More than a decade ago, an OD interventionist was asked to
look into the possibility of addressing a large industrial organisation’s
effectiveness. The call from the scion came in the wake of a successful
turnaround the consultant facilitated at one of its sick units with no capital
intensive machinery or import of manufacturing process. That was the method of
behavioral science applied for sure. However, at the company’s parent unit,
profit and relative health hid many a malaise. On first visit to the campus
township, the consultant was given a walk through its plant layout and
production process. The perceptive consultant brought two symptomatic features
among many to do the top management’s attention. Both were to with the concern for
quality.
1.
Heaps of foundry sand were lying in the yard. On
asking work supervisors as to what purpose the sand served within, there was no
ready response. On the orders of the enthused leadership, the sand was ordered
to be removed, and lo and behold tons of molten scrap which could be reused in
the plant’s foundry were recovered. The work-in-process inventory was actually
lying in the yard, covered in sand. Later it turned out, that six months of
purchase of foundry material were saved in this ‘surprise detection’.
2.
Going through the machining sections, the
consultant observed that go and no-go gauges used to check thickness of the
machined part were not at the work-station. On gentle enquiry, the workman
conceded that they were stashed away in his work locker. He brought the
incomplete set of gauges to demonstrate safe-keeping (albeit incomplete). On
checking for thickness with the available ones, the machined part was found to
be deviant from productions standard. The workman’s habit went ceremoniously
unchecked, and ‘visual’ quality inspection was now the de-facto empowerment
when in fact cost of repair and rework went unaccounted, in the demand to
fulfillment cycle.
Today, the above can be said to be rationalized as the
creeping effects of unchecked work habits. The only difference was that when
the phenomenon was investigated deeper, the root cause was traced to a curious
syndrome of a dysfunctional social hierarchy that juxtaposed power relations
and access to a parallel economy. Influential supervisors made sure that rework
jobs were outsourced to small scale units where private wealth of regular
managers at the plant was reaping from the inefficiencies of the main plant. An
ethical fallout of such a political minefield was waiting to explode. Like the
Abilene paradox, the risk of avoiding the obvious truth became greater than the
risk of stating the obvious at the workplace.
At another location, again involving a sick-unit, I was
myself witness to a socially mind-blind take-over. While the acquirer went
about reconditioning the sick-plant for production, the original workforces of
the local unit were being re-inducted in staggered manner. Two of them took me
aside and said they were accounting the inventory in stock for over two months
without being paid despite an appointment order. They attributed this to the
absence of a Personnel Officer from the parent company during the take-over
phase. On bringing this to the notice of the ‘covenanted’ Plant Manager, he was
aghast and ordered immediate payment of the salaries in cash! The staff members
lay prostrate at my feet in an unforgettable sight for me. They then invited me
over to their personal homes for tea, in what I witnessed as the powerlessness
of a community robbed of dignity and honor by an unethical and unscrupulous
former management who allegedly milked their company finances and decamped to
their havens in a stealth operation of hideous texture. A sheer look at the
abandoned air-strip, colonial trappings of the residential colony and the fine
crockery that the local cooks and servants preserved, was a sheer undercurrent
of exploitative capitalism.
Both of the above stories are true. Masking the identities of
these organisations, does not obfuscate the truth. The purpose of narrating
them is to drive home the usefulness of understanding how phenomena such as
these go unchecked and undetected in organisational routine, before they
blow-up with damaging consequences to not only the exploiters, but those who
are the survivors of such seemingly incomprehensible ‘dharam-sankats’. Let
us assume for a moment, that such dilemmas exist in your own organisations.
What can you do about them? Here’s what you could do to make the undiscussables discussable.
1.
Encourage the parties involved to examine the
inconsistencies and gaps that underlie the reasoning behind their actions.
2.
Make explicit the rules that ‘must’ be in their
reasoning to produce the actions they subscribe to
3.
If any shock or surprise is expressed in this
process, use this as observable data to surface the validity of what is being
learned by the members
4.
Produce opportunities to practice stating the
truth and designing for actions that enhance internal commitment to mutually
beneficial goals.
a.
From being systematically unaware of the
consequences of their actions, they become aware in a non-threatening way of
how they affect the organisational system
b.
Enable them with education in thinking
(cognition) and action (behavior) that enhances perceptiveness of unawareness
c.
Develop maps of defensive routines that produce
unintended consequences and socialise the nature of single-loop and double-loop
learning
5.
