From: peter bond [mailto:
plbond@appleonline.net]
I have read the exchanges re; 'quick and dirty' and I would like to
contribute a few points.
I am writing from the UK where we tend to look to the USA for
inspiration
for manager education techniques. My view is that the problems and
issues
raised in the discussion have been addressed quite extensively by US
academics and practitioners and I wonder why their names or ideas don't
appear in the mailings. The general topic would be called cognition or
learning theory which is relevant to what has been discussed and
proposed
under the 'quick and dirty' subject.
Take for example the work of Brown and Duguid from Rank Xerox who adopt
a
constructivist approach to understanding the process of manager
education.
Constructivism (mostly associated with the cognitive development models
of
Piaget) and so called Activity Theory (Vygotsky) is more extensively
applied in child education in the USA but is creeping into adult
education.
There is a little application over here but not that much. There is a
version that is usually associated with Ernst von Glasersfeld referred
to as
Radical Constructivsm which I have adopted myself as part of a framework
for
learning facilitation. Another part of my intellectual frame is systems
thinking or systems theory which I think underpins much of complexity
theory, at least with regard to its application to organisation
behaviour.
A key phrase in the context of this discussion, due to Maturana and
Varela
(Chilean biologists), is that 'all knowing is doing and all doing is
knowing'. A lot of 'doing' in management is down to solution creation
and
application, and of course evaluation, all of which we do as part of
being
human.
One of the key ideas I gained from von Glasersfeld was that knowledge is
an
instrument for learning. This fitted neatly with two other similar
approaches . Jerry Rhodes, a British writer-practitioner, coined the
term
'conceptual tools' which referred to the learning and application of a
framework of tools for problem analysis. Over a period of 'doing' the
managers became competent in the use of the technique which improved
their
ability to respond effectively to major and minor problems as they
arose.
From systems theory, but especially systems dynamics, the importance of
eliciting knowledge for modelling is brought to the fore. A model once
created acts as a conceptual tool. Of course the idea of 'quick and
dirty'
is applied here to refer to the process of creating a rough model first
and
then refining it. Senge in his writings prior to the "Fifth Discipline'
stressed the ideas of the mental model which Piaget and constructivists
would call a 'cognitive construct' which is made up of objects and
concepts
such as 'time' and 'space'. Put these three things together and you can
create an 'action scheme' which is a response to a problem encountered.
But
the ability to respond to perturbations in the operating environment is
essential to our personal survival. We develop as human beings through
learning to cope with these perturbations, and through a process called
equilibration, the world we are able to cope with gets bigger and
bigger.
That is, the more problems we meet and cope with the more we learn.
Complexity theorist Raul Espejo also writes of organisation development
in
these terms. Back to manager education.
It was Jay Hall writing in the 80's (again USA), who said that we are
all
natural problem solvers and the job of 'management' was to create the
resources, knowledge and conditions for employees (managers too) to
excel in
problem solving. What is the university role in this?
First of all we are overloaded with conceptual tools and more and more
are
created every week. Someone mentioned Emotional Intelligence, Maturana,
the
biologist, refers to emotioning as a result of converstations with
others.
We have the toolset associated with BPR, the learning organisation,
Michael
Porter's generic strategies and so on and on. Senge and Kim and other of
their colleagues, such as Anderson, have produced systems archetypes
(being
more precise you would call them process archetypes I suppose), under
the
general title of 'systems thinking', which are wonderful for providing
insights into complex situations. University providers, and companies
like
my own, can pick and choose from hundreds if not thousands of these.
Few of these conceptual tools will be very context specific and are
mostly
general or generic solutions to common problem situations. Max Boisot
essentially a British writer (Information Space and Knowledge Assets)
provides some insights into the nature of generic solutions and other
'theories' and explanations of phenomena which goes something like this.
The manager acts in a concrete world and has to deal with an information
rich context or situation. The general theory of how to act in concrete
situations is codified and abstracted from the concrete (by research
into
managing practices) and is thus not information rich. In order to act
effectively in a particular situation a manager, or anyone else for that
matter, has to be able to deal with the level of information (or data)
that
is necessary for solving a problem in context. Conceptual tools or
action
schemes are triggered in situ and the manager has to assess whether to
apply
or not. Henry Mintzberg described managerial problem solving as a search
for
a solution. If one was not found in the head, then you needed to go to
some
other source of data/information- a book, data base, report or colleague
likely to have met the problem before etc etc. This rationale informed
the
design of early, so-called, knowledge management systems. Eliot Jaques (
A
Canadian but once attached to a UK university) devised a model of a
requisite organisation (book of the same title I belive) in which he
classed
managers by their ability to respond effectively at different levels of
organisational hierarchy. People at the bottom were able to make
decisions
quickly in response to problems that needed to be solved quickly
(problems
to do with production) whilst managers at level 8 were effective at
devising
strategies (organisation designs) in response to emerging trends in the
business environment.
