Falling Up

For this week, I want to reflect on a conversation I had with my boss this past Friday night.  He has heard me ramble on about org culture/learning all semester, and is generally used to me spouting Adult Learning stuff during staff meetings.  But Friday, after the rush died down in the dining room, we each had a glass of wine and chatted about the restaurant for a while.  I ended up talking about Schein’s thoughts on how the owner/founder is the person who initially forms and creates an org’s culture, and that beyond that beginning, it becomes very hard to change a culture.  I have been at the restaurant for almost 14 of its 22 years, and he and I are probably the 2 that have exerted the most effort for the longest time to “fix” the things we don’t like.

Let me pause for a second and say that I haven’t painted the store in the best light in class.  But, it is actually a very successful restaurant, sales-wise, but also successful in terms of having extremely devoted regulars, great food (in my opinion), AND it’s clean, which is hard to come by.  So despite my griping, the restaurant isn’t a bad place at all.  Our complaints are mostly due to the fact that while we have a fun, loving staff, we are a bit lax with them, and so we’ve got a culture that lets people off the hook too easily, which creates a chaotic environment and somewhat lazy workers.  Specifically, I am in charge of the waitstaff, who for the most part are decent.  But because we never really fire someone unless they don’t show up, steal or some other egregious offense, we have a lot of B- servers where we should really have all A+ servers at this point.

The owner and I discussed how he and his business partner didn’t really intentionally create some parts of the culture, so that without a plan for certain things, our culture has some elements that have sort of created themselves.  These parts of our culture are the ones that frustrate us:  the ones we didn’t plan for, but that are  very dysfunctional.  We don’t know how to un-create them.  We discussed that really, it isn’t the problem, but how it’s managed, which stinks because um….we’re the two that manage them.  Sigh…

And for me personally, that has been the pit in my stomach all semester: I’ve learned all of this a bit too late.  I told the owner that if I had never worked there, and came in today with what I’ve learned, it might even be easier to change things that way than to try to un-learn and un-do everything I’ve done in the last 14 years.  Jointly we acknowledge that we’ve made TONS of improvement, even in the last 3 to 5 years, and we are proud of those changes, but that it really is supremely hard to tame this beast.  Schein was not kidding about how hard it is. 

My plans now are to be “retired” from the restaurant by March.  I feel already a little defeated, especially anytime I have to remind a server for the 1.5 millionth time to give a customer a wine menu.  My goal now is to use as much as I’ve learned before I leave to push the waitstaff even just the slightest bit closer to our goal.   I realize that 5 months isn’t much time, but I will be satisfied if I can carry out the steps flawlessly, as Peter Block says, even if mountains don’t move.

Ughhh… what a week.  I think my professors have conspired to make the next couple weeks until Thanksgiving as hectic as possible.  This week alone I have 2 group presentations, a paper, a journal entry and 2 blogs (and 1 mirror response)…. and that doesn’t include reading for all three classes.  Sigh.  I am falling drastically behind.  Ironically, in my Group Counseling class, we’ve been running mock support groups on “Stress Management” and one of the recurring themes for me in those sessions has been my lack of sleep. I have been trying to do better about getting more than my average 5-6 hours a night so that I don’t feel so unhealthy so often.  But tonight, it’s midnight and I still have a LOT to do!  I think my support group is causing MORE stress in that it simply raises my awareness of how much stress I’m under this semester.  In that case, ignorance was bliss.

Anyway, this has been “one of those weeks” at work where nothing goes right.  And I am, for sure, part of the problem.  Worse, it is a conflict resolution type of problem, which is my “specialty”, so to speak, and I am still not having much success with it.  The basic gist of it is that my co-worker calls out sick quite frequently, and I am always the one expected to cover for her.  At this point, after so many sick calls from her, we are somewhat skeptical about the nature of her “sickness”…it seems to be that she only gets sick on weekends…hmmm…  Because I am crazily busy this semester, I can’t usually cover for her…which isn’t really my responsibility anyway, but I had offered to pick up shifts if I can.  That’s enough background for now.  The long and short of it is that I feel like she thinks I’m not pulling my weight, and that I get special treatment, and I feel like she is NOT SICK every other Saturday ( I mean, please…) and that she is misunderstanding my position at the store (which is slightly different than the other managers’ positions).

