master of arts integrated studies project mais...

MASTER OF ARTS INTEGRATED STUDIES

PROJECT

MAIS 701

2

Introducing the Learning Organization into the Public Service—An

Interdisciplinary Approach

by

R. Carman de Voer

A Project submitted to the Faculty of the Master of Arts Integrated Studies Program in conformity

with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Integrated Studies

Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta February 2002

Dedication

Foremostly, I dedicate this Project to my wife Gwendolyn whose pragmatism has anchored me, whose kindness has buoyed me and whose love has borne me along. I thank Rebecca Heartt, B.A, M.Ed. Program Administrator, for the critical role she played in my success. A special thanks to REB Representative Gilda Saunders who encouraged me to “think creatively and build effectively”. I thank Dr. Cathy Bray for her sustained support, expert guidance, and stimulating sense of humor. I especially thank Dr. Mike Gismondi for welcoming me into the MAIS Program. Your vision, trust, and faith in me made my entry into MAIS Program a homecoming, for which I am profoundly grateful. I thank Project Supervisor Dr. Eila Lamb, whom I have come to regard as my spiritual mentor. Owing to your wonderful tutelage, I now fully comprehend the concept of self-esteem. Your breadth and depth of knowledge has transfigured my life. Lastly, I thank Athabasca University, which symbolically speaking, I regard as my academic mother. Distance learning through Athabasca University is the only experience of higher education I have known. I am, therefore, your unique “offspring”. Since 1982 your collective patience and discipline have helped me transcend the banality of the world and to aspire to personal and social transformation. Mother, I hope I have made you proud.

3

Abstract ............................................................................................................. …3 Introduction and Background.............................................................................. 3 Scope..................................................................................................................... 4 Synopsis................................................................................................................ 5 What Is a Learning Organization?....................................................................... 6

Soft Systems Methodology and the Learning Organization ............................. 7 What is Soft Systems Methodology?.................................................................. 7 The Learning Organization and the Public Service ........................................... 8 Turning a Government into a Learning Organization ........................................ 8 Images of Organization ........................................................................................ 9 Table 1 Organization as Machine ...................................................................... 11 Table 2 Organization as Organism.................................................................... 15 Table 3 Organization as Brain ........................................................................... 18 Table 4 Organization as Culture ........................................................................ 21 Table 5 Organization as Political System ......................................................... 25 Table 6 Organization as Psychic Prison ........................................................... 28 Table 7 Organization as Flux and Transformation........................................... 30 Table 8 Organization as Instrument of Domination ......................................... 34 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 37 Bibliography........................................................................................................ 41 Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................... 45 Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................... 46

4 Abstract

An attempted action research learning intervention within the Public Service of British Columbia provides the stage for an interdisciplinary approach to the learning organization. Eight metaphors are mobilized to illustrate metaphor usage as facilitators [and inhibitors] of learning and generators of knowledge.

Introduction and Background

During the 2001 Spring semester at Athabasca University (May-August 2001), an Action Research Project was developed to satisfy the requirements of MAIS 602 (“Researching Society and Culture”). The Project’s focus was the introduction of learning organization concepts into the Ministry of Human Resources [please see Appendix 1]. It would accomplish this task via Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) as formulated by Peter Checkland (1981). This methodology is discussed below. The student reasoned that Soft Systems Methodology’s emphasis on systems thinking made it an appropriate vehicle for the learning organization, since systems thinking is the foundation of the learning organization (Senge, 1990). The venue for the Soft Systems Methodology Project was to have been a Workshop tentatively titled “Conflict Resolution Workshop”. The MAIS 602 Project was discussed with the District Office Supervisor co-located at this student’s office. The Supervisor urged the student to contact the Regional Trainer. The Supervisor reasoned that the Trainer would be a valuable contact and catalyst for the project. An electronic mail was sent to the Regional Trainer along with attachments including the Workshop Proposal and a discussion of the learning organization and Soft Systems Methodology. Though the Trainer was conversant with learning organization concepts which she had acquired from Peter Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline (1990), she had no prior knowledge of Soft Systems Methodology (Peter Checkland, 1981). This cognitive deficit was corrected by lending the Trainer a personal copy of a detailed commentary explaining Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology. The information was received enthusiastically by the Trainer. A series of meetings with the Trainer thereafter ensued the focus being ‘how to implement the Workshop’. The Trainer and the student concluded that the project was doable if the Workshop format were shortened and simplified so that the participants would not be burdened with the dual task of mastering weighty intellectual ideas while solving an intractable organizational problem, technically termed a “mess” by Checkland.

Throughout this period the Project/Workshop continued to be honed as a result of a sustained critique by Project Supervisor Professor Cathy Bray and Research Ethics Board [REB] representative Gilda Saunders. In particular, the REB, to whom drafts of the Project Proposal had been submitted, judged the Workshop to be potentially traumatizing for the participants. The REB held that the emphasis on “conflict” compromised the ethicality of the intervention. Feedback from the REB, and Saunders in particular, was instrumental in re-positioning the Workshop as “Thinking Creatively-Building Effectively”. The Proposal was subsequently reworked and readied for re-submission to the REB. However, a critical variable in the Project’s approval remained its acceptance by upper management of the Ministry of Human Resources.

5To date, approval has not been forthcoming. In response to management’s reticence the Trainer

proposed that the Workshop might be more warmly received by educational institutions outside the Public Service. The Trainer reasoned that educational institutions, such as Vancouver Community College, might be more comfortable with experimentation and novel organizational development strategies such as Soft Systems Methodology. Given the Project’s present external trajectory the student decided to revisit the notion of introducing the learning organization into the Public Service in general, and the Ministry of Human Resources in particular.

Scope Drawing upon Morgan’s (1997) text, “Images of Organizations”, this project attempts the following: 1) acquire and utilize interdisciplinary perspectives, 2) critically evaluate the Public Service through the integration of dominant and supporting frames, 3) subject the learning organization to critical reflexivity via the dialectical interplay of dominant and

supporting frames, 4) expand the moral, ethical, and spiritual dimensions of the learning organization metaphor to include an

ecological worldview (Skolomowski), 5) generate a series of tables adaptable to various settings and organizational milieus, 6) demonstrate the utility of an interdisciplinary approach to organizational development, and 7) show how interdisciplinarity can facilitate the introduction of a learning organization to the Public

Service. Utilizing Gareth Morgan’s (1997) metaphor analysis this project attempts a comprehensive examination

of the challenges of introducing the learning organization into the Public Service. Metaphor is the general process of image crossing whereby A is seen as B (Morgan, 1997, p.380). It combines diagnostic reading with critical evaluation with a view to generating insights germane to the task of creating a learning organization. In so doing it accepts Morgan’s propositions that 1) all theory is metaphor and 2) metaphor is inherently paradoxical. The second proposition acknowledges that metaphors can create insights that simultaneously enlighten and distort. This way of seeing and not seeing will be attempted through the construction of a compendium of tables each highlighting the theories of organization encapsulated in the individual metaphor. The intent of this project is not the provision of a static snapshot of a frustrated experiment but rather the production of a generative vehicle to create praxis linking theory and action in a new way. It incorporates official document analysis, personal observation, informal “off-the-record” discussions with co-workers, dialogue with the Ministry’s Trainer centered on the learning organization, and examination of electronic mail pertaining to the SSM Workshop. In this analysis the Brain Metaphor is prioritized and the insights of the culture, psychic prison and other metaphors are mobilized within this frame.

6The development and use of metaphor for analyzing the Public Service is consonant with the

hermeneutic approach to social analysis. The intellectual construct utilized in this project may be diagrammed as follows: Dominant Frames:

Brain Metaphor

Political Metaphor

Machine Metaphor

Supporting Frames:

Culture Metaphor Organism Metaphor Psychic Prison Metaphor Flux and Transformation Metaphor Domination Metaphor

Synopsis

This paper examines the implications of introducing a learning organization within the Public Service of Canada. While its primary focus is the Ministry of Human Resources (MHR), this student’s employer, the principles are equally applicable to the Public Service proper. The Ministry of Human Resources will thus serve as a holographic representation of the larger entity known as the Public Service of Canada. It proposes that heretofore attempts to create learning organizations have underestimated the power of prevailing paradigms. It therefore utilizes Morgan’s (1997) metaphor study in an attempt to examine the challenges of establishing a learning organization.

