mastery, because talented teams are, necessarily, made up of talented individuals. Because the IQ of a team can be much higher than that of any of its members, teams are becoming the key learning unit in organizations.
The discipline of team learning involves mastering the practices of dialogue and discussion. In discussion (a word with the same roots as percussion and concussion) views are presented and defended and the team searches for the best view to support decisions. Participants in a discussion often want to win and see their view prevail. While dialogue and discussion can be complementary, most teams can't distinguish between them. The original meaning of the word dialogue, according to physicist David Bohm, suggests a free flow of meaning between people. Bohm contends that in dialogue a group accesses a "larger pool of common meaning" that can't be accessed by individuals alone. The purpose of dialogue, then, is to go beyond the understanding held by each team member, and to explore complex issues creatively from many points of view. After dialogue, decisions must be made and thus comes the need for discussion, where action is the focus.
REFLECTION:
Theses five disciplines are needed in order for an organization to survive. i began to wonder what and how organizations use these disciplines to have a successful future. These methods are learnings wherein the organization can grow from. These will ensure the efficiency of the organization and its members. Organizational members should have a shared vision to have a genuine and more focused outcome.
By: Vina Almeda
http://www.solonline.org/res/kr/learningorg.html
Learning organizations learn to innovate constantly by paying attention to these five "component technologies." They are never mastered, but the best organizations practice them continuously.
1. Systems thinking. From an early age, we're taught to break apart problems to make complex tasks and subjects easier to deal with. But this creates a bigger problem-we lose the ability to see the consequences of our actions, and we lose a sense of connection to a larger whole. Systems thinking helps us see patterns and learn to reinforce or change them effectively to gain and sustain a competitive advantage. Systems thinking is a framework for seeing patterns and interrelationships. It's especially important to see the world as a whole as it grows more and more complex. Complexity can overwhelm and undermine: "It's the system. I have no control." Systems thinking makes these realities more manageable; it's the antidote for feelings of helplessness. By seeing the patterns that lie behind events and details, we can actually simplify life.
2. Personal mastery. The discipline of personal mastery includes a series of practices and principles. Three important elements are personal vision, creative tension and commitment to truth.
- Personal vision. Most people have goals and objectives, but no sense of a real vision. Maybe you'd like a nicer house or a better job, or a larger market share for one of your products. These are examples of focusing on the means, not the result. For instance, maybe you want a bigger market share to be more profitable to keep your company independent to be true to your purpose in starting it. The last goal has the most value, while the others are means to an end-means that might change over time. The ability to focus on ultimate desires is a cornerstone of personal mastery. Vision differs from purpose. Vision is a definite picture of a desired future, while purpose is more abstract. But vision without a sense of purpose is equally futile.
- Creative tension. There are unavoidable gaps between one's vision and current reality. You may want to start a company but lack the capital, for instance. Gaps discourage us, but the gap is itself the source of creative energy. It provides creative tension. There are only two ways to resolve the tension between reality and the vision. Either vision pulls reality toward it, or reality pulls vision downward. Individuals and companies often choose the latter, because it's easy to "declare victory" and walk away from a problem. That releases the tension. But these are the dynamics of compromise and mediocrity. Truly creative people use the gap between what they want and what is to generate energy for change. They remain true to their vision.
- Commitment to truth. A relentless willingness to uncover the ways we limit and deceive ourselves, and a willingness to challenge the ways things are characterize those with a high degree of mastery. Their quest for truth leads to a deepening awareness of the structures that underlie and generate events, and this awareness leads to the ability to change the structure to produce the results they seek.
4. Shared vision. No organization becomes great without goals, values, and missions that become shared throughout the organization. A "vision statement" or the leader's charisma is not enough. A genuine vision breeds excellence and learning because people in the organization want to pursue these goals."What do we want to create?" The answer to that question is the vision you and your people come together to build and share. Unlike the concept of vision that's bandied about these days-the "vision" that emanates from one person or a small group and is imposed on the corporation artificially-shared visions create a commonality that gives a sense of purpose and coherence to all the activities the organization carries out. Few forces in life and the business world are as powerful as shared vision.
