Root Cause LO8133

Mariann Jelinek (mxjeli@mail.wm.edu)
Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:49:13 -0400

Replying to LO8098 --

Dear If,
Thanks for your thoughtful note. The Hurst reference is to CRISIS
& RENEWAL, HBS Press.
I suspect that, in the best of all (learning) organizations,
people would exhibit a constant curiosity about how to "do it better," and
whether to do "something different" in response to change around them.
>From my perspective, we've had nearly a century of organization practice &
theory based on Weber's powerful ideas of bureaucracy - the value (and it
is considerable) of using precedent, seeking to incorporate "best
practice" into routine, and so on. Weber's comment was that the choice was
between bureaucracy and dilittantism, and there's strong evidence (in the
advances in productivity, etc.) to corroborate that perspective.
However, the interconnection of environments globally (worldwide
trade, etc., no less than vastly closer connections for communication and
economic interchange, shared scientific discovery and so on) argue that
the environmental stability that supported bureaucratic approaches has
eroded. Hurst's position, as I understand it, is that the intertia of
organizations means that a "crisis" is essential - whether imposed from
outside the organization, or induced from within, including the perception
by members that change is urgent because of senior management demands
(e.g., GE's Jack Welch saying businesses must be "#1 or 2, show a plan for
how to get there, or risk being divested). The short form is, bureaucracy
says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Hurst suggests instead a
perception that over time, ANY good solution will become "broken" because
the environmental fit upon which it is predicated, degrades with time and
change. Since much human cognition favors habit, and since organizations
are typically predicated on "continuance," some impetus to change is
needed, which Hurst calls "crisis."
It seems to me that the most serious hazards are not so much the
patterns that can be recognized easily as entrapment, so much as those
that appear successful as never before. If Hurst and other cycle theorists
are correct, what was once eminently successful will become less so as a)
it approaches its inherent limits or b) others emulate it, so that it is
no longer distinctive (creating limits eventually). In any case, the
ability to look at the pattern and step outside it, is precisely what is
most difficult. Because we're creatures of habit, because repetition is
highly efficient (and initial diagnosis and new pattern creation are so
difficult and relatively INefficient), this recognition or questioning of
the existing paradigm is fraught with difficulties. Thomas Kuhn's
scientific revolutions ideas hold here, too: the sheef mental efficiency
and comfort of established ways of thinking reinforce them and help to
maintain them for extended periods of time. It is a rare person, a rare
organization imbued with the courage and curiosity, as well as the slack
resources, to constantly experiment. There are some examples - 3M comes to
mind - of firms that constantly recreate themselves, encouraging
creativity.
In short, I agree with the value of cognitive entrepreneurship,
but observe that it's rare and difficult, in part because amidst ordinary
business, such experimentation seems so messy, so inefficient. Yet, when
times get tough, the first reaction is often to strive for efficiency -
extracting the slack that might support experimentation. This appears to
me to be a vicious cycle, but a common one. The vision, courage and daring
to explore goes outside the traditional organization and management model
of the last century, so it looks scarey. A "crisis" - whether or not it's
a "real" crisis in the sense of externally imposed, whether or not "most
people" would so identify it - offers an excuse or rationale for doing
what otherwise seems "inefficient."
I come to my motto by observing how high technology firms struggle
with constantly changing technology, marketplace dynamics, and shifting
personnel over time. Those that succeed over the long term, are those that
repeatedly go back to the well to reconsider how to succeed NOW, knowing
only that whatever succeeded in the past eventually becomes, at best, the
mediocre norm.
I note that all this fits interesting in with the "wealth" notion
you posed to Rol, that order (negative entropy) is what people, and
organizations, value. "Order" can be parsed as perceived predictability;
"crisis," as a breakdown in predictability. We are moved to change when
what we are used to doing is no longer an option, or when it fails to
produce the anticipated results. (However, driven by hopes, we often may
iterate again and again "what we've always done," in hopes that it will
work again, even after repeated experience illustrates that it won't.)
Thanks for your comments, If. You're constantly insightful.

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/>