Now, I am somehow engaged in a silent battle against this person.  By silent, I mean that although there is a very large elephant in the room, I have reverted to my childhood tendency to not say a word when I am angry.  And if you know me at all, you’ll recognize what a feat this is.  For whatever reason, I’ve always become very quiet when I’m upset.  I feel like a 5 year old though, because I am well-versed in all of the correct ways to handle conflict assertively, but really, I just want to throw a hissy fit with her.  And since I can’t, I’ve hardly said 3 words to her in as many shifts.  Sigh…It’s much easier to be a conflict expert when it’s someone else’s conflict!

At least it has been interesting to observe my own behavior in this conflict.  I am aware that I am defensive, nervous, feeling attacked and frustrated.  I am aware that I think I have done what I am supposed to do and all that I could do, and have acknowledged when I could have done more.  I’ve caught myself going up the ladder of inference, and have made myself come back down.  At least I’m learning something.

I was really looking forward to having a productive dialogue Friday at our weekly managers’ meeting, and resolving this conflict, but the meeting got postponed.  That’s definitely part of our culture- to delay important conversations.  And even though I am acknowledging that I am giving my co-worker the silent treatment currently, I did NOT want to postpone that meeting!  I was ready to have some dialogue and discuss the issues, but no one else wanted to set aside time for the meeting.  I think that’s when I became nervous and defensive- when I lost that controlled space to discuss things rationally.  Now I don’t know when it will come up or if it will, which definitely triples the stress level…

This post is long and rambling, I realize, but my last thought is related to our cultural analysis paper… I’m aware that this person is fairly new to our store, and she clashes in many ways with our culture.  In this conflict we’re having, I’ve recognized that part of it stems from her reacting to our culture and not liking a lot of what she sees.  It’s definitely true that when someone “different” comes into a culture, you can see elements (artifacts, espoused values) a lot more clearly. 

Reading Chapters 8-11 in Schein reminded me of a course I took during my undergrad studies.  I majored in International Relations, with a focus in international communication, and a required course was Cross-Cultural Communications.  There was also a follow up course in Intercultural Communications.  The first course was amazing…. and covered a lot of the aspects of culture that Schein touches on:  time, space, relationships and so on.  The professor had done quite a bit of traveling as well as a good deal of negotiating internationally. He was chock full of anecdotes about the tricky business of understanding those cultural differences in his work.

 (La Boca, Buenos Aires, Argentina)

I took the course right after I had studied abroad in Argentina for a semester.  That trip abroad was my first time traveling out of the country, and I was terribly, horribly ill when I first arrived in country.  I would attend classes during the week, but it seemed like by the time Thursday and Friday rolled around, I would get sick with these terrible stomach pains.  For the first 4 weekends, I laid in bed.  My host mother must’ve thought I was dying.  One weekend, a study abroad friend insisted that I join them for a night of dancing. I went reluctantly, and never felt sick again.

When I returned again and took the Cross Cultural Communications course, the professor talked at length about culture- and reverse culture- shock.  I learned that one of the results of culture shock is often physical stress.   I had essentially made myself sick with homesickness and culture shock in Argentina, and it wasn’t until I began to get out there and emerge myself in the culture that I began to feel better.  I wish I’d known that before the trip!

I remember the professor saying that it isn’t so much learning the new culture that’s hard.  It’s seeing our own culture out of context, and recognizing things that we do and say, and how we act, that is strange and hard to understand.  I’ve traveled a bit since then, and it never fails that I always see some aspect of US culture in a totally different light when witnessing a different way of life.  That is why Schein’s chapters reminded me of this episode.  Beyond actually understanding cultural elements, it is often hard enough just to SEE them, to become aware of aspects of our cultural selves.  In organizational terms, it is essential to recognize these differences in work cultures… especially (in light of our study of NASA and Enron) when to fail to do so can make us sick.

Wow, I am really behind with my blogging!  Between my boss being out out of work for two weeks (I’ve been filling in for him…) and Edublogs being down, I’ve now got 2 posts to write for each class.  Ack!  Anyway, I’ve been doing homework all day today so I’m going to attempt to stop and post as I read things that strike me.

First, I’ve been reviewing Dixon and Schein, and about the idea of leaders creating cultures, and it reminded me of a silly anecdote from the restaurant where I manage.  I would say that I have helped shape the culture there quite a bit, as I’ve worked there a while and am responsible for certain decisions.  Of course, I don’t normally think about it as “culture creation”, I think of it as just doing my job.  But in a way, when we chane policies or require staff to work differently, we are somehow saying something about what we value, be it consistency of product, great customer service, etc.