Shared vision is vital for learning organizations that want to provide focus and energy for its employees. People learn best when they strive to accomplish things that matter to them. In fact, you can't have a learning organization without shared vision. The overarching goal that the vision establishes brings about not just commitment but new ways of thinking and acting. It fosters risk-taking and experimenting. It also encourages a commitment to the long-term.
5. Team learning. Have you ever been involved with a team of people who functioned together superbly? It may have been in business, school or sports. People trusted each other, complemented each other's strengths, compensated for each other's weaknesses, aimed for goals higher than anyone might have dared individually-and a result produced an extraordinary outcome. In such teams, each member is committed to continual improvement, each suspends judgment as to what's possible and so removes mental limitations, each shares a vision of greatness, and the team's collective competence is far greater than any individual's. Team members also recognize and understand the system in which they operate and how they can influence it.
These characteristics describe the essence of a learning organization. As with any team, the organization doesn't start off great, it learns to be great. Team learning is the process of aligning a team to avoid wasted energy and to create the results its members want. Team learning builds on the disciplines of shared vision and personal mastery, because talented teams are, necessarily, made up of talented individuals. Because the IQ of a team can be much higher than that of any of its members, teams are becoming the key learning unit in organizations.
The discipline of team learning involves mastering the practices of dialogue and discussion. In discussion (a word with the same roots as percussion and concussion) views are presented and defended and the team searches for the best view to support decisions. Participants in a discussion often want to win and see their view prevail. While dialogue and discussion can be complementary, most teams can't distinguish between them. The original meaning of the word dialogue, according to physicist David Bohm, suggests a free flow of meaning between people. Bohm contends that in dialogue a group accesses a "larger pool of common meaning" that can't be accessed by individuals alone. The purpose of dialogue, then, is to go beyond the understanding held by each team member, and to explore complex issues creatively from many points of view. After dialogue, decisions must be made and thus comes the need for discussion, where action is the focus.
REFLECTION:
Theses five disciplines are needed in order for an organization to survive. i began to wonder what and how organizations use these disciplines to have a successful future. These methods are learnings wherein the organization can grow from. These will ensure the efficiency of the organization and its members. Organizational members should have a shared vision to have a genuine and more focused outcome.
By: Vina Almeda
http://www.solonline.org/res/kr/learningorg.html
Lesson 18: What is OpenSpace Technology?
Harrison Owen created the "Four Principles" and "One Law" that are briefly explained during the opening briefing of an Open Space meeting. These explanations describe than control the process of the meeting. The four principles and Owen's explanations are:
1. Whoever comes is the right people ...reminds participants that they don't need the CEO and 100 people to get something done, you need people who care. And, absent the direction or control exerted in a traditional meeting, that's who shows up in the various breakout sessions of an open space meeting.
2. Whenever it starts is the right time ...reminds participants that "spirit and creativity do not run on the clock."
3. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have ...reminds participants that once something has happened, it's done—and no amount of fretting, complaining or otherwise rehashing can change that. Move on.
4. When it's over, it's over ...reminds participants that we never know how long it will take to resolve an issue, once raised, but that whenever the issue or work or conversation is finished, move on to the next thing. Don't keep rehashing just because there's 30 minutes left in the session. Do the work, not the time.
Owen also explains his one "Law," called the "Law of Two Feet" or "The Law of Mobility", as follows: If at any time during our time together you find yourself in any situation where you are neither learning nor contributing, use your two feet, go someplace else. In this way, all participants are given both the right and the responsibility to maximize their own learning and contribution, which the Law assumes only they, themselves, can ultimately judge and control. When participants lose interest and get bored in a breakout session, or accomplish and share all that they can, the charge is to move on, the "polite" thing to do is go something else. In practical terms, Owen explains, the Law of Two Feet says: "Don't waste time!" If you are not interested with the topic anymore, then you can freely leave the room using your two feet.