Key Terms: Metaphor, Learning Organization (LO), Systems Thinking, Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Background

As discussed above, it was in order to satisfy the requirements of MAIS 602—Researching Society and Culture, that this student attempted to complete a community-based action research project utilizing Soft Systems Methodology. The stated purpose of the project was to introduce new mental paradigms such as systems thinking within the Public Service via Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). It was hoped that this introduction would be accomplished within a proposed “Conflict Resolution Workshop”. It was this student’s assumption that if mental models drive the decisions that we all make, then those [outdated] mental models must be changed and replaced with better models. SSM is a systems model with an emphasis on critical reflexivity and dialogue. Using critical reflexivity and dialogue the (short-term) objective of the Workshop was to enable employees to participate in the application and implementation of SSM; the (long-term) goal

7was to be structural reform, systems thinking and the implanting of a learning organization culture. Following is a discussion of the SSM-LO equation along with the rationale for its adoption.

What is a “Learning Organization”?

Senge (1990) states that a “learning organization is not simply “adaptive”, concerned with its own “survival”, as important as that may be. It goes beyond the simple reacting to environmental changes. It is willful, proactive, and creative. Hence, for a Learning Organization, “adaptive learning” (survival) must be joined by “generative learning” (creation) (Senge, 1990, p.14). Elias (1997) describes a learning organization as “a place where people are continually discovering how they create their reality. And how they can change it” (p.5). Karash (1994) defines a learning organization as one “in which people at all levels, individually and collectively, are continually increasing their capacity to produce results they really care about”. Why should organizations care? “Because, the level of performance and improvement needed today requires learning, lots of learning. In most industries, in health care, and in most areas of government, there is no clear path to success, no clear path to follow. Because we need a different way of viewing the process of conducting activity in a business environment and of achieving change within that environment. Our existing views and ways of understanding are not keeping up with the realities of that environment nor with our own belief system which defines that environment” (Senge, 1990).

Argyris (1977) defines organizational learning as the process of “detection and correction of errors”. In his view organizations learn through individuals acting as agents for them: “The individuals’ learning activities, in turn, are facilitated or inhibited by an ecological system of factors that may be called an organizational learning system” (p. 117). Senge (1990) defines the Learning Organization as the organization “in which you cannot not learn because learning is so insinuated into the fabric of life.” Also, he defines Learning Organization as “a group of people continually enhancing their capacity to create what they want to create.” Malhotra (1996) defines Learning Organization as an “Organization with an ingrained philosophy for anticipating, reacting and responding to change, complexity and uncertainty.” The concept of Learning Organization is increasingly relevant given the increasing complexity and uncertainty of the organizational environment. As Senge (1990) remarks: “The rate at which organizations learn may become the only sustainable source of competitive advantage.”

Senge (1990) says that organizational learning hinges upon five core disciplines. A discipline is a “developmental path for acquiring certain skills or competencies, a body of theory and technique that must be studied and mastered to be put into practice. To practice discipline is to be a life-long learner” (Senge, 1990, pp.9-10). Senge avers that the keys to transforming organization from traditional authoritarian to “learning” modes are the five disciplines: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. The first three “disciplines” have particular application for the individual participant and the last two have group application. These may be diagrammed as follows (Karash, 1994):

• personal mastery [developing the capacity to clarify what is most important to us and to achieve it] • mental models [know how our internal pictures of the world shape our thinking and actions] • team learning [developing capacity for collective intelligence and productive conversation] • shared vision [organization’s ability to foster a common sense of direction]

8• systems thinking [the ability to see the whole, to perceive long-term patterns, to

understand interdependencies, and to better recognize the consequences of our actions]

Soft Systems Methodology and the Learning Organization Soft Systems Methodology

A principle tenet of SSM is the idea that people construct “reality” as they go about living their daily lives. People can be active in shaping and changing their “real world”. They can change, and they can affect others. Organization members can define the “real world” together as they interact each day. What is possible is negotiated within the limitations of such things as the hierarchy, availability of resources, common-sense cultural understandings, how members come to define each other and what environments are likely to become transactional (Sarson and Doris, 1979, cited in Bogdan and Biklen, 1998, pp. 233-4). The SSM seven-step [group] process may be described as follows: 1) Researcher is immersed in the problem situation (i.e., a “mess”) 2) The problem systems and their immediate context are defined

3) Root definitions of the relevant systems (comprising the essence of the systems) are defined 4) Conceptual models of the systems, intended as improvements, are developed 5) Conceptual models are compared to reality (Step 1) 6) Feasible and desirable changes are identified 7) Action is taken to improve the situation.

What is Soft Systems Methodology?

SSM was designed to accommodate broad organizational applications to deal with complex problem situations. A system is a way of looking at a set of relationships (Checkland, 1988, cited in Kay, 2001). As a systems methodology, SSM is at once interdisciplinary and integrative (holistic) in that organization actors drawn from diverse departments, roles, and hierarchical strata, subject the human activity system [i.e., organization] to sustained intensive reflection. All aspects of the organization are opened to scrutiny, including clients, employees, transformation processes, mission and vision (Weltanshauung), stakeholders, and environment.

SSM is a radically democratic process in that employees customarily excluded from problem solving are involved and empowered to act upon an intractable organizational problem. Participants, presumably emerge from the process with a renewed ability to perceive long-term patterns, to understand interdependencies, and to better recognize the consequences of their actions, in short, to become systems thinkers. Participants thereupon become active change agents.

9SSM is a paradigm shift in problem solving in that it exposes conscious and [perhaps]

unconscious dimensions of organizational life. These may include culture and ideology (“mental models” and “archetypes” in Senge, 1990). SSM involves the rethinking of common conceptions of control, insists on the idea of interconnectedness, invites comparison between what is and what could [or should] be, challenges participants to unearth, understand and appreciate others’ mental models, utilizes group competencies, and, lastly, eschews individual self-interest and embraces the collective good (Zemke, 1999). Through dialogic action SSM ostensibly enables emancipation and improvement of the social condition.

Learning Organization

The Learning Organization and the Public Service In her Fifth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada (1998), Madame

Jocelyn Bourgon, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, challenges the Public Service to create a vibrant and creative institution. One of these challenges is the creation of a learning organization. The Public Service, according to Bourgon, must become a continuous learning organization. However, Bourgon observes: “it is still far from that goal—it requires a transformation in its people, its culture and its leadership” (p.21) (Emphasis mine). This “transformation” may be considered a “metanoia” (MacDonald, 1995; Shroeder, 1998).

The need for learning organizations is due to business becoming more complex, dynamic, and globally competitive. Excelling in a dynamic business environment requires more understanding, knowledge, preparation, and agreement than one person’s expertise and experience provides. David Garvin of Harvard University says, “Continuous improvement requires a commitment to learning” (Garvin, 1994). As regards the Public Service, Bourgon, (1998) states that one of its goals is “to become a learning and knowledge-based organization, one able to provide people with the breadth of knowledge and experience necessary to advise and serve in a modern global environment”.

Turning a Government Organization into a Learning Organization

The notion of turning a government organization into a Learning Organization is explored by Eton Lawrence (1998) an employee within the Research Directorate of the Policy Research and Communications Branch of the Public Service Commission. Motives underlying a search for “the Holy Grail of learning organizations” (Willard, 1995) include a new hyper-competitive environment and the need for organizations, including those in the Public Service, to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The fact that the public sector has changed more in the last three years than in the last 30 to 50 years, and shows no signs of abatement (Van Wart, 1994), lends a sense of urgency to the discussion. Lawrence’s (1998) treatment of Learning Organizations is based on the model contained in Peter Senge’s book, The Fifth Discipline—The Art and Science of the Learning Organization (1990). The Learning Organization, Lawrence, avers, is structured in a manner consistent with the essence of human nature, especially our “higher human essences” (Lawrence, 1998, p.2).