Yesterday, I was brewing tea with some of the waitstaff, and commented that one way to know that the tea is finished brewing is by putting the top back on it (This is a short version, and no, that is not as obvious a solution as you might think).  One of the waitstaff commented, “Oh, so we put the top back on it and that’s how we know that it’s done?” and I mentioned to her that I’d been trying to pass that idea on for a few months now as just “something we do”, so that we’re all on the same page.  The problem we’re trying to avoid is that sometimes people start serving the tea before it’s been brewed long enough, and since the top is off during brewing, an easy way to communicate that it is finished is by not putting the top on until it’s done.  But I hadn’t been ordering people to do it, I’d simply been mentioning it as a “given”, and it dawned on me that I was trying to make something become a habit.  I did not want to issue a memo, or command people to do it, I was just trying to casually build it in to what we do.  I wish I could remember how I phrased it, because I was immediately aware that what I was saying was an effort to subtly change how we “do things”. 

And if I look around the restaurant, I can definitely notice things that we once had to force people to do that are now second nature.  So, in a small, possibly very insignificant way, I can actually “see” the organization changing over time.  Putting tops on tea isn’t “cultural” I suppose, but the way I was going about it seemed that way to me.   A random story, I know.   

Exemplars of Organizational Learning:  Southwest Airlines

(This post is an assignment for my Organizational Learning course at Virginia Commonwealth University- analysis of organizational learning at Southwest Airlines using Nancy Dixon’s (1999) theoretical framework and organizational learning cycle.)

     As long as I have been flying, I have always loved, or ‘luved’, I should say, Southwest Airlines.  It is a constant source of dismay for me that the airline does not fly out of Richmond, because I prefer to fly with them whenever I can.  Their airline attendants and pilots always have so much fun with the guests, singing, cracking jokes over the intercom, and finding ways to make even the shortest of flights entertaining.  Long before I spent time thinking about organizational learning, I knew that Southwest was not your typical company.  So, when searching for “exemplars of organizational learning” for this paper, it really was no surprise to see Southwest pop up quite frequently in the literature.  Using Nancy Dixon’s theoretical framework for organizational learning, I will examine what Southwest is and does- its culture and its practices- that makes it stand apart from other major airlines.

What is Organizational Learning?

     Dixon writes that organizational learning is quite different than individual learning.  For the latter, learning is the search for one right answer.  For individual learners, there is an expert out there has that one answer, and learning involves finding the experts and obtaining that one right answer.  Organizational learning differs for a number of reasons.  First, for organizations there is usually more than one “right” answer, and these answers are not known just by one expert.  Instead, those people who are affected or concerned by a problem or question are usually able to solve a problem without experts.  Furthermore, learning is not a matter of memorizing facts and data, but is rather an ongoing task of creating processes that occur during learning.  Organizational learning is on-going and is never an end state, but a continuous effort that helps organizations improve over time to the benefit of its shareholders (Dixon, 1999).

      Why is it important that organizations learn?  As we face the looming financial crisis, the answer is apparent; if organizations cannot keep up with an ever-changing world, they will not survive. Organizational learning is what keeps a company from repeating mistakes, and what reminds them to continue successful practices.  This is essential in a world that changes by the hour, by the second.  By using Dixon’s model, we can determine if Southwest is in fact an organization that learns, which may help predict its success in the future.

Dixon’s Model

     Dixon’s framework for organizational learning includes several key ideas and concepts.  First, she believes that organizational learning must occur collectively and actively.  Individuals make meaning and sense out of experiences every day.  Sometimes these meanings are shared and other times meanings stay private.  Occasionally, meanings are shared among colleagues, within departments. This does create learning, but on an individual basis, or perhaps even on a departmental level, but not at a whole-system level (1999, pg. 45).  Dixon argues that the key words are collectively and actively.  Meaning-making needs to happen intentionally and purposefully at a whole-system level in order for true organizational learning to occur.  Dixon describes the type of environment where collective learning can occur as hallway learning.  Many of us have experienced this phenomenon; we sit in a weekend-long conference but learn the most at a lunchtime conversation.  We’re in meetings all day but gain the most useful information on a break at the snack machine.  These hallway conversations are beneficial because they are perhaps the most genuine and offer the most useful information instead of typical rhetoric.  Dixon says that this type of collective meaning-making is what is needed, but that literal hallways alone are not enough.  Organizations must create processes that simulate the conditions of those meaningful hallway conversations.  These processes must be focused and intentional.  She identifies 6 characteristics needed to facilitate collective meaning-making:  dialogue instead of speeches, an egalitarian culture, the presence of multiple perspectives, non-expert based insight, participant-generated data, and shared experiences.  Later, I will note which of these characteristics are present in Southwest’s culture.