Can you teach a manager the solutions precisely applicable to their
their
own situations.? Strictly the answer would be no. You cannot create the
situations that they might meet with any degree of real complexity. We
can
of course simulate and provide the generic solutions in terms of
conceptual
tools or 'best practice models'. But in the end we cannot MAKE someone
else
learn anything at all.
As one of the contributors noted that the artists who get to Carnegie
Hall
have to practice and practice and this is embedding 'action schemes'
into
the very physicality of the person so they are triggered automatically
in
response to various stimuli. The same goes for athletes and with team
players there is the additional goal of learning to use other people to
achieve a collective aim. (Others become part of the action scheme which
can
be developed in response to the immediate threat of losing the ball to
the
orther side.) We can formally evaluate their competence in
tool/instrument
application through examination, through appraisal systems but on an
every
day basis we evaluate their knowing and competence by what they do. This
very true of team games where everyone in the audience is an expert
coach
and knows precisely what the player should have done as opposed to what
they
did do on the field.
Of course what we can try to do most is help managers cope with
different
situations by helping learners to learn more effectively. Seeley Brown
and
Jean Lave (who along with etienne wenger coined the term community of
practice ) stress the idea of situated learning or situated cognition.
Pat
Scribner uses the phrase 'practical thinking' which seems to mean the
same
thing, an ability to act adequately and apprpropriately in response to
the
problem situation arising. Again in a US context, and with regard to the
development of small business managers, the term 'situation oriented
ability
to act' is used to describe the end-point of a 'lifelong learning'policy
to
create successful small business managers.
What's my experience of applying all this? First of all, in 1990 I
devised
an undergraduate programme in technology management based on a systems
approach and provided a set of systemic thinking tools to enable
students to
solve problems in a project based learning environment. In around 1994 I
began to introduce a problem solving framework for graduate and manager
development programmes run by my group . This framework consists of a 5
stage problem solving or 'solution making, delivery and evaluation'
process
model. In each of the phases I list a set of conceptual tools which can
be
used, some of which are specific to distinct professional groups .
Conceptual tools include some theories but also a lot of analogies. For
example team sports and music composition can be used to help learners
gain
greater insight into organisation design which takes place in the third
phase of solution making and delivery. Alongside the 'tool box' is a
model
of the business enterprise as a solution generator, provider and
supporter.
using this model I effectively capture the manufacturing and service
activity. The emphasis on problem solving/solution making is justified
with
reference to the work of the economist Robert Reich, and others of
similar
mind, who has recognised the rise of the groups of professionals whose
role
in the knowledge intensive economy is to solve complex problems. These
problem solvers Reich refers to as "Symbolic Analysts'.
The real benefit of the framework is that it emphasises to the learner
that
what they do is improve organisational performance, customer/user, and
their
own performance by being better at solution making and delivery. They
know
what tools are best applied at each stage . Moreover because the
'problem
solving process is itself a very generic conceptual tool it can be
applied
to managing, to product design to organisation design which I take to be
the
essence of business planning.
As for leadership vs managing. Like Torbert I view managing as a
technical
role (manager as technician), to do with designing and redesigning
organisations in response to problems met or anticipated. Think of the
agile
company here. A problem requires a fast restructuring of resources to
meet
it a process that might mean creating new types of resource. Leading
on
the other hand is to do with 'emotioning'. Creating a positive emotional
response within a conversation . People we label managers can also be
leaders but leading requires a different set of competences additional
to
those of organisation design and restructuring.The effectivness of
managing
is primarily based on sound problem construction and the creation of
appropriate solutions firstly from within the resources available. (This
by
the way is a principle of TRIZ the Russian theory of inventive problem
solving. (See
http://www.ideationtriz.com for more on this. Ideation Inc
is
based in Michigan, USA)
Some elements of this approach can be seen on the following website with
more to come in the future.
http://www.insighting.co.uk
--
Peter Bond
Lawton-David Associates
For Learning Facilitation and Consultancy in:
Business Planning, Innovation and Knowledge Management.
TEl: +44 (0) 151 638 5941
Mob TEL: 07903 144931