One question that might be asked about this blog is whether it is an appropriate way to have this conversation. Leaving aside issues of the benefits of face to face conversation, the tradition of the group, etc., it could be that it's just an alien approach.
William Isaacs talks about organizations with 3 kinds of structure: closed, open and random. The internet is a classic 'open' system: including everyone, democratic, uncontrolled, collaborative ... its drawback is what he calls "the tyranny of the process" ... that is, when you have started an open-structured discussion, there is no obvious end point, and there are no bearings.
This is his analysis of a "closed" system:
Core purpose: Stability through tradition and lineage
Characteristics: Hierarchy, formal authority, "control over"
Leadership: Manages for the good of the whole
Limits: Tyranny of tradition, blindness to emergent change
He cites an example of a corporation run by a "single, bright, autocratic leader. All major decisions ... flowed through him. Nothing of any consequence could be done without his knowing about it." The company employed 20,000 people. Those who reported to him would get "yelled at" and "whacked" if he was displeased. He goes on, "The impact this CEO had on the other senior leaders of the organization was nothing short of devastating ... the central limiting factor of a closed system is that it tends to be blind to and unable to move with emergent possibilities. Its values are embedded in the well-established traditions of the past; in a pinch, it is to these values that the organization remains loyal rather than new options".
That sounds like a pretty good diagnosis; the question is whether the School can be changed at all by "open-system" methods. Possibly it's just too alien to that mentality. There are plenty of people who are unhappy with the School; but most of them are unwilling to do anything about it. Instead, they cling on to the old values, even when they no longer believe, because loyalty is in the blood. It's one thing to have a rebellious chat in the pub, to establish one's revolutionary credentials, but to contemplate a re-assessment of the values and practices of the School ... a bridge too far.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Open and Shut
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It's very difficult for a closed organisation or society to change for the reasons you've given above, and primarily because the leadership is convinced that the existing system is the best possible.
I'm reminded of 19th- and early 20th-century China. Here the Emperor ruled. At previous times in China's history there had been litle 'jolts' when change and adaptation had occurred. I'm no Sinologist but I understand that, during the period in question, Western influence was sufficient to keep China stable during revolutionary uproar elsewhere. No doubt leaders congratulated themselves.
But it was like sitting on the lid of a cauldron. When change came it was cataclysmic. It might have been managed at an early stage but after a time control became impossible.
Any organisation needs to change to fit the needs of the time. Otherwise it either ossifies or explodes.
Whether the School leadership understands this - or how to effect change - I don't know. There are no mechanisms in hand, or channels, and no engagement with members on the future direction of the School.
It could take a leaf out of the book of business which is constantly reinventing itself and bringing in fresh energies.
But the question you ask is valid - can a closed system ever see the value of an open system unless it is forced to do so?
The question comes up here because this blog has more readers than contributors. It's easy to 'blame' the culture of the organization, but less easy to reflect on why one does not feel able or willing to speak.
Refelcting back over the previous discussions reveals a mixture of reasons for the status quo continuing. The 'perpetual student' culture where one always defers to the more superior knowlege of the tutor, head of level etc. The approved system of open criticism in the guise of philosophical observation. Not least the persons near the top of the organisation who enjoy the power (I have specific names in mind).
I suspect that it would take a lot of persistant questioning to achieve any change in this area.
Agreed. But it could also be that an appreciation of the nature of a "closed" culture is needed in order to encourage change. A question that fails to acknowledge the point of view of the other may be a good one, but it may not get anywhere.
A refusal to acknowledge the point of view of the other is not really asking a question but a request for affirmation and therefore unlikely to achive change.
I wonder what would persuade a closed system that change was needed and that it was within its power to effect that change?
It may be that it's a matter of education. If you don't know of the benefits of change then there's no incentive. If you haven't been shown techniques, exercises, practices to enable you to think out of the box, then you won't believe that change, even if desirable, is possible.
Actually, I'd like to get someone from Ashridge Management College let loose on the School. It needs an outsider, who's very well versed in organisational change, to do the business.
Another aspect of a closed system is its belief - at least in the School - that the teaching is 'given', rather than 'discovered'.
I was rather forcibly reminded of this in group yesterday evening when we were presented with the excellent story of the man with the little lantern who had to walk to another town miles away. It illustrated how, at each step, there is that which is propitious to that step.
This is a very powerful teaching and, if followed, leads to confident action.
But what, somebody asked, was there to stop him walking in circles?
There was a bit of a flurry after that. The various suggestions required a 'plan', a 'direction' and so on.
The point is not that there was an answer waiting to be discovered by the students there present - it was that the 'given' hadn't been properly understood.
This could well have been true but, neverthless, a 'discovery' shared within a group has a vividness that is absent from a 'given'.
yes, but unless they're a senior member of the school it's unlikely that those who need to implement the changes will appoint anyone
I would agree that it's unlikely and it would certainly be an unusual brief.
Q: what is your mission?
A: Self realisation.
Q: and in the meantime....?
But it is the job of the business consultant to understand an organisation, its aims, its current practices, its values, its work, how it goes about achieving these, how to maximise the input of its employees and stakeholders, its obstacles and blockages to productivity, where it's going and so on and so on.
He - or she - can then 'show' an organisation itself, hold up a mirror. It can be an inspirational, hopeful and liberating process to which everyone may contribute.
It would indeed be interesting to see something like this happen. My own view is that we're not at that point just yet. It would be too easy for people to resist the process by not really participating. I don't think the rank-and-file would cause the problems (they're not known for putting their egos in the way, bless them!), but the old guard would never wear it.
Before we can be open with others, we need to be open among ourselves.
I'd entirely agree with that, it's far too soon and would be resisted .... except .... that the force of the outside
'interpreter' and
'facilitator' can itself be a catalyst for re-examination and change. In other words, the outsider has a unique role that no one else can play.
But, of course, the leadership has to admit to the value of an outsider. It would be too off-piste for them at the moment, too much uncharted territory.
Post a Comment