Process
1) Complete the preparations (invitations, supplies, room set-up etc.).
(2) Welcome the participants/Morning news.
(3) Create the space.
(4) State the theme.
(5) Describe the process.
(6) Name the Four Principles and the One Law
(7) Invite people to write "offerings" and post them.
(8) Return to circle for final instructions.
(9) Invite people to sign up and enter the market place.
-Participants move around the wall, putting together their personal schedules for the remainder of the conference.
(10) Hold the space and pick up trash.
(11) Invite people to gather together for Evening news/Closure.
-The approach is "What's the story?" -- with participants voluntarily providing the tale.
(12) Debrief with the client.
What's great about Open Space is that people who care enough to make something happen will make things happen. They find allies and partners in those who are drawn to their vision. They find commitment and energy in those who want to share responsibility for making things happen. All the structure, process and planning in the world can never replace the power of people acting on their passion. It all happens in Open Space.
http://www.freechild.org/Firestarter/OpenSpace.htm
Reflection
The beauty about Open Space is that it seems so simple and engaging because of its principle and process. One of the key principles of Open Space is that whoever comes are the right people whether it may be one person or 100 persons, the conference will still continue and become fruitful. Because in this conference, you talk about things you’re concerned with. Open space makes allows you to be random. You can go to this group and talk about this certain topic and if you’re not interested in it already, you can leave and contemplate or join another group. This system also allows people to gather as much knowledge as they want and can. Another good thing about Open Space is that you’ll be surprised that you have so many experts on different topics in one room. This method provides rich data; moreover, participants learn new things and enjoy the experience.
Lesson 17: Fast-Cycle-Full-Participation
Fast Cycle Full Participation
Key Distinctions:
- About WORK SYSTEM DESIGN and not for other purposes
- An adaptation of SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEMS analysis and design
- INSTRUMENTED: specific materials facilitate the application of the method
- HIGHLY FLEXIBLE: The five (5) elements may be applied and combined depending on the needs of the clients.
- CAN YIELD DEPTH QUICKLY: various and diverse perspectives come from the involvement of many people.
Author of Fast Cycle Full Participation
Allan Scott Fitz, Ph. D.
- Former member of the medical school faculty at
- Former manager of organization development for Digital Equipment Company
- Member of the Portsmouth Consulting Group since it was founded in 1980
- During his graduate school, he worked with Russ Ackoff—Pioneer of Operations
- Research—and Herb Shepard—founder of the organization development field.
Gray R. Frank, Ph. D.
- Independent consultant with 18 years of experience
- Guides client through major systems changes to create high-performance work systems
- Clients: Johnson & Johnson, Nabisco, Weyerhaeuser Company, Amoco, Monsanto and the
- Former manager of OD for Storage Technology Corporation
- Former member of the graduate faculty at the
About Fast-Cycle Full-Participation (FCFP)
- A method used to improve the effectiveness of an organization by using its output metrics as basis (i.e. revenue, cost, quality and cycle time)
- It redesigns the work systems in order to improve and produce higher outcomes
The Process
- Organizations are PRODUCING SYSTEMS. (Producing systems – it takes items FROM the environment and converts them into products and services that are DESIRED by the environment)
- This transformation can be called as the ORGANIZATION’S CORE PROCESS wherein the success of the organization will depend on this.
- You must first DESIGN the CORE PROCESS right then let every other design SUPPORT fully the core process.
ParticipantsA redesign process can be done by:
- Consultant
- In-house representatives
- Most or ALL of the people in the organization
- The FCFP uses this only
- WHY?
