thank you for your thoughtful response to my inquiry...I have some
comments and questions based on your response.
tom abeles wrote:
> 1) There are some underlying assumptions in the corporate world. One of
> these is growth- usually measured in economic terms- more sales, bigger
> profit, larger market share, increased stock value. Economics has been the
> principle measure since it is one of the few easily quantifiable metrics
> of success of corporations and individuals.
I understand that this assumption is one that drives most people and
corporations (people want to grow families, income, acquisitions,
capability, power, happiness, etc and corporations want to grow wealth,
capability, power, etc). Growth (the transition between birth and death,
in other words, "life") is a natural phenomenon and it's not surprising
to find it occurring in human society (it occurs in many other organic
societies). So, while growth may have it's negative and destructive
elements, without it there would be death. I also appreciate that
"economics" is not the only valid measure of "life."
> Recently, as I posted elsewhere, there have been some labor unrest where
> the issues were not more money bu more time to spend that money. There is
> some growing realization that time is a non-leverageable commodity. Also,
> there is some fringe movement, like that of Joe Dominguez who has written
> the little book "Your Money or Your Life". And even Esther Dyson and other
> cyber Guru's have indicated that "attention" or a person's time may be the
> marketable commodity in a wired world.
This is an excellent point. I recall this same concern being the driving
force of labor dissent among German autoworkers about 20 years ago.
Indeed the 4-day work week was their primary motivation in negotiations at
that time. We've written quite a bit about the Maslow hierarchy of needs
on this list. I think that most of us agree that when we've satisfied our
more basic needs (and in our society, income is one of the ways we address
those needs) then we move to a different phase or stage of needs.
Personal time becomes as important to us as income.
> This says to me that there may be emerging some measures of growth which
> are orthogonal to traditional economic metrics- (note I did not say
> opposed to...). Yet issues raised by NAFTA, MAI, and even the IMF deny
> these possibilities
Are these measures of corporate growth, or individual growth? I don't
really understand your reference here.
> What happens when one discusses these issues, it sends shudders through
> the investment community and an entire system which could severely implodeif
> the system changes.
You seem to be saying that the idea of increasing labor costs (which is
what happens when the labor force wants the same amount of money for less
working hours) causes economic problems. This seems to be a natural cause
and effect: costs go up, prices go up. This sounds like the beginning of
an inflation cycle, doesn't it? I think that one way an organization can
meet the needs of it's members and still remain competitive within its'
economic environment is to become a learning organization.
> Learning organizations as currently discussed, are predicated on
> maintaining the larger status quo which may, as we are seeing continue to
> see more cracks develop.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "larger status quo." Relationships
among people? Gross income disparities? Power-driven authority figures
terrorizing their workers? I see learning organization practitioners as
interested in developing an understanding of systems, interpersonal
relations, and an improved understanding of self. Is this the status quo?
> I am concerned with the larger question- the one which seemed like it
> could be discounted and asking whether or not the butterfly's flutter may
> not be affecting us, even today.
>
> You are right about the contemplative vs the quant and the tendency to be
> "soft". But it is interesting to note that even in the hard sciences,
> qualitative analysis is now becoming more respectable. But, in a pragmatic
> sense, one can start to see that socially and environmentally screened
> investments make sense in business, compensation other than pay raises
> have made sense, open book management with production workers working with
> management makes sense. There are non- econometrics that when translated
> make economic sense in the traditional sense
I'm not sure what your larger question is, but the things that you say
make sense are very compatible with the concept of a learning
organization. In fact, it was through reading about Open Book Management
practices (and using them) that I became familiar with the term, "Learning
Organization."
> these are some of the issue that start to emerge when one goes outside of
> the organization to come back in. Contemplative and reflective don't
> always mean turning inward in isolation. It may mean transcending and
> going beyond- outside of the box and asking whether the parameters of the
> game are those which must be lived with.
>
> Who sets the rules of the game? That is the question. Not how you build an
> organization which operates best within the rules of the game. We are
> talking about humans and not formula 1 racing cars or class sail boats
I'm not sure that I agree with you that it's a game. We're engaged in
life. Life is situational. Rules change. I think that building
organizations is an odd way to think about something that's so engaged in
our life and social system. Corporations grow. Organizations grow.
Sometimes like a cancer...they are destructive.
I would like to understand what you think the larger question is--and why
you think that learning organizations aren't part of the larger answer.
best regards,
Doc
-- "I never hit a shot, not even in practice, without having a very sharp, in-focus picture of it in my head." -Jack NicklausThresholds <http://www.thresholds.com> Meeting Masters <http://www.thresholds.com/masters.html> Richard Charles "Doc" Holloway Astoria, OR & Olympia, WA USA ICQ# 10849650 voice 360.786.0925
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>