How might a government organization become a Learning Organization? Lawrence (1998) appeals to

Marquardt and Reynolds (1994) who provide the following 13 Steps for Building an Organization’s Learning Capacity:

10• Transform the individual and organizational image of learning • Create knowledge-based partnerships • Develop and expand team learning activities • Change the role of managers • Encourage experiment and risk-taking • Create structures, systems, and time to extract learning • Build opportunities and mechanisms to disseminate learning • Empower people • Push information throughout the organization and to external associates • Develop the discipline of systems thinking • Create a culture of continuous improvement • Develop a powerful vision for organizational excellence and individual fulfillment • Root out bureaucracy

However, Lawrence (1998) adds the following caveat: “hardwiring the learning is much more problematic, as not much exists by way of practical guidelines for traditional organizations wishing to make the transition to learning organizations. Comprehensive methodologies have only recently started to emerge (Redding) and must stand up to scrutiny and the test of time. Moreover, there is no standard formula as what may be effective for one organization may not be effective for another. The transition is, therefore, mainly one of trial and error, retaining those practices which are effective, and discarding and forgetting those which are not” (p. 5). The metaphor of "hardwiring" as well as the 13 "steps" for creating a learning organization appear curiously mechanistic especially in view of Lawrence' statement that the learning organization is consonant with "higher human essences". It is therefore difficult to determine just where the factory ends and the orchard begins, so to speak, in his conception of the learning organization. Notwithstanding this opacity, Lawrence's paper does constitute a clarion call for Public Service reform.

Images of Organization .

Morgan (1997) approaches organizational studies and human resource management through the use of metaphor. Organizations and management processes, he writes, are embedded in metaphor(s). We make sense of the world and can gain understanding of organizations by means of the metaphors they enact. Morgan identifies eight dominant metaphors, viewing organizations as

• machines • organisms • brains • cultures (Corporate culture is the management literature term for Organization culture). • political systems • psychic prisons • flux and transformation • instruments of domination

11Each allows access to greater understanding, yet organizations are paradoxical in

that they may combine many different, possibly conflicting, images. Organizations may become hostage to metaphors if they are used or enacted without awareness or examination of their consequences under particular circumstances or conditions (Hampton-Turner, 1993). The dominant frame employed in this project is the holographic brain metaphor with the remaining metaphors serving as supporting frames. A comprehensive storyline based on the dominant and supporting frames follows. Morgan, in short, is painting with broad strokes and makes the case for a multi-perspective approach to understanding organizations. The following analysis also utilizes Deshler’s (1991) Eight-Step Metaphor Analysis Approach:

1) Select a primary subject from the [organizational domain] 2) Scan the memories associated with the primary subject and try to recognize several

metaphors that are in use with the subject 3) Select one of the metaphors so recognized or created and unpack its meaning relative

to the primary subject 4) Reflect on the values, beliefs, and assumptions that are embedded in the meanings of

the metaphors 5) Question the validity of each metaphor’s meanings by comparing these with one’s own

experience, knowledge, information, and values or belief system that confirm or deny the meanings derived from the metaphors. Does one affirm these assumptions, beliefs, values, or understandings?

6) Create new metaphors that express meanings that one wishes to emphasize regarding the primary subject [organizational domain] under discussion.

7) Consider the implications for action that derive from the newly created metaphor 8) Repeat the process with additional metaphors for the same primary subject.

The following tables are not intended to be exhaustive but, rather, specific to the parameters of this

Project. That is, while they do not reproduce Morgan's extensive bibliography in strict chronological order, they do acknowledge a given metaphor’s ‘movers and shakers’. Their selection is arbitrary and betrays this student's "bounded rationality" and "selective perception". Hence, any glaring omissions are entirely owned by this student and are not attributable to Morgan (1997).

Organization as Machinei

(‘Who works like a machine grows a heart like a machine’) Thesis: When managers think of organizations as machines they tend to manage and design them as machines made up of interlocking parts that play a clearly defined role in the functioning of the whole.

12Etiology Epistemology Phenomenology Axiology1 Pathology

Democritus and Leucippus, Aristotle Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Rene Descartes (1637) Frederick the Great (1712-86)

Atomism Mathematics and Science Separation of Mind and Body Military as machine -ranks and uniforms -specialization -regulations -standardization of equipment -command language -systematic training -army drills

-Natural world understood as mechanical interaction and movement of corpuscles originally set in motion by God. Using mechanistic principles to understand movement of animals -Universe as Celestial Machine -Humans are like machines -comprehensive internal submission -stern discipline -intolerance of dissension -intensive indoctrination -condign [punitive] power generously employed -common enemy -strong internal structure with each one in their assigned place

Works Well When: -explicit tasks -stable environment -predictable product -precision prized -staff submissive e.g. fast food franchises, surgical wards, courier firms

Emphasizes: -mechanization of human thought and action -fragmented patterns of thought and action -idea that the organization is a machine creates assumption that it ought to run like a machine Tends toward: -environmental inflexibility -mindless and unquestioning conformity -dehumanization -abrasion for mature workers -satisfaction of lower-order needs (Maslow) -emphasis on control -secrecy -fear -institutional passivity -dependency -myopia [compartmentalization] -apathy -subordination of individual to the entity -expressions of condign power (Galbraith, 1983)

1 Axiology, [viz. ‘which things have value’] here signifies what is intrinsically valuable or ultimately worthwhile within the respective metaphor. Morgan (1997) calls these ‘strengths’.

13Adam Smith (1723-90) Eli Whitney (1801) Charles Babbage (1832) Max Weber (1864-1920) Henri Fayol (1841-1925) F.W. Mooney Lyndall Urwick Frederick Taylor (1876-1915)

Division of labour Mass production Science of Management and Organization Theory of Bureaucracy Classical Management Theory Management Process, e.g., planning, leading Scientific Management -Separation of task conception and execution -shifting responsibility for organization of work to management -scientific methods for efficiency and precision -training -matching job and person

-Unity of command

-Centralization of authority

-Scalar chain (line of authority from superior to subordinate)

-Initiative encouraged at all organizational levels -Staff and line authority clearly delineated

-Division of work

-Centralization of work process

-Discipline

-Subordination of individual interest to general interest

-Equity

Application to the Public Service LO Strategy: To make the LO compelling, clothe its concepts in the language of the machine metaphor.

Grounded as it is in egalitarianism learning organization principles appear to sharply contrast the

machine mind-set. For example, the machine mind-set conceives production in terms of the factory, whereas development in the learning organization is more analogous to the orchard. Hence, one strategy for experimentation with SSM might be to clothe the Proposal in the language of Taylorism. 1. Managers should do all the thinking relating to the planning and design of work. Hence, management’s

role in making SSM (and, hence, the learning organization) a success could be stressed at the outset. Additionally, management could be consulted at all stages to reinforce a perception of control. The Workshop could be orchestrated under the strict auspices of management. It’s success would mean management’s success given that it is an organizational/management problem it seeks to re-dress. It could also be asserted that since the activity of workers in every organization is essentially the work of management, a greater capacity to learn could mean a greater capacity to earn. Lastly, the success of the process and the learning organization ultimately rests with the organization’s leadership.

2. Use scientific methods. Management could be reminded that SSM originates in Systems Science. It is rational and methodical and seeks to superimpose order onto chaos. Moreover, it is highly efficient in

14that its goal is to achieve problem resolution at the end of the process. A few days for problem solving are a minimal investment compared to weeks, months, or years of costly, unresolved conflict.

3. Select the best person to perform the job. Management could be reminded that only stakeholders, including managers (“Owners” in the CATWOE equation) participate in the process.

4. Train the worker to do the work efficiently. The fact that SSM can be taught to and mastered by all organization members underscores means that it is teaching them how to fish rather than simply giving them a fish. Thereafter, team members can be dispatched to other parts of the organization that may be ailing. Trained workers could become the organization’s psychic paramedics as it were. Moreover, those workers with a solid grasp of systems thinking principles could become the leaven that ferments the entire organizational lump.