     Lastly, Dixon argues that a 4-stage cycle must occur for ideas to be generated, spread throughout an organization, understood, and to eventually lead to true organizational learning.  Dixon’s 4 stages begin with the widespread generation of information throughout an organization, followed by an integration of that information into the local context of the organization.  Next, the organization must, as a whole, interpret what that information means, and lastly, the organization’s members must have authority to act on that new information.  This cycle occurs repeatedly, and as members take action based on new information, the cycle often starts anew.   I will take a closer look at these steps as they occurred with Southwest Airlines.   With these basic concepts outlined, we can now take a look at various elements of Southwest Airlines that are congruent with Dixon’s framework for organizational learning.

The Southwest Way

     In order to examine whether Southwest truly is an organization that learns, it is important to understand a little about the company itself.  Southwest was founded in 1971 in Texas by Herb Kelleher and Rollin King. The company was designed to market itself to Texas travelers going short distances who might otherwise drive.  The airline promoted short flights with no frills, but the lowest prices.  Since its inception, the company has recorded over 35 years of profit, an anomaly in an industry that has taken hard hits, particularly since September 11, 2001.  Southwest is also unique in its friendly relations with unions; over 85% of Southwest workers are unionized, and as of 2001, the company had never had a workers’ strike in its history.  The accolades continue; Southwest is repeatedly voted airline with the best customer service, friendliest airline, a top place to work, least customer complaints, and more (Smith, G., 2004).

     Southwest promotes the ideals of the “Southwest Way”, which has three components: a warrior spirit, a servant’s heart, and a fun- luving attitude (Bryant, 2007).  The fun-loving nature of the company is not an accident; Southwest’s founder, Herb Kelleher, has defined Southwest culture from day one.  His strong personality and spontaneous and fun-loving nature is certainly the reason that the company has adopted similar values.  The company stresses shared goals and shared knowledge in order to reduce blaming, and expects its employees to treat each other as good as or better than they would treat their customers.  Interestingly, Southwest hires people for attitude, and not for skill, insisting that skill can be taught, but an attitude may not change.  The Southwest approach is unique, and particularly so for the airline industry.  While these attributes describe a positive organizational culture, this brief description is not alone sufficient to show that organizational learning happens collectively and actively.  The next sections will examine specific practices that Southwest employs that align with Dixon’s model of organizational learning.

Stage 1:  Widespread Generation of Information

     Southwest takes learning very seriously…but firmly believes that learning should be fun!  This is not surprising for a company whose “Southwest Way” attitude places fun as one of 3 core values.  To that end, the company promotes ongoing, progressive, engaging and experiential learning (Bryant, E., 2007).   Its culture also embraces Dixon’s concept of hallway learning quite literally, as evidenced by the presence of rocking chairs in the hallways of its corporate offices!  These chairs are intentionally there to create spaces for informal dialogue, impromptu meetings and relationship building (Emerald Group Publishing, 2005). 

     Herb Kelleher, Southwest’s founder, former CEO and Chairman of the Board, created a culture where everyone’s opinion is valued.  Employees are expected and encouraged to come up with new ideas and experiment with them, and sharing opinions and suggestions is likewise encouraged.  The company is also notoriously anti-hierarchical; upper management members spend 1 day each quarter working in various lower fields in order to stay in touch with what happens on the ground (Bunz & Maes, 1998).

     The company also supports the creation of new information by its emphasis on teams and shared goals.  Work is shared and crosses over departments, creating a need to communicate knowledge and share ideas across what in other organizations are typically borders.  Kelleher also admits that he goes to the field to check out new ideas, acknowledging that people on the ground will know long before he will if an idea is any good:

     That’s why, before you implement an idea that’s been generated in the office, you should always take it to the field and ask for their criticisms.  Pretty soon the idea will look like Swiss cheese- full of holes.  They know what they’re doing and we don’t.  They’ll know right away, “This won’t work, that won’t work, let me tell you why, this won’t fit that.”  And they get it all right!  “You can do it, but not the way you’re talking about.” (Lee, no date, pg. 70)

     As a leader, Kelleher exemplifies collaborative learning and sets an example that everyone can learn from everyone.  Southwest, under his leadership, does appear to promote innovation and widespread information gathering.

