I have been reading a number of your learning-org contributions
and noting the 'down-under' slant to your content. Your 19 Jan
reply to Lou's message about efficiency has given me the
opportunity to bring this slant to the surface and make a
cross-cultural archetype connection.
In your message you stated:
>... you seem to be making the assumption that quality of
>service is simply a matter of efficiency. I suspect however that perception
>of quality of service is also related to the attitude and behaviour of the
>front-line service provided, say the check-out person.
>In the check-out example, I would argue that overall quality of service has
>probably not increased - you may spend less time waiting, but the
>unmotivated check-out person would not make the experience pleasant. The
>relationship between service provider and service receiver is part of the
>service.
>I believe there are real risks for an organisation if it applies technology
>without carefully looking at its effects on the attitudes and behaviour of
>the staff. The "learning organisation" has to take a more holistic view of
>service.
In 1994 Telecom Australia undertook an 'archetype' study similar to one
done by AT&T in the mid-80s. These and other similar studies found
the following differences in cultural understandings/shared meanings
of QUALITY:
Germany = standards
Japan = perfection
France = luxury
United States = "it works"
Australia = relationships
It would seem then that your view is 'typically' Australian and
Lou's is 'typically' U.S. (or I should say 'archetypical' to be exact).
On the debate of speed?
It may be that this string has been originated and maintained because
some people are questioning the basic belief systems that are
shaping technology and information. "it works" sounds very much
like "efficiency" (although effectiveness is surly an element of
this too). If we are to question the speed/efficiency archetype
should we not also question the others?
Lessons for the learning organisation?
We are living through a number of interlocking and overlaying
cultures each with its own variation on archetypes. The 'quality'
archetypes referred to above present an opportunity to explain
to the uninitiated what 'shared meanings' are in a context they
can easily recognise.
When questioning archetypes within an organisation it is important
to recognise the national/cultural archetypes that may exist as
underlying features of an organisational and even work unit culture.
This would seem to be an important part of taking the holistic view.
**************************************************************
Sebastian Harvey
Bureau of Meteorology Training Centre
Melbourne, Australia.
ph (+61 3 6694384) fax (+61 3 6694366)
email (S.Harvey@BoM.GOV.AU)
**************************************************************