Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to you all.
The question framed in the topic had been troubling my mind the past
few months.
For example, South Africa's economy is a midget to that of the USA, Japan
or Germany. It is like a small boat and a big ship passing each other. The
waves make the small boat go up and down frantically while the big ship is
cruising steadily. South Africa's currency is the Rand (R). Eighteen
months ago the FER (Foreign Exchange Rate) was almost R14:$1. The trouble
with the USA's economy and high interest rates in SA caused this FER to
strengthen to R7:$1.
Those who have to import goods have big smiles. Since they sell these
goods locally in Rand, but have to pay for their imports in Dollar, they
pay less for them. By not lowering their prices (avoiding deflation),
they make bigger profits. It may be sometimes so high as 30% because of
merely the FER. Those who have to export goods have gloomy faces. Since
they have to produce these goods with Rand, but have to sell them abroad
in Dollar, they get less for them when the Dollars are reconverted into
Rand. They sometimes lose as high as 30% because of the FER.
Who suffers because of this strengthening of the FER? In other words, in
which industries are workers involved with producing goods for the export
market? It is those workers like in the mining, agricultural and clothing
industries. They face a retrenchment of about 30% over the entire spectrum
to keep these industries making a profit. Tens of thousands of workers
will lose their jobs -- and this in a country with an unemployment rate of
40%. In other words, cutting salaries is used to keep the company solvent.
Learning in good times what else to do when bad times arrive, play no
role.
The TM (Top Management) of companies and the TUL (Trade Union Leaders) do
not suffer -- except in their battles as opposing leaders. Furthermore,
they are responsible for what happens to the profits made during good
times. The TM want to channel as much of the profits to the shareholders
and thus earn for themselves a nice dividend, often over 20% of their
already high salaries. The TUL want to channel as much of the profits to
the workforce in increased salaries, usually at least as much as the
inflation rate. This will ensure their re-election and a nice increase in
salary for themselves too.
The futility and lack of learning in the battles between the TM and TUL in
good times are revealed during bad times. It is revealed by the decrease
in share prices and the retrenchment of workers. Furthermore, people in
other sectors of the economy get less pension based on investments in the
stock markets. Jobless workers can buy far less commodities (food and
clothing), if anything. Consequently govermental relief programs must
increase and so the taxes to sustain them.
As i see it, companies who benefit from the strengthening of the FER --
the good times -- do not operate as LOs. One of the features of a LO is
that it places a high premium on wholeness. For example, wholeness is
essential in having a sustainable Systems Thinking (one of the five
disciplines of a Learning Organisation). However, the company gets pulled
apart by the expectations of shareholders on the one side and the
expectations of trade unions on the other side. Its wholeness begins to
suffer and thus all to which it is essential like Systems Thinking and
Team Learning.
The problem is how to invest the profits made during good times so that
everybody (shareholders as well as workers) can benefit from it during bad
times when profits are low. The problem can clearly not be solved by
distributing the profits back into money market (shareholders and workers)
as bad times show. Likewise these excess profits can also not be invested
in the money market. The problem has to be solved by investing these
excess profits into some field preceding the economy and thus requisite to
it.
What fields precede the economy and thus are requisite to it? I can think
of several like nutrition, health, housing, education, justice, etc. But
the most important of them to me is education because its benefits last
the longest. I think that education itself is too general for any profit
company. It is here where the concept of a Learning Organisation (Learning
Company) is best suited. Invest the excess profits during good times in
the transformation of that company into a LO. The wisdom of this
investment will show up when the company operates as a LO during bad
times. Less workers will be entrenched while share holders will receive
better dividends.
Obviously, when TM (Top Management) of profit companies and TUL (Trade
Union Leaders) have little (if any) knowledge of Learning Organisations
(LOs), there is little hope to stabilise little boats going frantically up
and down in the much greater rough sea of a global economy. The same with
all employment and investment which are linked to these little boats. The
latter indicates that not only should TM and TUL know more of LOs, but
also the public at large. This requires a vast educational program.
My question is not where education begins, but where its advancement
begins -- in the lowest echelon like primary schools or the highest
echelon like tertiary institutions? A historical study over several
millennia involving several civilisations shows that it begins in the
highest echelon. Thus it is our universities who should begin to promote
knowledge on LOs. It would be suicide to restrict it to the Faculty of
Economy in the department of Managerial Science. As many students as
possible should know of LOs, not as much as having studied LOs formally,
but as having been part of them so that they can speak of practical
experience.
I have begun my essay by "This question had been troubling my mind the
past few months." I have used the South African economy floating in the
global economy as an example to show what problems the lack of LOs can
lead to. I have concluded that we will have to solve these problems by
beginning to transform academy into a LO. But it is here where my worries
become much worse. The South African academy floats in the global academy.
How much of such a transformation is possible in our local academy when
little of it happens in the global academy?
Many universities call themselves learning organisations (two words, two
concepts) because their main function is to provide for learning. But do
you fellow learners know of any university which actually has transformed
itself into a Sengian "learning organisation" (two words, but one concept)
to provide for far better learning including the knowledge of LOs? I know
of none, despite all my searches.
What happens when universities are not LOs? The world changes as it is
doing presently. Learning becomes more superficial which results in
knowledge with little capacity for effective action. Employment and
investments in companies suffer because they go frantically up and down
like little boats in a much greater rough sea. The abyss between the few
rich and many poor widens and deepens. Peace has become fragile or even
disappears in many parts of the world. I think it has become the task of
universities to change the course which the world is following. This can
be done by sharing the vision that when organisational learning
complements individual learning the sea can become calm again.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.