5. Monitor worker performance to ensure that appropriate work procedures are followed and that appropriate results are achieved. What is ‘appropriate’ is often contingent and context-dependent. Furthermore, SSM is not inimical to control. The Project’s parameters and performance outcomes could be discussed before its implementation. The stages of SSM could be sufficiently explicated to allay any fears of anomalies arising from within SSM.

Given that the principles espoused by Frederick the Great to develop armies into military machines

provide the foundation of management theory (Morgan, 1997, p.19) SSM and the learning organization could appeal to military machine principles for legitimacy. To illustrate: Unity of command: the learning organization is not antithetical to receiving orders from only one superior. The fear that it will introduce anarchy is unfounded. Scalar chain: it may be contended that the learning organization does not undermine the authority and expertise of “superiors” but, to the contrary, strengthens the line of authority by enhancing organizational communication and decision-making. The success of the “weakest links” ensures the strength of the entire chain. Span of control: the learning organization appears to thrive in small autonomous groups. Deep intrapersonal and interpersonal communication is built into SSM and the learning organization, hence coordination appears less problematic than in bureaucratic structures. Staff and line: SSM is especially sensitive to the need for line authority. Hence, management need not assume any violation attending its implementation. Initiative: the fact that an “operative” in the capacity of student and researcher is offering the SSM Workshop free of charge appears to demonstrate initiative. Division of work: Roles are preserved in both SSM and the learning organization. However, the fact that employees ‘learn to play many instruments in the orchestra’ may be profitable to management in the long term. Authority and responsibility: the learning organization is predicated upon authority and responsibility. In fact, it assumes that employees are capable of assuming much more authority and responsibility than they enjoy in the mechanistic organization. Centralization of authority: the learning organization recognizes that power and authority repose where they will do the most good. Discipline: SSM is a highly ‘disciplined’ approach to creative thinking, conflict resolution and problem solving. Furthermore, it assumes that employees will become less dependent on costly external controls

15than is characteristic of the mechanistic organization. Self-reliance and self-direction within organizationally-specified boundaries is endemic to the cybernetic principles. In fact, the principles of the learning organization, such as personal mastery, are termed “disciplines” Subordination of the individual interest to general interest: shared vision and team playing are critical dimensions of the learning organization. Equity: given that the principles of the learning organization are founded upon justice and kindness, high morale promises to be a certain outcome. Stability of tenure of personnel: The emphasis of the learning organization on growth and development within a team ensures stability and commitment. Espirit de corps: because the learning organization rests upon systems thinking, integration and unity, harmony promises to be the practical outworking.

The creation of an Integration Committee (2000) tasked with the re-configuration of Vancouver Regional offices evinced many of the characteristics of a learning organization (i.e., team learning and shared visioning) and demonstrates the synergistic potential of groups liberated from the mechanistic mode of operation.

Organization as [quasi-biological] Organism (open systems, adaptable, cyclic, differentiated, permeable)

Thesis: Organizations are seen and understood as organisms that exhibit unique "needs" and environmental relations.

Etiology Epistemology Phenomenology Axiology Pathology

16Elton Mayo (1920) Abraham Maslow (1943) Chris Aryris (1957) Frederick Hertzberg (1975) Douglas McGregor (1960) Eric Trist and Ken Banforth (1940s) Ludwig Von Bertalanffy (1950s-60s) Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker (1961) Joan Woodward Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch (1967) Henry Mintzberg 1975) Gene Burton (1976)

Western Electric Hierarchy of Human Needs Maturity Theory Two-Factor Theory Theory X and Theory Y Tavilock Studies General Systems Theory Mechanistic-Organic Organizations Work-flow technology Contingency Theory Structure of Organizations Organizational Development Population Ecology/Organizational Ecology

Behavioral aspects of workers; motivation an issue Integrating the needs of individuals and organizations Worker maturity affected by work environment “Maintenance” versus motivation Assumptions about people dictate quality of governance Human needs and technical efficiency must be reconciled Living organism a model of complex open systems An organization exhibits a tendency toward mechanistic or organic form Appropriate technology-organization mix; organizational flexibility “Good fit” between organization and environment Develop a cohesive set of relations between structure (age, size technology) and industry complexion Organizations can be “developed” and renewed Environments “select” organizations for survival; environments and organizations “co-create”

Emphasizes: - the relationship between organizations and their environments -organizations as open rather than closed systems -organizations as ongoing processes rather than assemblage of parts -the equation between needs satisfaction and organizational development -flexible organizational design -the superiority of flexible “organic”, dynamic, project-centered organizations -a contingency approach to organizational development -the “ecology” of interorganizational relations

Emphasizes: -reaction to forces within external environment rather than proactive construction of organizational world -reification and concretion of environment (land, buildings, machines and money) versus socially-constructed phenomena -an exaggerated view of organizations as functionally unified organisms. This view downplays schisms and conflict -unity and equates well being with integration. This view de-politicizes organizational behaviour and sees conflict as dysfunctional -functional integration (i.e., what the organization “should” be) thereby exalting metaphor to status of ideology -fulfillment through the organization. May engender population dominated by the “organization man”

Application to the Public Service

LO Strategy: Emphasize the integrative potential of the LO.

17Open System: A living organism, organization, or social group is a fully open system. The idea of openness emphasizes the key relationships between the environment and the internal functioning of the system. The learning organization subscribes to these principles. It espouses the practices of generative conversation and coordinated action; and a capacity to see and work with the flow of life as a system. In the learning organization, language itself functions as a device for connection, invention, and coordination. People can talk from their hearts and connect with one another in the spirit of dialogue. Their dialogue weaves a common fabric and connects them at a deeper level of being (Senge, 2000). At the heart of the learning organization is a shift of mind—from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone or something ‘out there’ to seeing how our own actions create the problems we experience (Senge, 1990, pp.12-13). It is a system of interrelationships and interdependencies. Homeostasis: The concept of homeostasis refers to self-regulation and the ability to maintain a steady state. Homeostatic processes are well known in systems thinking. Homeostatic control processes are endemic to the learning organization in that they are both generative and adaptive. Because of their commitment, openness, and ability to deal with complexity, people find security not in stability but in the dynamic equilibrium between holding on and letting go of beliefs, assumptions, and certainties (Senge, 2000). Controlling room temperature is an example of “balancing feedback”. That is, a change in one part of the system causes a change in another part of the system, which, in turn, counteracts the change in the first (Senge, 1990). Entropy/negative entropy: Closed systems are entropic in that they have a tendency to deteriorate and run down. Open systems, on the other hand, attempt to sustain themselves by importing their energy to try and offset entropic tendencies. The learning organization purports to be a “generative” organization. This results when teams work together to capitalize on the synergy of the continuous group learning for optimal performance (Larsen, et.al. 2000, p.2). Generative learning requires seeing the systems that control events. Generative learning is essentially about creating versus coping (Larsen, et.al. 2000, p.21). Structure, function, differentiation, and integration: Systems thinking eschews the mechanistic thinking that breaks a problem into components, studying each part in isolation, and then drawing conclusions about the whole. In systems thinking, circular causation—where a variable is both the cause and effect of another—becomes the norm. Whereas fragmentation is now a distinctive cultural dysfunction of society, the learning organization stresses systems thinking wherein the primacy of the whole is acknowledged (Larsen, et.al. p.11) Requisite variety: The internal regulatory mechanisms of a system must be as diverse as the environment with which it is trying to deal. Senge (1990) holds that team learning is the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire. It builds on the discipline of developing shared vision. It also builds on personal mastery, for talented teams are made up of talented individuals (p.236). Equifinality: This principle captures the idea that in an open system there may be many different ways of arriving at a given end state. The emphasis is on the flexibility of the system. Learning in Senge’s conception is inherently flexible in that it is always ready for improvement (humility), involves the acceptance of others as legitimate human beings (love), seeks opportunities for growth (wonder) and welcomes other viewpoints as valid as one’s own (compassion). Learning organizations are spaces for generative conversations and concerted action (Senge, 2000).

18System evolution: The capacity of a system to move toward more complex forms of differentiation and integration and greater variety in the system facilitating its ability to deal with challenges and opportunities posed by the environment. Consideration of organizational “learning disabilities” [e.g., “I am my position” and “the enemy is out there”] and system archetypes [e.g., shifting the burden, tragedy of the commons, and escalation] can move the organization via its leadership, towards more complex, differentiated and integrated thinking.