Integration into the local context

     The second phase of Dixon’s cycle involves spreading accurate, complete and timely information across an organization.  The airline appears to do this quite well, again beginning with Kelleher setting an exemplary example.  Kelleher, as CEO was said to know thousands of employees by name, and responded to all emails and letters personally.  The company is disdainful of formalities and stresses informal and frequent communication with its employees.  Some of the literature suggests that this open communication is one of the reasons that Southwest employees are so loyal:  because they feel informed at all times and important, they are more involved and committed to the company (Bunz & Maes, 1998). 

     Another indication that Southwest does disseminate information openly and accurately is shown by the company’s willingness to share financial information with all staff members.  Colleen Barrett, current CEO of Southwest, says that Southwest has “always been transparent about sharing financials with employees” (Bryant, 2007, pg. 39).  To make this sharing of information more relevant, the company also offers financial training to staff members whose job functions do not normally include understanding the finance side of the business.  The company even paired up with a learning company to design a board game that teaches business strategy and finance.  Barrett comments that “It is important that we provide business acumen and financial training that helps them understand the decisions behind the numbers…. Active participation by learners who are given the opportunity to explore information and ideas helps get them engaged in the learning process.” (39).

Shared interpretation of information

     Southwest Airlines has some basic characteristics that make collective meaning making possible.  First, while the company has grown tremendously since 1971, the leadership still strives to keep the company as small as it can be.  It also tries to keep its structure fairly flat and not hierarchical.  In her own case studies, Dixon points out that these two characteristics- small size and flat organization structure- seem to lend themselves well to organizational learning, although this has not been proven. Bunz and Maes write that a flat structure at Southwest simplified channels of communication, arguing that a more hierarchical system takes longer to make decisions and spread information (1998).

     I previously outlined 6 characteristics of organizations that tend to foster collective meaning-making: dialogue instead of speeches, multiple perspectives, egalitarianism, non-expert based, participant generated, and shared experience. Southwest demonstrates many of these, but I will address just 3 here.  First, the company stays away from more formalized “programs of the month”, such as HR models that change with the wind.  Herb Kelleher, noted as an honest and open speaker, communicated directly to his staff, responding to emails himself and often spending time on the floor learning from and talking to his staff.   Kelleher once said, “[Communication] can’t be rigid, can’t be formal.  It has to proceed directly from the heart.  It has to be spontaneous, it has to be between individuals seeing each other in the elevator.  Communication is not getting up and giving formal speeches.  It’s saying, “Hey Dave, how you doing?” (Lee, no date). This is an environment that clearly has dialogue instead of speeches; Kelleher views those as un-authentic and unlikely to last.  Instead, relationships are stressed, and casual conversations and cross-cutting ties prevail.  As an example of Southwest’s commitment to real dialogue, the company leadership was reading a book on organizational teams and realized that its family-style approach was inhibiting its employees from offering frank feedback to each other.  The company was quick to acknowledge that this did in fact happen, and worked immediately to train all employees in giving and receiving quality feedback (Bryant, 2007). 

     Next, the company website lists egalitarianism as a corporate value.   Of course, simply listing something as true does not make it happen, but examples abound of a culture that is in fact egalitarian in nature.  Besides the aforementioned relatively flat structure, employees are encouraged to move around into different positions as they see fit. Employees may transfer departments laterally, moving up, or even moving downwards, in what is referred to as the career “lattice” instead of ladder (Bryant, 2007).  Also, as mentioned earlier, work is frequently performed across divisions, so that there is little blaming and more cooperation.  The result is a workforce that is not highly splintered and layered, and where every employee is treated as important to the company’s success.

     Lastly, Southwest does display a culture where multiple perspectives are available and where employees have frequent access to others whose ideas and opinions might vary.  The research shows that Southwest employees frequently work in teams made up of various types of workers, so pilots and attendants work closely with engineers and marketing reps.  Even at orientation for new employees, the trainees hear from a variety of people, including some of the top leadership members, to get a well-rounded view of the Southwest culture and practice.  What Dixon tells us is that the presence of these characteristics is useful in creating an environment where shared meaning making can occur.  Because of its egalitarian, cross-cutting culture and open communication systems, Southwest is set up to foster meaning making in its day to day activities.

