Knowledge repository/"Intranet" LO7931

Mariann Jelinek (mxjeli@mail.wm.edu)
Mon, 17 Jun 1996 21:26:51 -0400

Replying to LO7872 --

Tee hee! I loved Michael Erickson's account of his kind of
networking - he gives a whole new meaning to "the web," and, having gone
through a web - er, ropes - course with my MBAs a few years ago, I cheer in
remembrance. Good for you, Michael!
There ae several threads (~!) going on our list about knowledge,
routine and not; about who's got knowledge and how it enters organizations,
or how organizational knowledge changes. Clearly one route in has to be new
people (if only they're listened to). Another route in, is learning by
those inside, whether crisis induced (as David Hurst suggests may be
essential); serendipitous; or even deliberately created by the "crazies"
like Michel, who dare to explore the edges, think beyond the "efficient"
ways of working, and "play" enough to generate new knowledge.
It seems to me that organizations have an on-going balancing act
required, to maintain enough efficiency to pay the bills, earn some profit
and such-like, while also supporting enough "INefficient" exploration of
fringes, play, research or dabbling to keep the creative fires lit. Several
have commented that IBM (for instance) tried to keep its "wild geese"
around for the day when they might be needed; 3M has quite deliberately
sstructured rewards and expectations into its culture around innovation,
including significant requirements for "new" products each year; TI has
(like other companies) used the "Fellows" concept to legitimate creativity.
Japanese firms are reputed to have the most junior member of the team take
notes, so that person's perspective gets into the interpretation. And so
on. None of these is, in the accounting sense, "efficient" in the short
term - but economic efficiency is disastrous in the long term, hence our
paradox: "efficiency" ultimately needs "inefficiency."
Early sociotechnical systems theory used a concept of
"organizational slack" that has long fascinated me, because "wild geese,"
innovators and "websters" like Mike all represent crucial forms of
organizational slack, the extra capacity - often developed on their own
time, as a hobby, or in play - from which creative solutions, new ideas and
innovations come. This is "slack" only in the sense that it's not needed at
precisely this red-hot instant. No organization can run fully loaded for
long, and equally, too much slack, especially if not directed toward
something eventually useful, or eventually connected to the work of the
organization, also fails. Isn't "slack" thus different from waste - but
isn't one person's "slack" another's waste?
Perhaps the leadership challenge is maintaining enough fringe to
renourish the system, while keeping the wild geese orbiting back into the
midst of things often enough .

Sam


MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU
Mariann Jelinek
Richard C. Kraemer Professor of Business
Graduate School of Business,
College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, VA 23185

Tel. (804) 221-2882 FAX: (804) 229-6135
************************************************************************
The only enduring strategic advantage is the ability
to change the rules of the game.

-- 

mxjeli@mail.wm.edu (Mariann Jelinek)

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>