The Ministry of Human Resources’ recent emphasis on “partnerships” with external service suppliers (e.g., job placement agencies contracted by the Province of British Columbia) evinces a profound concern for alignment with the challenges of the external environment. The decrease in Federal transfer payments to the Province constitutes an ongoing threat. The principles of learning organization may therefore re-ignite thinking around interrelationships and interdependencies.

ORGANIZATION AS BRAIN

Thesis: Organizations can be designed as brains. Emphasizes information processing, learning, and intelligence.

Etiology Epistemology Phenomenology Principles of Holographic Design

Axiology Pathology

19Dennis Gabor (1948)

Karl Pribram (1971)

Rodney Brooks (1991)

Herbert Simon (1940s-50s)

James March (1940s-50s)

Norbert Wiener (1961)

Chris Argyris (1950s-90s) Donald Schon (1960s-80s) Peter Senge (1990) W. Edwards Deming (1950s-80s)

William Ouchi (1980s)

Holography

Structure of Consciousness Robotics/Mobots

The decision-making approach

Nonlogical approach to decision making

Cybernetics

Learning Organizations Action Learning Systems Thinking

TQM

Theory Z

The whole is encoded in the parts

Brain functions in accordance with holographic principles Distributed intelligence wherein integration and coherence are built from the “bottom up” in a way that allows “higher” forms of intelligence to emerge

“Bounded rationality”- Limits on human rationality are institutionalized in the structure and modes of functioning of our organizations Thinking beyond the rationality model. Rational approaches to decision making often imposed on decisions after they have been made Systems must operate in an intelligent, self-regulating manner. Develop “double-loop learning” 1) Scan and anticipate change in the wider environment to detect significant variations 2) Develop an ability to question,

1)Build the whole into all the parts (corporate “DNA” such as visions, values, i.e., culture)

2) Importance of Redundancy: Parts-e.g., management as “backup” Functions-multi-skilled individuals 3) Requisite variety (should be applied where most needed)

4) Minimum Specs (focus on facilitation and “enabling decisions”) Guidelines for “learning organizations” -Break the boundaries separating the organization from its environment (e.g., join customers, share their experiences, understand products and services from their point of view) -challenge operating norms and assumptions. Grasp metaphors, paradigms and mind-sets that underpin organization

-promote “emergent” organization through innovation and questioning (e.g., ringi)

-offers concrete guidelines on creation of organizations able to innovate and evolve to meet the challenges of changing environments

-lays the foundation for a new theory of management -identifies the requirements and pathologies of the learning process and specifies elements of organizational designs requisite for learning

-challenges the industrial age managerial mind-sets; traditional management practice is based on a mechanical frame of reference which thrives on blueprints and “how-to” manuals

- emphasis on self-organization; underemphasizes issues of conflict, power and control; e.g., an increase in individual autonomy inimical to notions of centralized power and control

-process of learning requires a degree of openness and self-criticism that is foreign to traditional modes of management; may generate resistance from the status quo -brain metaphor requires a “power shift” and a “mind shift”. However, when ideal comes to reality, many forces of resistance can be unleashed

-purposes of increased learning galvanized to outwit other “learning organizations” may result in enormous turbulence; hence, “learning” must be both universally rooted and ethically grounded

20challenge, and change operating norms and assumptions 3) allow an appropriate strategic direction and pattern of organization to emerge Systematically challenge organizational norms and assumptions Ritual of ringi illustrates “double-loop learning”

Application to the Public Service LO Strategy: Highlight commonalities between the LO and the Public Service. Illustrate how the learning organization builds on existing strengths. Single Loop versus Double Loop Learning: Single loop learning is linear. It is trying to find a better way to do a process. It is comparable to continuous quality improvement. Double loop learning goes a step further and asks why we are doing the process in the first place. Should we be doing something else? (Larsen, et.al. 2000, p.22) Learning organization theory contributes the capacity for organizations to: • Scan and anticipate change in the wider environment to detect significant variations • Develop an ability to question, challenge, and changer operating norms and assumptions • Allow an appropriate strategic direction and pattern of organization to develop. • Evolve designs that allow them to become skilled in the art of double-loop learning, to avoid getting

trapped in single-loop processes, especially those created by traditional management control systems and the defensive routines of organizational members (Morgan, 1997, p.90).

The paradigm shift of MHR from “maintenance” and status quo to “payer of last resort” and Public Service organization as instrument in “linking people with opportunities for success” illustrates the propensity for double-loop learning. Principle 1: Build the “Whole” into the “Parts”: The recent creation of the Ministry’s Vision and Mission Statements (1997) demonstrates a concern for the “big picture”. The emergence of committees and teams, such as the Community Consultation Committee (1999) and the Integration Working Committee (2000) demonstrates the increased emphasis on holistic teams with diversified roles.

21Principle 2: The Importance of Redundancy: Increased linkages with community partners highlights the potential of “parallel processing” and sharing of information as a source of creativity, shared understanding, trust, and commitment. Principle 3: Requisite Variety: Environmental constraints have resulted in the creation of the Labour Market Attachment Branch. Its Employment Planning Officers have been equipped with the skills to operationalize the new Mission emphasis on “linking people with opportunities for success”. It demonstrates the potential of holographic design to innovate and empower teams to deal with local issues. Principle 4: Minimum Specs: The creation of the Labour Market Attachment Branch in 1998 demonstrates the potential of the system for creation without compromise. The Branch integrates the Mission and values of the Ministry of Human Resources with the larger environment. Overcontrol of organizational resources and fear of experimentation might have compromised such a complementary creation as the LMAB. Principle 5: Learn to Learn: Beginning in 1996 with cuts in federal transfers to the provinces the Ministry of Human Resources has developed an even greater ability to scan and anticipate environmental change. The change from a “maintenance” organization to a labour market attachment organization illustrates another area in which learning and adaptation have been critical. Expanding linkages with the larger community highlight the necessity of systems thinking, a new mind set, and interdisciplinarity.

ORGANIZATION AS CULTURE

Thesis: Organizations can be seen and understood as a cultures the focus of which are values, ideas, beliefs, norms, rituals, and other patterns of shared meaning that guide organizational life.

Definition: Organizational culture defines what is important to the organization, how people should behave, how they should interact with one another, and what they should be striving for. Seven Culture Shaping Factors: 1) key organizational processes 2) employees and other tangible assets 3) formal organizational arrangements 4) the dominant coalition 5) the social system 6) technology 7) the external environment


22Emile Durkheim 1858-1917) Gregory Bateson (1940s) Eli Devons (1954) Harold Garfinkel (1967) Karl Weik (1976) Ezra Vogel (1970s) William Ouchi (1981) Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) Linda Smircich (1983)

Social Solidarity Morale and national Character Decision-making Processes in Organizations Ethnomethodology Culture Japanese Management Style Theory Z Organizational Development Organization as Shared Meaning

Patterns of social order, ideals, beliefs, values are society-specific Parent-child relations have implications for later life. E.g., American- self-appreciation and self-congratulation; British-submission The modern “myth of rationality” Accomplishment: People jointly create and re-create the worlds they inhabit Organization as the enactment of a shared reality Culture shapes management Organizational culture can be changed Correlation between diffusion and strength of culture The more a culture’s values permeate the organization, the stronger that culture Those in power shape the values that guide an organization via social processes, symbols, images, rituals, etc.

