Knowledge Management, LO, & Applied Anthropology LO20801

Bruce Jones (brucej@nwths.com)
Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:17:59 -0600

Replying to LO20787 --

>From: John Gunkler <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>

>That is, not how they came to be
>but how they will come to become; not past oriented, but future oriented.
> THEN YOU SAID:***********
>I confess that I have seldom found it very useful to know how
>organizations came to be the way they are when I was trying to help them
>become something else. The dynamics that caused today's "problems" is
>seldom sufficient to help solve them, and is "out of context" in the sense
>that those dynamics occurred in situations far different than the
>organization faces now and in the future.

I have a problem with your line of reasoning here. I confess, I am not in
the business of changing large numbers of people to function in a
're-engineered' business climate. But I do change people from old habits
and thought patterns to new. I teach adults medical job skills as an
assist to their current job, retraining for their current job or new skill
for a new job. Part of that training is to sometimes break OLD habits and
thought patterns brought about by either poor training and habits to begin
with or poor maintenance of old skills due to a cultural laxity. To make
this change I have to have some concept of the baggage being brought to
the classroom. I have to have an Idea of the problems and how they got
that way.

HOW is this any different from your function?

If you ignore the past history of the company and the people that
formulated that history they WILL repeat the problem. Change has to be
bought into by the people who originally caused the problem .... or ....
the heads of those responsible for the problem are on stakes in front of
the building. There are only two ways I see for the past to be ignored:

1) The building burned completely to the ground taking all the employees
and records with it.

2) There is a gross disregard for the current culture and employee
attitude and change is brought about NOT by the employees with help and
assistance, but by an outside force that DICTATES all.

Being the professional you are I don't see either of these two scenarios.
Because:

YOU THEN CONTRADICT YOURSELF:**********************
> Sometimes what organizations may need to do is precisely some of
>those things that failed in the past! They failed because they were done
>before the organization, or its environment, were ready for them. Or they
>failed because they were not well implemented (etc., etc.)

If you do not feel the past is a valid concern in rebuilding the future of
an organization; Why worry that they had some processes that didn't work
or were not instigated properly?

>Finally, when dealing with human beings in human (social) organizations,
>it is dangerous and ineffective to focus on what has happened when your
>goal is to create the future. By this I mean, simply, that as soon as one
>begins dredging up "how did we get into this mess?" people forget that the
>goal is to create the future and become fixated on deflecting blame; they
>become defensive rather than creative; they become upset and divisive
>rather than enthused and collaborative.

I agree that this is the case in a lot of change environments... "Who
screwed up and how do we take care of it?". - not - "We screwed up --let's
change so we don't do it again!".

My two cents!

Bruce W. Jones
Organizational Development Specialist
Northwest Texas Healthcare System
Amarillo, Texas
brucej@nwths.com
brucewj@amaonline.com
http://www.scenemaker.com/anon/495/cover.dhtml

-- 

"Bruce Jones" <brucej@nwths.com>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>