-It can be accomplished in a short amount of time
-High Levels of Participation and commitment
n ROLES:
n SPONSOR
n FACILITATOR
n PARTICIPANTS
n DATA INTEGRATOR
n BETWEEN-MEETING COMMUNICATOR
WHY IT WORKS
n Its grounded on TWO WELL-VALIDATED APPROACHES TO SYSTEM CHANGE
n SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEMS THEORY
n SEARCH CONFERENCE
When not to use
n The task is essentially about solving current problems versus creating a different future.
n There is pervasive ill will in the organization.
n There exists no collaboration agreement between management and the union, if there is one.
n There is no need for work system redesign.
Common Mistakes
n NOT USING THE WHOLE METHOD: picking and choosing less than the required five elements given in the method.
n FRAMING THE CHANGE EFFOET AS A SERIES OF EVENTS AND NOT AS A WHOLE ORGANIC CHANGE EFFORT: The five (5) elements become the change effort (event only).
n SIMPLE COMPLETION OF THE ELEMENTS IS SUFFICIENT FOR CREATING CHANGE
SUSTAINING THE RESULTS
n ATTAINMENT OF BENEFITS:
n Performance Improvement in target areas
n Affective and cohesive work relationship with members.
n Keep bringing people together in large meetings to work on issues that will enable organizations to keep moving forward.
Source:
Notes
Lesson 16: WHAT IS WHOLE SCALE CHANGE?
Whole Scale Change consists of a series of small and/or large group interactions that enable the organization to undergo a paradigm shift. It applies an action learning approach, using Whole Scale events as accelerators. Using microcosms, groups that represent the entire range of levels, functions, geography and ideas in the organization, Whole Scale processes provide a powerful way of working with the whole system to create and sustain change.
Whole Scale also enables a 'çritical' mass of the organization to create a new culture in the moment. The same critical mass then models what the organization can look like and becomes the vehicle by which powerful change occurs in the whole system.
Core beliefs and Values
The core beliefs and values that underlie our approach are:
• Creating empowerment and participation
We believe in engaging the entire organization in ways that lead to ownership of and commitment to a shared purpose and future direction. Microcosms of the entire organization are used in all aspects of our approach including event planning, organization alignment and implementation
• Creating community
We believe that when you foster an environment where employees can come together, they can create and believe in something larger than themselves. Our methods create processes where that can take place. The use of 'max-mix' tables at Whole Scale events, for instance, brings voices from across the organization into conversation in a way that builds a sense of community.
• Using reality as a key driver
We believe the change process must keep a continual focus on the simultaneous and sometimes conflicting realities that exist in the internal and external environments of the organization. In Whole Scale meetings, the content is driven by the needs of participants in real work rather than by simulations.
• Building and maintaining a common database
'We believe that 'a level playing field' of information and common understanding of the strategic issues informs the discretion of people at all levels so that they can make wise decisions, individually and collectively. By sharing perspectives, all people in the organization gain a more complete and consistent perspective.
• Creating a shared preferred future
We believe creating a collective 'image of potential' for the future forms the basis for action today: People will only support what they have been part of creating.
• Creating change in real time
We believe in simultaneous planning and implementation of individual, group and organizational changes around strategy, culture and work processes.
• Practicing Action Research
We believe that only through continuous re-examination throughout the process can we adjust our approach to ensure reaching our vision of success.
• Transferring learning
We have a strong value for creating self-sufficiency and against creating dependency on us in our client systems. Our goal for the completion of each project is that participants will make our methods their own so they would be confident and capable of carrying on with or without us.
When to use it
Whole Scale works well to facilitate all kinds of change processes, including strategic planning, organization design, mergers and acquisitions, quality management, reengineering, training, diversity and culture change.
It works well in both the public and private sectors, is amenable to groups ranging in size from ten to several thousand, and can engage people from the top of the hierarchy down through the front line staff. Organizations most likely to consider a Whole Scale™ intervention are those (1) that want to engage everyone or nearly everyone in creating their organizations processes and structures and (2) those with a sense of urgency brought on by a challenging and quickly changing environment. Whole Scale processes effectively facilitate rapid, system wide change under many different circumstances, and in a wide variety of countries, cultures and organizations.
