Replying to LO19274
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, g.fletcher wrote:
> Subject: LO in regulated industries? Does anyone have experiences/advice
>for introducing a LO culture into a highly regulated dangerous
>manufacturing type organisation? I am currently working for a company
>who I cannot name. They are trying to move to a learning culture form a
>highly bureaucratic command & control culture.
-- Well, I won't name my old company either: From 1979 through 1983, we
attempted a major 'Leadership Development' effort in one of Silicon Valley
major chemical division, part a larger world-wide manufacturing company.
-- The goal was to create 'self-managed', multi-skilled, multi-function
employees, without having a Supervisor and Leadman on each shift. It was a
24/7/365 operation, brutally demanding, and most people would spend up to
5-6 months without a day off (mostly lured my some of the highest
paychecks in the Valley.
> A major problem is that the core business of the company involves
>dangerous processes and materials and the safety environment is heavily
>(externally) regulated.
-- We had a similar work modality: Control and bureaucratic behavior, with
extreme lack of trust, and VERY much concerned with State and Federal
regulators, et al. Most 'knowledge' was in the hands of the hierarchy, but
in reality, ALL employees knew best what was happening at the plant level,
and feared risking to expose themselves via a contact with outside
agencies.
> Can a LO culture be generated/survive in this type of environment? If
>so, how can it be introduced? Other parts of the organisation are not
>highly regulated but hold similar cultural values. Is attitude to risk a
>tacit value which exists at the organisational level or can parts of the
>organisation have wildley differing attitudes to risk?
-- So, where to begin...by shifting the 'culture'. We found that basic
beliefs/values were common at ALL levels. We just had to create the
apropriate 'Mental Models' (to quote Peter Senge's concept) or
'frameworks' , beginning with the smallest people 'sample' to practice it
with the most receptive Supervisor/Leadman, and as results were known AND
communicated throughout the plant, move into the next group, and the next.
Then create a new set of Models, and repeat the practice, until the whole
division was 'converted'.
-- I left the company in Dec. 1983. Went to become an independent
consultant practicing these concepts in several countries, -- at the
corporate, government, educational, and private levels -- and found
similar results. This happened only WHEN the hierarchy was willing to get
out of the way at the beginning ot this process, then follow the groups,
as they saw practical business results. (Send me an e-mail, and I'd be
glad to give you specific examples of these situations, as well as
'appropriate' frameworks related to your circumstances).
-- One principle we advocated for: Give us one member (Resource) for every
40-50 employees, we will 'train' them, and when we leave, they will stay
and follow-up on additional work required by each 'change effort'. This
allowed for in-house skill development, AND avoiding dependency on outside
consultants.
P. S. To this day, the chemical plant works with just one manager, at the
plant level, without Supervisors/Leadmen on the floor.
Miguel A. Maldonado
MAM49455@aol.com or
M.Maldonado@fairchildsemi.com
--"M Maldonado" <M.Maldonado@notes.fairchildsemi.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>