Authority to act on new information

     Southwest truly embodies this element of Dixon’s cycle, and it is this embodiment that is what makes flying with Southwest fun.  Employees are encouraged and expected to act on new information and employees have “extensive operational freedom” to make changes as needed.  A great example of this occurred in Southwest’s first years operating.  These years were financially very difficult as Southwest struggled to compete with much larger airlines.  The leadership, instead of simply laying off workers (typical for the airline industry), decided to turn the problem over to its staff.   Herb Kelleher informed them of the financial details and asked them how to fix it.  Because the staff valued job security, they implemented several steps to avoid layoffs and protected every job.  One major idea that came out of this involved turn-around time for a plane landing and the same plane taking off again.  Southwest pilots made their money in the air and not on the ground, so the employees thought this was a good area on which to focus and came up with ideas to reduce turn-around time on the ground.  Flight attendants would clean the plane themselves, eliminating the need to use (and pay for) cleaning services at each airport, and ground time was reduced by 40 minutes, down to just 15 minutes in between flights! (Smith, G. 2004).  Kelleher recalls this story as the beginning of a culture that encouraged everyone to take part in decision-making based on relevant information, and Southwest continue to provide its employees with important data so that they can make appropriate adjustments. 

     Another great example of this occurs during flights.  Because Southwest traditionally has not served meals (part of the “no frills” approach), the flight attendants and pilots have made it part of their routine to make the flight more fun.  One story is that at the check in desk of one airport, Southwest employees offered a free flight to the first passenger to have holes in his or her socks!  On board, attendants have been known to sing or even rap the safety briefing, and the pilots on one of my own flights cracked jokes over the loudspeaker throughout the flight. 

     A final and more touching sign of this authority to act on new information occurred after 9/11.  During the months following the World Trade Center attacks, most airlines suffered debilitating losses and as a result, thousands of airline workers were laid off.  At Southwest, the leadership again offered the problem to its employees, and managed to come up with alternative money-saving ideas rather than lay off a single person.  Some employees that were already considering other careers offered to leave.  Others took sabbaticals or vacation time on their own accord.  Some staff took pay cuts.  None of these actions were mandated by the leadership, but were the initiatives of the employees who valued job stability for everyone. 

     This is both part of the culture of Southwest, and also a sign of successful organizational learning. Kelleher explains that as Southwest grew and competed, it realized it needed to carve out a niche to gain loyal customers, and that niche has been in the development of their unique approach to customer service and teamwork.  From the beginning, employees have been treated as equals throughout the organization, allowing voices to be heard and actions to be taken at every level. The top leadership at Southwest Airlines is well aware of the reasons that an organization must continue to learn collectively.   CEO Colleen Barrett summed it up well by saying, “We work in an ever-changing environment.  Almost daily, we receive Federal Aviation Authority mandates.  Change is a constant, and we know that to change is to survive….yesterday’s performance will not win in the future” (Bryant, 2007, 38).

The Future

      The literature that I read shows me that Southwest proves to be an excellent example of a learning organization.  From its flat structure to its cross-cutting employee teams, from the involvement of upper management in everyday activities to the rocking chairs in the halls and songs on the planes, it appears that Southwest has consistently understood the need to collectively and actively learn in order to progress.  As I researched Southwest Airlines, I became aware that much of the literature is several years old.  While it appears that as late as 2007 the company was still embodying traits associated with organizational learning, it remains to be seen how the company has shifted since Herb Kelleher’s departure, as it was his dominant, humorous, impressive spirit that created this Southwest culture.  Additionally, the current financial struggle could prove to dismantle even the most stable of companies.  However, with over 30 years of success- both financially and in terms of its reputation- Southwest certainly has a head start and a good foundation in organizational learning that could prove strong enough to weather significant changes in the future.

I enjoyed this week’s readings on org culture… I studied Anthropology as an undergrad, so looking at culture is always interesting to me.  Actually, I am currently perplexed about my own organization’s culture.  I work at a restaurant, and have worked there for almost 14 years…a long time!  Over the years, I have had a bigger and bigger role in determining the rules, regs, values and so on of the store.  I would say that I have probably shaped the culture in some ways.  Last night, I was reading over some old notes that I had written to the waitstaff, more or less blessing them out for a particularly crummy Friday night shift.  I laughed, thinking of how much my attitude has changed since beginning this Adult Learning masters program.  However, as I thought over the various approaches I’ve tried, I realized that none of them have been more or less effective than others.  It seems that sometimes I just can’t evoke the change I want to see in the store.  Or, I can’t do it alone; in many years the other managers and I have been on different pages, which is still a very different page from the one the Owner is on! 

I wonder if I’ve been trying- especially these last couple of years since I began grad school- to somehow change the culture.  Ok, no wondering… I definitely have been trying to change the culture.  And it is SO hard!  But in our case, a shift is definitely needed.  We have inconsistent practices, an unclear purpose and often conflicting policies and practices.  I guess what Schein might say is that it would require an overhaul by the leadership in order to really change things in the store. For better or worse, we have a leader who’s not really an “overhaul” kind of guy, which might explain our constant state of flux in the store.  As someone who is studying org culture, it drives me a bit batty that I can’t quite pinpoint the culture I’ve lived in for so long.