Whole Scale includes robust processes that quickly change client systems and prepare them for further substantive change by:
• Clarifying and connecting multiple current realities
• Uniting multiple yearnings around a common picture of the future
• Reaching agreement on the action plans that move them toward that future
• Building the processes, structures and relationships that keep the organization moving forward
• Aligning the organization leaders and employees so that they can implement the changes together
• Once the organization experiences the paradigm shift, people see the world differently
• They are ready to take the actions that will begin to transform their shared vision into their shared reality
How it works
The Event Planning Team and consultants develop the design for a Whole Scale event using the formula for change. This formula, D x V x F > R, says that if an organization wants to bring about system-wide change, they will need to work with a critical mass of the organization to uncover and combine their Dissatisfaction (D) with things as they are. Then the next step will be to uncover and combine the yearnings for the organization they truly want to be, their combined Vision of the future (V). If real change is going to happen, the third design element needs to be First steps (F); a combined picture of things people can do differently that all of them believe are the right ones to achieve their vision. Simple math suggests that if any of the left-hand elements in the formula are missing, the product will be zero, and the change effort will not be able overcome Resistance (R) People will resist change if they don't have Dissatisfaction, Vision and agreed upon First steps to reach that vision. The DVF formula describes what an organization needs to do to enable a paradigm shift. If the organization can uncover and combine all three elements, everyone will shift into a new 'world view'. At this point, neither individuals nor whole groups can comfortably keep doing what they were doing. Change has already begun.
Clients help decide which element to address first, but they need to address all three elements eventually if they want to achieve sustainable change. The resistance to change that is inevitably present is a resource. It tells consultants and leaders what they need to know and where the points of leverage exist that will enable them to facilitate real change.
Cost effectiveness
Whole Scale is cost effective because it enables an organizational paradigm shift to occur, and this shift produces fast results. When people fully understand the speed with which the world is shifting, they yearn to change their organization with the same urgency. Rapid Whole Scale™ Change costs less than traditional top-down cascade methods.
Researched by: Vina Almeda
Reflection
Whole Scale Change was born in 1981 when Ford Motor Company, seeking to move its management culture from a 'command and control' to a more participative style, brought in Dannemiller Tyson Associates to design and facilitate the change. This method has been used to help organizations and its members combine and focus their power, wisdom and heart to create successful, sustainable organizations and communities. This process is a fast pace process of having a change of culture, image, and the like in the organization. In our society right now, time management is important that’s why this method is helpful to organizations who want to have quick quality change. This paradigm shift is a strategic alignment to shape the members’ perspective and commitment to achieve a common vision. This helps the organization be a “whole” or have a shared future.
Whole Scale also enables a 'çritical' mass of the organization to create a new culture in the moment. The same critical mass then models what the organization can look like and becomes the vehicle by which powerful change occurs in the whole system.
Core beliefs and Values
The core beliefs and values that underlie our approach are:
• Creating empowerment and participation
We believe in engaging the entire organization in ways that lead to ownership of and commitment to a shared purpose and future direction. Microcosms of the entire organization are used in all aspects of our approach including event planning, organization alignment and implementation
• Creating community
We believe that when you foster an environment where employees can come together, they can create and believe in something larger than themselves. Our methods create processes where that can take place. The use of 'max-mix' tables at Whole Scale events, for instance, brings voices from across the organization into conversation in a way that builds a sense of community.
• Using reality as a key driver
We believe the change process must keep a continual focus on the simultaneous and sometimes conflicting realities that exist in the internal and external environments of the organization. In Whole Scale meetings, the content is driven by the needs of participants in real work rather than by simulations.
• Building and maintaining a common database
'We believe that 'a level playing field' of information and common understanding of the strategic issues informs the discretion of people at all levels so that they can make wise decisions, individually and collectively. By sharing perspectives, all people in the organization gain a more complete and consistent perspective.