Develop a learning case as in the example below
from the manufacturing plant that led to deep reflection of how the worker
community learnt at the workplace.
In the short example below, I have brought to you episodic
illustrations of phenomena you may quickly identify with in your day job.
Leaders now confronted with a knowledge workforce cannot use unassailable power
and position to ‘drive’ their points of view as though no other views exist.
Leaders who face ongoing patterns of blockages and ‘stuck’
issues need to look at the governing issues of their situation. Leaders are often unaware in India of their theories in use, due to the deep hierarchy that
goes unquestioned and untested for its relevance to order and effectiveness.
They are slow to get feedback.
Table 1 : Excerpt from Conversation
between the Stores supervisor and the Plant Manager
Thoughts and Feelings Not Communicated
|
Actual Conversation
|
He is not
going to like this topic and he will take offence to my bringing it up as part
of my work
|
SS : Sir,
I have checked to valve components in stock. We have two dozen in stock for
the sluices on the effluent pipes, but most of them have rusted and not
likely to be effective.
Plant Manager : I am glad you made this list. When can we have the complete list?
|
I had better
go slow. Let me slow down the pace of my disclosures.
|
SS :
In the past the valves in stock were ineffective because of poor quality. The
chances are that even these in stock will be rejected by the Maintenance
department. My fear is that the Materials Department will have a difficult
time sourcing the right valves from the local market.
Plant Manager : I don’t understand. Tell me more
|
Like hell you
don’t understand. You are exploiting me like our previous management. How can
I be more gentle with you?
|
SS : sir,
I’m sure you are aware of the reasons ( and explains a bit…)
Plant Manager : No, I do not see it that way. It is my production and engineers
who are key to the future…
|
There he goes
again, thinking as a ‘corporate’ officer, just because he is in charge
|
SS : Sir,
let us wait and see when production begins..
|
Models of theories-in-use
The construction Argyris developed in order to explain
theories-in-use is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Model explaining the process of developing theories-in use.
Governing variables are values which the person is
trying to keep within some acceptable range. We have many governing
variables. Any action will likely impact upon a number of these variables.
Therefore any situation may trigger a trade-off among governing variables.
Action strategies are strategies used by the person to
keep their governing values within the acceptable range.
These strategies will have consequences which are
both intended -- those the actor believes will result --
and unintended.
An example may help to illustrate this process. A
person may have a governing variable of suppressing conflict, and one
of being competent. In any given situation he or she will
design action strategies to keep both these governing variables
within acceptable limits. For instance, in a conflict situation he or she
might avoid the discussion of the conflict situation and say as little as
possible. This avoidance may (he or she hopes) suppress the conflict, yet
allow her or him to appear competent because he or she at least hasn't said
anything wrong. This strategy will have
various consequences both for her or him and the others
involved. An intended consequence might be that the other
parties will eventually give up the discussion, thereby successfully
suppressing the conflict. As he or she has said little, he or she may
feel he or she has not left herself open to being seen as incompetent.
An unintended consequence might be that the he or she thinks the
situation has been left unresolved and therefore likely to recur, and feels
dissatisfied. To sum up, we can see that there are a number of elements to
Argyris’ model which help explain how we
link our thoughts and actions. These elements are:
1.
Governing Variables (or values)
2.
Action Strategies
3.
Intended and unintended Consequences for
self
4.
Intended and unintended Consequences for
others
5.
Action strategy effectiveness.
Another possible response would be to examine and change the
governing values themselves. For example, the person might choose to
critically examine the governing value of suppressing conflict. This may
lead to discarding this value and substituting a new value such as open
inquiry. The associated action strategy might be to discuss the issue openly.
Therefore in this case both the governing variable and the action strategy have
changed. This would constitute double-loop learning. See
Figure 2.
Conclusion : Human Resource Leaders have reached a
point of heightened strategic relevance. Their rising up to this occasion would
imply mastering the art of facilitating outcomes in productive learning
environments, which may run counter to exigent conditions of productive
performance climates at first instance. Large organisations, are especially
prone to experience the dysfunctions and defensive routines that creep through
the untested climates of status quo aided by time and deceptive comfort in
face-saving behaviors. Debate and challenge to status quo are paradoxical
attributes of effective organisations. Else blow-ups and scandals will permeate
the timescapes of our skilled slumber while unconsciously learning incompetent
modes of organisational response.
References:
Argyris C (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defenses:
Facilitating Organizational Learning, Allyn and Bacon.