It’s 1:30 am…or 2:30 am, depending on which time zone you’re in, and I’ve just settled into my hotel room in Austin, TX, where I’ll be for the next couple days.  I’m here attending the national conference on Conflict Resolution.   I have been waiting for this conference for months, which sounds pretty dorky, but I’ve got high hopes!  I need a job, a thesis idea, and, I love the BookPeople (local bookstore) and Austin in general!  So, I’m looking forward to the next few days.  I just finished browsing the workshops being offered, and they all sound spectacular.  There are workshops on cross-cultural issues in mediation, forgiveness, the war in Iraq, doing conflict resolution with kids, gosh, millions more and I am going to have SUCH a hard time picking just a few to attend.  I really love a good speaker and I have a great feeling that this conference will really help me focus in on how to finish up my last semester of school and make plans for a career.

Of course, being here means I will be missing class tomorrow, so I wanted to jot some thoughts on the flute article…Yanow and Cook.  I read that article and felt kind of sheepish.  As I read it, Cook and Yanow write it sounding a bit exasperated with the standard school of thought, which is, naturally, what I had subscribed to until I finished reading the article on the plane.  I majored in Anthropology in undergrad, and I feel like I should’ve “known” that culture was going to tie in somewhere.  Of course, I am just learning all of this, so I don’t feel too bad.  But I loved their premise, and it does make much more sense than the other two theories on org learning. 

It’s funny, their argument that org learning is a group’s ability to ‘learn how to do what it does’, which builds an organizational culture over time, sort of addresses some of my gripes in previous posts about how hard it is to get people and orgs to change.  I was looking at it from the individualist view, and was stressed out just thinking about trying to get ALllllll of those people to change.  But looking through a cultural lens makes more sense to me, and also explains why it is in fact so hard to change sometimes- it is never as simple as getting a few people to change their minds or their ways.  Darn.

Old School mediation:

I better stop here…those great workshops won’t be too great if I’m falling asleep through them.  But, I will try to blog more throughout the weekend.  Last, thanks to my mirrors and others who left such nice thoughts for me about my confidence woes last week.  What a lift!

This week we read about the creation of the Hubble telescope and all of the problems that arose during that process.  As I read, I recalled that last semester in Dr. Carter’s groups and teams class, we also read about NASA and another disastrous project (can’t recall if it was the Challenger explosion or something else?).  Man, talk about an organizational culture.  If you couldn’t “see” that concept before- if the idea of organizations having a culture seemed vague before- then this should clear it up for you.  As I read the article, I lost track of how many times it was written that someone ‘thought they should do something, but decided not to’, or didn’t feel like they could, or was denied access to something, told not to worry about something….and so on.  Not to mention how many times it occured that there was no more money or no more time…

I am neither a huge fan of Nasa nor do I think it’s a waste of money.  I’m fairly indifferent.  But if we’re going to spend all of those billions of dollars, it seems that “quality” would have been of more concern to the different agencies involved in building Hubble.  Although, as a layperson and not a scientist, I have to say that  incorrect curve in the mirror or not, that thing is still kicking out some pretty amazing images!:

 Beautiful! 

But I imagine that as a scientist for Nasa or for the company that manufactured the null corrector and mirrors, it’s a bittersweet image.  I was also struck by the ownership of information in the story of the Hubble.  It seems only the people who weren’t really around, but who controlled the purse strings could really make any decisions regarding quality control with the telescope.  The people that were on the floor, the scientists, knew what they were doing  but essentially had no power to  make the right decisions.  Or, in the aftermath, claimed that they felt powerless to do something.  Peripheral folks- outside observers, consultants- who felt that there could be glitches were told to buzz off by the people who “knew what they were doing”.  This egoism by the scientists could be their own reaction to being held powerless themselves.  But in such a technical case, which such specific knowledge, what a tragedy it is that the knowledge was almost useless.  So much for the expression “Knowledge is Power”.

It isn’t really a shocker that only the money-holders had power.  That seems to be always the case.  But when you read a full example of the huge misfortune this can bring, it really hits home.  Think about the levees in New Orleans, or any number of architectural and engineered structures designed to keep us safe.  Can we assume that the people in the know have the power to access their knowledge and make the right calls?