• Creating a shared preferred future
We believe creating a collective 'image of potential' for the future forms the basis for action today: People will only support what they have been part of creating.
• Creating change in real time
We believe in simultaneous planning and implementation of individual, group and organizational changes around strategy, culture and work processes.
• Practicing Action Research
We believe that only through continuous re-examination throughout the process can we adjust our approach to ensure reaching our vision of success.
• Transferring learning
We have a strong value for creating self-sufficiency and against creating dependency on us in our client systems. Our goal for the completion of each project is that participants will make our methods their own so they would be confident and capable of carrying on with or without us.
When to use it
Whole Scale works well to facilitate all kinds of change processes, including strategic planning, organization design, mergers and acquisitions, quality management, reengineering, training, diversity and culture change.
It works well in both the public and private sectors, is amenable to groups ranging in size from ten to several thousand, and can engage people from the top of the hierarchy down through the front line staff. Organizations most likely to consider a Whole Scale™ intervention are those (1) that want to engage everyone or nearly everyone in creating their organizations processes and structures and (2) those with a sense of urgency brought on by a challenging and quickly changing environment. Whole Scale processes effectively facilitate rapid, system wide change under many different circumstances, and in a wide variety of countries, cultures and organizations.
Whole Scale includes robust processes that quickly change client systems and prepare them for further substantive change by:
• Clarifying and connecting multiple current realities
• Uniting multiple yearnings around a common picture of the future
• Reaching agreement on the action plans that move them toward that future
• Building the processes, structures and relationships that keep the organization moving forward
• Aligning the organization leaders and employees so that they can implement the changes together
• Once the organization experiences the paradigm shift, people see the world differently
• They are ready to take the actions that will begin to transform their shared vision into their shared reality
How it works
The Event Planning Team and consultants develop the design for a Whole Scale event using the formula for change. This formula, D x V x F > R, says that if an organization wants to bring about system-wide change, they will need to work with a critical mass of the organization to uncover and combine their Dissatisfaction (D) with things as they are. Then the next step will be to uncover and combine the yearnings for the organization they truly want to be, their combined Vision of the future (V). If real change is going to happen, the third design element needs to be First steps (F); a combined picture of things people can do differently that all of them believe are the right ones to achieve their vision. Simple math suggests that if any of the left-hand elements in the formula are missing, the product will be zero, and the change effort will not be able overcome Resistance (R) People will resist change if they don't have Dissatisfaction, Vision and agreed upon First steps to reach that vision. The DVF formula describes what an organization needs to do to enable a paradigm shift. If the organization can uncover and combine all three elements, everyone will shift into a new 'world view'. At this point, neither individuals nor whole groups can comfortably keep doing what they were doing. Change has already begun.
Clients help decide which element to address first, but they need to address all three elements eventually if they want to achieve sustainable change. The resistance to change that is inevitably present is a resource. It tells consultants and leaders what they need to know and where the points of leverage exist that will enable them to facilitate real change.
Cost effectiveness
Whole Scale is cost effective because it enables an organizational paradigm shift to occur, and this shift produces fast results. When people fully understand the speed with which the world is shifting, they yearn to change their organization with the same urgency. Rapid Whole Scale™ Change costs less than traditional top-down cascade methods.
Researched by: Vina Almeda
http://www.wholescalechange.com/methodology.html
Reflection
Whole Scale Change was born in 1981 when Ford Motor Company, seeking to move its management culture from a 'command and control' to a more participative style, brought in Dannemiller Tyson Associates to design and facilitate the change. This method has been used to help organizations and its members combine and focus their power, wisdom and heart to create successful, sustainable organizations and communities. This process is a fast pace process of having a change of culture, image, and the like in the organization. In our society right now, time management is important that’s why this method is helpful to organizations who want to have quick quality change. This paradigm shift is a strategic alignment to shape the members’ perspective and commitment to achieve a common vision. This helps the organization be a “whole” or have a shared future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)