-makes what was previously invisible visible -directs attention to the symbolic significance of almost every aspect of organizational life (e.g., straight lines of chairs and note pads convey a sense of conformity and order) -shows how organization rests in shared systems of meaning, hence, in actions and interpretive schemes that create and re-create that meaning -suggests that fundamental task facing leaders and managers rests in creating appropriate systems of shared meaning that can mobilize the efforts of people in pursuit of desired aims and objectives -helps managers see their role and responsibility in culture creation; managers can no longer hide behind formal structures and roles or excuse themselves for having unfortunate personality traits -underscores the need for change programs to give attention to the existing corporate ethos

-may prove quite manipulative and totalitarian in its influence; may be utilized to control rather than express human character - is an over-simplification in that it cannot be reduced to a set of discrete variables such as values, beliefs, stories, norms, and rituals that can be documented and manipulated in an instrumental way -is too descriptive and deterministic in that it assumes that culture can be directly “controlled” by a single group of individuals; culture is holographic rather than mechanistic in that it pervades activity in a way not amenable to direct control -encourages preoccupation with the surface of organizational life rather than the deeper and more fundamental structures that sustain these. Culture is “enacted” but not necessarily under circumstances of its own choosing -consistently underestimates the role of power underlying the “enactment” process

23


“It is not what the vision is, but what the vision does that matters”-Peter Senge

LO Strategy: Illustrate how the learning organization can influence organizational culture.

The culture metaphor examines how the organization is being held together through core values and shared meanings. Learning organization theory is attuned to cultural issues at a deep level. The increasing emphasis by the Ministry of Human Resources on learning tacitly acknowledges that yesterday’s tools will not suffice for tomorrow’s tasks. Recently, over 29 people spanning 8 regions and 3 areas of HQ staff participated in a Ministry of Human Resources Service Quality Roundtable. This session focussed on reviewing the first two parts of a document from WELPLAN (the Midwest Welfare Peer Assistance Network) and reflecting on MHR experiences [WELPLAN is a network of senior welfare officials from the United States of America devoted to Welfare reform]. Ironically, culture and culture change are overriding themes rehearsed by the Service Quality Roundtable. Based on the WELPLAN recommendations the Service Quality Committee made the following observations: 1. Clients – cultural change means increasing emphasis on personal responsibility;

Roundtable Comments:

- while MHR emphasizes client responsibility it feels like we impose responsibility vs. clients eagerly taking it on;

- perhaps more time should be spent talking with clients about how valuable they are and what can be gained (a.k.a. the rationale for attaching them to the labour force) by them becoming increasingly responsible;

2. Front Line Workers- perhaps if we focussed more broadly on client needs, including their familial,

social and health needs we would serve them more effectively– cultural change means shifting attitudes, values, philosophies and staff roles.


- The ministry has become increasingly articulate in it’s vision, mission and values, but has it filtered through to line staff?

- Some changes such as moving JPP to the front of the application process help shift attitudes

- If people are job ready does that mean they are also emotionally ready (e.g. what about their other issues?)

3. Welfare Officials- Perhaps a broader view of services is needed here - a true integration with

community resources and services - cultural change means thinking more strategically about the scope of welfare and how to get things done.


- Officials are thinking more strategically about service delivery scope and delivery (ESL, Outreach workers)

24- We are constantly reviewing our practices for improvements and to

review them in light of outcomes for the client

4. Community Members – cultural change means rethinking stereotypical views of poor people.

Roundtable Comments: - We are beginning to work with communities, and in particular businesses, to establish

MHR as a resource to them - Social Marketing plans also help to establish who we are and what we do - We are missing fundamental tools such as regional websites which describe

programs, services, community resources, employment and benefit center services etc severely limit the ability of staff to provide accurate and consistent information to clients or for them to access it themselves.

“Tectonic Plates” and Ministry of Human Resources The WELPLAN document refers to inter-systems conflict as tectonic plates grinding together, moving slowly and creating tension… What are our “tectonic plates”? - JPP [Jobs Partnership Program—partnership between MHR and Job Placement Agencies] might be

considered a tectonic plate in that some of the “rules” for administering the program seem to be restrictive

- Systems – having multiple systems that don’t talk to each other - Not being linked electronically to other agencies

Horizontal Communication Drives Change The WELPLAN document suggests that horizontal communication drives change more so than vertical communication in organization. What do we do to support this?

- Service Quality Roundtables are one way to communicate horizontally - “Information flows horizontally, but decisions are made vertically”

The above document suggests that rank and file members are deeply involved in and committed to the organization. The recent efforts and accomplishments of the Ministry’s Service Quality Committee highlight the centrality of shared needs and values. But, as Senge (2000) observes, building a learning organization is interdisciplinary and collaborative. “We have”, he warns, “drifted into a culture that fragments our thoughts, that detaches the world from the self and the self from the community” (p.5). The learning organization “demands a shift that goes all the way to the core of our culture” (p.5). Senge enjoins the invention of a new model of learning predicated on the “patient, concerted efforts of communities of people invoking aspiration and wonder” (p.5). Nevertheless, the learning organization can be empowering or tranquilizing. Senge (2000) explains, “when I speak of a learning organization, I’m articulating a view that involves us-the observers-as much as the observed in a common system. We are taking a stand for a vision, for creating an organization we would like to work within and which can thrive in a world of increasing interdependency and change” (p.1) The Roundtable Committee laudably exhibits how rethinking all aspects of corporate culture can enhance the quality of service offered. Morgan (1997) states that when leaders ask themselves, “What impact am I having on the social construction of reality in my organization?”

25and “What can I do to have a different and more positive impact?” they penetrate to a new level of understanding about the significance of what they are truly doing” (p.148). SSM and the learning organization may make a definitive contribution in this regard.

Organizations as Political Systems

Thesis: Organizations are political systems shaped by competing sets of interests, conflicts, and power plays.


Aristotle (384-322) Machiavelli (1469-1527)

The Politics (polis as an aggregate of many members) Principles of government

Politics is a means for creating order out of diversity while avoiding forms of totalitarian rule Political expediency placed above morality

-conceives all organization activity as interest-based -explodes the myth of rationality -to find ways of overcoming the

- political behaviour becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy -the Machiavellian assumption that everyone is trying to outwit and outmaneuver everyone else militates against the Aristotelian vision of politics as a constructive force in the creation of social order

26Robert Michels (1949) Burns and Stalker (1961) Mary Parker Follet (1973) Galbraith (1962) Burrell and Morgan (1979)

Oligarchy (“iron law of”) Interests, conflict, and power How organizations cope with conflict Anatomy of power Organizations as mini-states

Organizations typically end up under the control of narrow groups Each of these variables affects politics (self-serving behaviour) Pluralism Condign, compensatory, conditioned power; countervailing power Organization is a political entity

limitations of the idea that organizations are functionally integrated systems -politicizes our understanding of human behavior in organizations -encourages recognition of sociopolitical implications of organization and the roles that organizations play in society

-assumes a plurality of interests and power holders when, in fact, some people may have much more power than others - overstates the omnipotence of the individual and underplays the system dynamics that determine what becomes political and how politics occurs

Organizations as Mini-States Unitary Pluralist Radical

Interests Integrated Divergent Oppositional Conflict Intolerable Tolerable Inevitable Power Nominal Crucial Key Other potential sources of conflict: Task (the work one has to perform) Career (may be independent of the job being performed) Extramural (personality, private attitudes, values, preferences, beliefs, sets of commitments outside work)

The most common varieties of political rule found in organizations:

Autocracy: government by a single person or small group that has unlimited power or authority Bureaucracy: rule exercised through the use of the written word Codetermination: rule by opposing parties in joint management of mutual interests Direct Democracy: a system where everyone has an equal right to rule and is involved in all decision making Representative Democracy: rule exercised by elected officers who act on behalf of the electorate

The most important sources of power in organizations

1. Formal authority. (effective when legitimized from below) 2. Control of scarce resources (e.g., money, technology, personnel, customers) 3. Use of organizational structure, rules, and regulations (often used as part of a power play) 4. Control of decision processes (e.g. language, ground rules of decision making, expert knowledge) 5. Control of knowledge and information (e.g. expert status) 6. Control of boundaries (acquiring knowledge and control of critical interdependencies) 7. Ability to cope with uncertainty (e.g., environmental [markets] and operational [machinery] 8. Control of technology (people manipulate and control the use of their technology) 9. Interpersonal alliances, networks, and control of “informal organization” (e.g., friends in high places) 10. Control of counterorganizations (opposition to a concentration of power, e.g., trade unions) 11. Symbolism and the management of meaning (ability to persuade others to enact their “reality”) 12. Gender and the management of gender relations (manipulation of male and female stereotypes)

2713. Structural factors that define the stage of action (e.g., power plays involving race, class relationships) 14. The power one already has (e.g., informal IOU agreements, proactive “Can Do!” mindsets)

Application to the Public Service LO Strategy: Illustrate how the learning organization may present an alternative vision of effective leadership.