I woke up early today to work on my wiki post for this class, and had a hard time focusing my thoughts because I was feeling very cynical about organizational development in general.  Then, I read a couple of classmates’ posts, and found that their thoughts tied into my cynicism.  Since that seems to be my theme for the day, I think I’ll stick with it for this post as well.

Are all OD people just naive?  Or is everyone else just in the dark?  I say this because I keep encountering folks who laugh at my thoughts on OD as silly.  I really enjoy my OD-type classes, and I’m admittedly an easy sell:  I think this stuff just makes SO much sense once you explore it.  Similarly, at my job at a teambuilding company, I encounter people (clients, not the staff!)  who think it’s so cheesy and/or ineffective, but to me again it seems like a no-brainer.  We are, fortunately, frequently able to change their minds.  So, are OD people just overly optimistic, unrealistic, idealogues who really think that companies should re-arrange their desks and change how they address their employees and things will improve?  Obviously that’s oversimplifying things, but I at least do believe that the literature on OD is moving in the right direction, and it requires every company to take a good look at what they’re trying to get from their company and from their employees, at who they want to be, and if what they’re currently doing will get them there.  It reminds me of that quote… if you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.

I felt better today after reading in Chapter 5 of Dixon that she seems to suggest that many companies do not do a lot of this ‘OD’ stuff.  I’m not just a cynic, it really isn’t happening.  Now I’m just depressed.  If this is such a great way to organize our work-world, how the heck do we convince everyone else?  It seems like we have such a monumental task in front of us. 

My younger sister and I were talking about her company last night.  As she describes the silly things they’ve done in the process of merging several companies into one, I’m struck by all that they are doing “right” (by OD standards, anyway).  She sees my point, but also thinks some of it is frivolous and a waste of money (mostly renaming all staff in an effort to be consistent and help all employees feel like a “family”…she thinks that’s silly and costly).  But I was energized to hear that there is someone out there who keeps one eye on what kind of culture they want their organization to have, what type of company they want to be. It is refreshing for me, personally, to work at the teambuilding company, because it requires me to think in that mode and to strive for better than the average business model.

I like that question a lot:  what kind of culture do you want your organization to have?  It’s not much different than asking ourselves what kind of person do we want to be; what kind of character do we want to have?

Tonight was my first night in 623- Organizational Learning.  I spent the last couple of days trying to catch up because I’ve missed 2 classes already, and I have read through some of the wiki and blog posts… Sounds like I have already missed a lot of great discussions!  But this is why I selected this course to be my last ”for the fun of it” course… lots of great people in there with good ideas and thoughtful reflections.  So I am looking forward to being a part of it!

We covered a lot in class and I know I should have a lot to say about organizational learning in general, but there was one thing that stuck out towards the end of class that really caught me.  I wanted to blog it down before I forot it.  It was during our discussion on the bratwurst company, and somewhere (either in the paper from last year or maybe in their website?) Dr. Carter read that they value “Un-learning”.  That is, when they find out something doesn’t work, the company values being able to LET GO of an idea and move along to exploring what DOES work.  My first thought was, “How refreshing!”  Being willing to un-learn something is such a valuable skill and one that I feel like is hard to find.  People get attached, personally, to ideas, to methods, to doing something just because “that is the way it is done”, and lose track, sometimes, of examining WHY we are doing something.  And when we discover that an idea or method doesn’t work, or doesn’t help us reach our goals, it is really in our best interest to un-learn it with cheer, since it isn’t working for us anyway.  But I know in my own experience it is very difficult to get people (myself included, sometimes) to take a good look at the ‘why behind the what’ and then be able to change courses if needed.   Even at the teambuilding company where I work, it is difficult.  There, at least, we are aware of the habit and try to call ourselves on it when we identify bad habits.  But if it’s hard to do at a teambuilding company, how much harder is it in an environment that’s even less cognizant of un-learning?

If I can get political here for a second, I’ve been saying for a while that a trait I admire in politicians is their ability to continually evaluate issues and decisions, to keep up as issues move and change and require new thinking.  I am happy to have a word for this now; I admire politicians who are willing to UN-learn ideas that do not work any longer, without ego, embarrassment or shame. 

Off the soapbox now.  I will also add though that this relates well to my field of Conflict Resolution, in that many of our conflicts (and the way that they are handled) are the results of our ability or inability to un-learn our ways of dealing with conflict: how we talk to people (or not), how we go about negotiating with people, etc. 

I see this aspect of an organization’s culture as being so important.  Being able to un-learn can really encourage progress/change/empowerment, but being stuck in our ways when life is saying otherwise can really ruin an organization.