Wheatley Dialogue LO10390

JC Howell (orgpsych@csra.net)
Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:32:15 -0400

Replying to LO10309 --

In LO10309 Bill Hobler wrote:

> I observe that many downsizing evolutions result in releasing long term
> employees while retaining the newest. I ask whether the loss of system
> memory and knowledge of the longer term workers is balanced by the
> reduction in labor cost?
>
*SNIP*
>
> It is because the evolution may not be in directions of value to the
> system that the ability to perceive the evolution and make corrective
> changes is so valuable. Further, it is because these evolutions are
> occurring so rapidly that organizations must respond rapidly. In some
> (many) businesses a six month delay between evolutionary event and
> business response is much too long.

This brings to mind the subject of intuition which I posted to in another
thread. If we clearly see and understand ths system, we may, in fact be
looking at the trees rather than the forest. A solid, in depth
understanding of any system will allow action to affect the system without
necessarily addressing specific sub-elements in a calculated manner. It
also, though, can allow us to "see" aspects which are not there to the
so-called naked or scientific eye.

Downsizing organizations discard age and experience because they aren't
interested in those aspects any longer. They are interesed in money.
Older, more experienced employees cost more ... younger ones cost less.
Obviously the action is beiung "seen" from very different perspectives.
The question here is which perspective is "correct?"

> It is because the evolution may not be in directions of value to the
> system that the ability to perceive the evolution and make corrective
> changes is so valuable.

Many said that television was just a fad and saw no reason to continue
with the development of such a lark. Still others wondered who in their
right mond would want to replace the human brain, or human effort, with a
machine such as a computer? Both were deviations from the system that
existed at the time. Both are inseparable parts of everyday life for many
today. Without continued development of the computer and getting past the
perspective of "Who would want a computer in their home anyway?" you, I
and everyone else in this list would not be communicating as we are today.
Yet, it would have been easy to dismiss the PC and its predecessors as
aberations and move to keep everything "on track." There are solid
arguments that television and the internet have wrought many social
problems since their introduction to the public.

Jack Hershfeld speaks of a defense of the scientific method in another
posting. That, in conjunction with this, makes me wonder whether we can
actually do what we are talking about here without discarding, at some
level, that same scientific method. In order to fully use the scientific
method we must first evaluate and judge. Then we seek to prove or
disporove that evaluation or judgement through what we call hypothesis
testing. Any researcher who has seriously done this activity can
understand how data can be skewed to support hypotheses by some and skewed
to disprove those same hypotheses by others.

The scientific method is simply that ... a method. Like any method, it
should be "rigidly flexible" to provide discipline in our approach, yet
allow enough manuvering room to pursue a "hunch" when one comes along.
Often such hunches are based on desire. They are also based, though, on
an intuitive level of understanding of a system or situation.

IMO, those who are driving downsizing efforts have made a subjective
judgement that money is more important than capacity or knowledge or long
term learning. Those who would condemn such downsizing efforts have made
a subjective judgement that money is less important and that experience
and sharing of knowledge to maintian capacities or continue to grow in
quality and product development. Which is right?

Maybe the company that slashes their experience base in pursuit of money,
and ends up a victim of corporate anorexia, is "supposed to" go away to
make room for a replacement that is more appropriate to the evolving
system.

It all depends on which judgements you make ... how you choose to "see"
the world. If we totally suspend judgement we move solidly into the
position of observer. This may sound like a preferred position to hold,
but it is difficult to influence any system from the position of an
observer. Once you abandon that position and attempt to influence any
development, you have made judgements and adopted a particular way of
"seeing" the system you wish to influence. This, then, threatens to
negate your objectivity and brings back the question, "How do you know
that your judgements and assumptions are correct?"

What a delimma, huh?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

--

Clyde Howell orgpsych@csra.net

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