Mental models are the second of Senge’s (1990) disciplines. As a “discipline” mental models consider one’s way of looking at the world, the cognitive framework for determining how we think and act. Many of our leadership models may be flawed. To illustrate, with most ‘theories-in-use’ [how people really behave] it is common: 1. To remain in unilateral control, 2. To maximize winning and minimize losing, 3. To suppress negative feelings, and 4. To be as rational as possible by which people mean defining clear objectives and evaluating their

behaviour in terms of whether or not they have achieved them (Argyris, 1991 cited in Larsen, et.al. 2000, p.4).

Senge (2000) holds that our conceptions of leadership, for example, are embedded in myths of heros-

great individuals severed from their communities who make their way through individual will, determination, and cleverness. While this notion may hold some attraction, individualistic notions of leadership may block the emergence of the leadership of teams, and ultimately, organizations and societies that can lead themselves (p.2). Learning organizations, by contrast, are built by communities of servant leadership—individuals regardless of their position or hierarchical authority who walk ahead (p.2). Senge (2000) exhorts the development of leadership qualities more broadly. However, obstacles to such development may include the myth of the great leader, the need to control, the higher status accorded those higher up the hierarchy who are held to be more important beings, insecurity, and inability to imagine and commit to the

concept of servant-leadership [people who lead because they chose to serve others and a higher

purpose] (p.2). Senge contends that one must distinguish authority from leadership. Rethinking leadership in this way points to the concept of the servant leader --an authority figure who cares first for those under him or her, then for the company they all serve.

The Ministry’s commitment to excellence, as expressed in its Mission Statement, bespeaks a commitment to productive plurality as well as a servant-leadership impulse:

“The ministry’s service quality work is part of a larger vision of continuous quality improvement – this is the whole approach by which we seek to learn from our experience to continually improve. Underlying the ministry’s vision of continuous quality improvement and service quality is learning. There are lots of different ways that we get information about how we are doing, what is working and what is not working.

28This includes direct feedback from colleagues, participants and advocates, as well as research, correspondence, etc. In paying attention to this information we have a body of knowledge that we can learn from”.

The Mission Statement is consonant with the philosophy of learning organizations and evinces an inclination to embrace alternate modes of thinking and acting wherein unitary, control-centered, male conceptions of organization admit more feminine, pluralist, post-modern modes of thinking.

Organization as Psychic Prison

Thesis: Organizations are psychic prisons where people become trapped by their own thoughts, ideas, and beliefs or by the unconscious mind. Leaders are obsessed with control.


29Plato (427-347 B.C.) Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982) Danny Miller (1990) Irving Janis (1972) Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) Carl Jung (Contemporary of Freud) Melanie Klein (1921-45) Donald Winnicott (1958)

Truth and Reality Organizational “Excellence” The Icarus Paradox Groupthink Power of the Unconscious Mind Archetypes (e.g., basic themes of myth and literature—same universal stories with different characters) Good Breast-Bad Breast Transitional Objects and Phenomena (e.g., Teddy Bears, Dolls and Blankets)

-As cave dwellers equate the shadows of people and objects on the wall with reality. The prison-like qualities of culture: organizations can become trapped by unconscious processes that lend organization a hidden significance -A particular style of excellence can become a trap preventing organizations from thinking in new ways and transforming themselves to meet new challenges -Strong culture, like Icarian wings, can become pathological. Powerful visions of the future can lead to blind spots; ways of seeing and not seeing. -Tendency toward uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view -The past is seen as living in through the unconscious in ways that create distorted and uncomfortable relations with the external world. Humans live their lives as prisoners or products of their individual and collective psychic history. -Structures of thought and experience embedded in the psyche or inherited experience lead us to mold our understanding of the world in a patterned way. -pathologies and alienations occurring in organizational contexts (e.g., lying, cheating, sabotage) manifestations of the essential wholeness of people. -People project bad objects and bad impulses onto the occupant of a role (e.g., whistleblower, scapegoat) Objects and experiences may acquire the status of a fetish or fixation that we are unable to relinquish.

-contributes to understanding the dynamics and challenges of organizational change. Structures, rules behaviours, beliefs, and the patterns of culture are not just corporate phenomena. They are personal in the most profound sense. -focuses on the unconscious dimension as the site of resistance to change initiatives such as the learning organization. -suggests that rationality is often irrationality in disguise (e.g., Frederick Taylor’s obsession with “management”) -probes beneath the surface of organizational life to show how domination by unconscious projections of a few key managers may be the source of dysfunctions.

-pays more attention to the unconscious patterns of behaviour and control but may downplay ideological (explicit, expressing the interests of certain individuals and groups) factors that control and shape organizational life. -emphasizes cognitive processes; it may be more appropriate to talk about organizations as prisons rather than psychic prisons since the exploitation and domination of people often grounded in control over the materialistic basis of life. -emphasis on liberation from undesirable psychological and cognitive constraints often encourages utopian speculation and critique; many of its implications ignore the realities of power and the force of vested interests in sustaining the status quo. -raises the specter of an Orwellian world where we attempt to manage each others’ minds. -psychic prison metaphor does not provide easy answers and solutions to problems that many managers may wish to find. It does not produce blueprints for reform.

30 Bachofen (1968) Ernest Becker (1983)

Organization as Patriarchal Family Organization, Death, and Immortality

-Organization is an unconscious extension of family relations. -Artifacts of culture as defense systems to counteract human inadequacy, vulnerability, mortality.


LO Strategy: Discuss some of the organizational dysfunctions [conscious and unconscious] the learning organization may be able to surface.

Morgan (1997) observes that it is pointless to talk about creating a learning organization or

corporate cultures which thrive on change in the unconscious human dimension is ignored (p.246). Recalcitrance to the learning organization may be embedded in the qualities of the male archetype and patriarchal family that dominate corporate management. Brown and Starkey (2000) construe organizational learning as an ongoing search for a time and context sensitive identity (p.110). "Organizational self-esteem derives from participants' need for self-esteem based on their organizational self-images. Like individuals, the psychological organization seeks to maximize self-esteem and, in so doing acts conservatively to preserve its identity" (Brown and Starkey, 2000, p.104) While a degree of defense is characteristic of psychologically healthy individuals and organizations who need to regulate their self-esteem to function adequately, organizations, their cultures, structures, and work routines may also prove dysfunctional to organizational learning (Brown and Starkey, 2000, pp.104-105). Organizations, they hold, fail to learn due to the generation of ego defenses that maintain collective self-esteem. These ego defenses include: -denial [of problems, e.g., Space Shuttle Challenger] -rationalization [shared beliefs based on stereotypes and ideology, e.g., belief against attack on Pearl Harbor] -idealization [of leaders, the organization; results in winning battles and losing wars] -fantasy [collective retreat into imagination, e.g., stories, myths] -symbolization [organizational hierarchy, elements of culture, e.g., stories, organizational celebrities]

These authors conceive the role of strategic management as "an ongoing learning process that embraces the need to rethink organizational identity in a context where environmental discontinuity is assumed" (Brown and Starkey, 2000, p.112). Organizational learning leads to positive identity change. But this can only be achieved through profound self-questioning along with a willingness to explore ego-threatening matters. The wise organization will exhibit a willingness to learn, curiosity, humility and empathy [ability to accommodate to the unique feelings and thoughts expressed by one another].

