Def of Learning Org LO4644

Roy Winkler (rwinkler@iquest.net)
Fri, 05 Jan 1996 19:47:19 -0800

Replying to LO4611 --

Michael McMaster wrote:
> If heirarchies are inimical to organisational learning - not a proven
> fact - then are "flattened heirarchies" better at learning?

They are not. Hierarchies simply work against communication
dynamics. There are many filters of communication. Status is one of
them. The rule goes thusly: Any person of inferior status (read that:
reporting position on the organizational chart) has ideas of lesser value
than those of superior status or position in the organization. In
addition, the person of inferior status shall enjoy less overt access to
anyone of superior status.
If you've worked in a large organization, you will probably know
exactly what I mean. All tall hierarchies are based on the military
model of organizations, which was the best model available when
corporations became common in the mid to late 1800's. Previous
businesses were run by kings, countries, families or individual owners
for the most part. The military model calls for a hierarchical
structure based on the span-of-control capacity of a human being as
estimated by the military official designing the thing. At each level of
the military hierarchy, there is person who is vested with authority.
This authority is virtually absolute and carries with it the capacity to
punish subordinates.
Communication and learnings are therefore communicated downwards
much more effectively than upwards. To communicate downwards is natural.
To communicate upwards may bring retribution.

-- 
@__Roy_J._Winkler,_AAS,_BSM...
@__Consultant/Facilitator/Trainer__UAW-GM
@__Organization/Human-Resource_Development
@__Anderson,_Indiana,__USA__ rwinkler@iquest.net