Organization as Flux and Transformation

Thesis: Leaders can influence but not entirely control change

31Etiology Epistemology Phenomenology Axiology Pathology

Heraclitus (500 B.C.) Karl Marx (1818-83) Edward Lorenz (1960s) Magorah Maruyama (1963) David Bohm (1970s-80s) Humberto Maturana and Francesco Varela (1980)

Universe in Flux Dialectical Analysis The Lorenz Attractor Cybernetics Theoretical Physics/Implicate and Explicate Order Autopoiesis

-Secrets of universe to be found in hidden tensions and connections that simultaneously create patterns of unity and change 1) Unity of opposites 2) Negation of the negation 3) Transforming quantity into

quality. -The detailed behavior of the system depends on which context dominates. -Mutual Causality and how systems engage in their own transformation e.g., small crack in rock collects water and vegetation to generate something new. -“butterfly effect” i.e., small changes can produce large effects -Process, flux, change fundamental; e.g. river is “explicate” order; whirlpool in river is “implicate” order. -Living systems characterized by three principal features: autonomy, circularity, and self-reference.

-helps us to fathom the nature and source of change so that we can understand its logic; may be able to influence the processes that produce change rather than simply reacting to discrete events as novel happenings. autopoiesis: the way we see and manage change ultimately a product of how we see and think about ourselves, hence, how we enact relationships with the environment. Organizations attempt to create the world in their own image. chaos and complexity: organizations and their relationships with the environment are part of an "attractor pattern". key organizing rules embedded in various aspects of structure, culture, information, mind-sets, beliefs, and perceived identity tend to hold organization-environment relations in a particular configuration. when pushed into "edge of chaos" situations the basic pattern can flip into new forms. managerial challenge is to nudge systems into desired trajectories by

-emphasizes the potential of powerless power. The recognition that we can never be "in control", that our actions shape and are shaped by change, that we are just part of an evolving pattern ("butterflies") is not a message that many managers want to hear.

32initiating small changes that can produce large effects. mutual causality: encourages understanding "attractor patterns" as positive and negative feedback loops that define complete fields of relations. can then see the logic of the whole, e.g., organization and environment. dialectical analysis: understanding paradoxes and tensions that are created whenever elements of a system try to push in a particular direction. Encourages recognition of how the management of organization, society and personal life ultimately involves the management of contradiction.

33Autopoiesis -Living systems characterized by three principal features: autonomy, circularity, and self-reference. -Living systems strive to maintain an identity by subordinating all changes to the maintenance of their organization; -Living systems as autonomous and circular close in on themselves to maintain stable patterns of relations -Living systems as self-referential cannot enter into interactions that are not specified in the pattern of relations that define their organization. E.g., The bee is an organism with self-referring physiological processes within its own circular organization, within a society of bees where relations are circular. Bees have a relation to the wider ecology. A change in one element can transform all others. The environment is the explicate order; the organization is implicate order. Contradiction and Crisis Tao (Yin and Yang: Female and Male) -All of natural and human life is shaped by a cycle of coming and going, growth and delay, everything being in a process of becoming something else. Many human situations can be improved and balanced by influencing the relationship between opposing elements. The Dialectics of Management -developments in modern Capitalism manifestations of “primary” and “secondary” contradictions e.g., widespread structural unemployment (primary) generates (secondary) contradictions e.g., conflicts between employed and unemployed Managing Paradox -Successful management of change requires skill in dealing with contradictory tensions e.g., Innovate ------------------ Avoid mistakes Collaborate -------------- Compete Low costs -------------- High quality Contradiction and Crisis

1. The mutual struggle (control engenders resistance) 2. The negation of the negation (Each negation simultaneously rejects and retains previous negation) 3. The transformation of quantity into quality (revolutionary change resulting in higher social organization)


LO Strategy: Understand the larger forces shaping the organization and emphasize transformation versus reaction. Small changes engender large effects. Management should think in terms of influencing the relationship between opposing elements. For example, could the Public Service Union [BCGEU] be viewed as both an adversary and an ally? A mini SWOT [strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats] illustrates some of the forces to which the Public Service is subjected: Strengths: A wide range of management styles, enlarging organizational expertise, organizational structures amenable to change, a large, competent, human resource base, effective technological infrastructures, public reputation for service. Weaknesses: Status quo mentality insufficient to deal with economic and environmental exigencies, entrenched autocratic leadership styles, bureaucracy, fragmentary and short-term thinking, lack of leadership grounding in theories of management and organizational development.

34 Opportunities: Strong linkages with external partners. Threats: Continuing threats in Federal transfers, public antipathy for ‘welfare recipients’, labour increasingly radical, international instability with consequent influx of refugees, aging workforce, burgeoning disability caseloads. The learning organization is compatible with the knowledge-based economy. It emphasizes skills acquisition [e.g., personal mastery], life-long learning [e.g., personal mastery, team learning], organizational responsibility and accountability [e.g., systems thinking, mental models], excellence, autonomy, flexibility, risk-taking, management of paradox. Through systems thinking, the learning organization may help leaders to manage paradox and identify manifestations of primary and secondary contradictions that pose a threat to the organization. Scrutiny of archetypes and mental models may help the organization progress towards the reform and transformation underlying autopoiesis. Minor experiments with SSM and the LO may lead to larger successes.

Organization as Instrument of Domination

35Thesis: Organizations are sites of exploitation. Organizations are often used as instruments of domination that further the selfish interests of elites at the expense of others; there is an element of domination in all organizations.

Etiology Epistemology Phenomenology Axiology Pathology Karl Marx (1818-83) Max Weber (1864-1920). Robert Michels (1949)

Capital/Domination Bureaucracy Oligarchy

Domination of have-nots by haves. Domination embedded in the fabric of Capitalism in that the quest for surplus value and the accumulation of capital becomes "vampire-like sucking living labour". Quest for rationality can become a source of domination by the process itself. Bureaucracy can all too easily turn into an iron cage. Bureaucratization presents a very great threat to the freedom of the human spirit. Bureaucratization establishes a form of power relation that is "practically unshatterable". Organizations typically end up under the control of narrow groups.

-draws attention to the double-edge nature of rationality. What is "rational" from one organizational point of view can be catastrophic to another -provides a useful counterweight to much of organizational theory which tends to ignore the values or ideological premises; forces the recognition that domination may be intrinsic to the way we organize and not just an unintended side effect. -used proactively, the domination metaphor also shows a way of creating an organization theory for the exploited -helps us appreciate the issues that fuel this radical frame of reference in practice -encourages us to recognize and deal with perceived and actual exploitation in the workplace rather than dismiss it as a "radical" distortion of the way things are.

-the perspective may be linked to a crude conspiracy theory of organization and society. -in asserting an equivalence between domination and organization, we may blind ourselves to the idea that non-dominating forms of organization are possible -metaphor articulates an extreme form of left-wing ideology serving to fan the flames of the radical frame of reference and thus adds to the difficulties of managers in an already turbulent world.

36

Organizational Politics and the Radicalized Organization Organizations in which white and blue-collar workers clearly demarcated. Workforce understands they are on opposite sides and behave accordingly. A battleground atmosphere is the norm. Multinationals and the World Economy Transnational corporations are larger and more powerful than many nation-states and are accountable only to themselves. Power firmly concentrated in the hands of senior management goal is to achieve global dominance through worldwide sourcing of raw materials at the lowest price big corporations can use their immense power to shape the political agenda and to create political outcomes favorable to themselves. Seen as authoritarian juggernauts that exploit host countries for all they can get, relentless quest for cheap, non-unionized labour. Relocation from relatively high-priced cities in Canada and U.S. creates large areas of regional and urban decline. Regional exodus=massive structural unemployment, increasing welfare rolls, intensifying fiscal problems. Involved in the creation of world poverty. Best land is used to produce crops for export (e.g., rubber, coffee, sugar) rather than local consumption. Summary: multinational operations can create economic, political and social havoc, distorting rather than benefiting the development of host country, often at the behest of and in collusion with the country's governing elite.


LO Strategy: Invite leaders to consider Senge’s (1994) checklist of effective leadership. Can a Large Government Learn? Senge (1994) is cautiously optimistic. He asserts that all of the following conditions must apply or be arranged: -There must be leadership at the top of the organization -The leader must be prepared to stand up publicly for a direction and set of values that are compatible with learning -There must be support from the organization's political head, such as the minister -There must be a crisis or some situation or event which prompts the organization to plan in a longer time than usual -There must be a sensibly ample amount of time allowed for the changes to ta

master of arts integrated studies project mais...

Documents