This is Part 4 of a five part series:
- Part 1 – Background on Organisational Learning
- Part 2 – Organisational Learning for Innovation, Change and Survival
- Part 3 – Organisational Learning and Ethical Considerations
- Part 4 – Organisational Learning for System Integration
- Part 5 – Conclusion and References
Organizations as Organisms
Organizations as organisms have been the underlying metaphor of the Search Conference. As with all metaphors, this indicates a way of seeing and not seeing which inevitably carries with it inherent strengths and weaknesses. The strength of the metaphor lies in the fact that it takes into account the relationship between organizations and environment, and its emphasis on the process of change and innovation.
However, the main limitation is that the metaphor fosters an overly deterministic view of the organization wherein the organization is at the mercy of environmental factors; the environment is the primary focus for change. Additionally, such metaphor also presumes ‘functional unity’ which is more the exception than the norm in organizational life. Furthermore, the metaphor also ignores some of the key players in the social system such as the state.
Integrating a new future with Search Conference
Despite the limitations, the learning component of the Search Conference based on the metaphor of organizations as brains offsets the limitations of its deterministic foundation. Active learning goes beyond the deterministic view of the organismic metaphor: through learning,
individuals and organizations are able to, not only adapt and respond, but more importantly influence the environment, and create the future as it so desires.
Hence, through the Phase three, or Integration of system and environment, the organization based on what it has learned, can create strategies that will create change not only in the system itself but also in the environment on which it is embedded.
Intervention and Learning towards Innovation and Change
The Search Conference (SC) is inextricably linked with organizational learning, since the former is a by product of the latter and vice-versa. This can be clearly illustrated in reference to Senge’s (1994) organizational architecture triumvirate (see Figure 2) linked with the deep-learning or double loop learning cycle (see Figure 1).
Towards guiding ideas to achieve shared vision
The ‘Guiding Ideas’ are formulated through the discipline of shared vision which is practiced in Phase I and II of the SC. Alternatively, the Future Search (Bunker and Alban, 1997) also serves as a tool in facilitating the formulation of ‘guiding ideas’.
‘Innovation of infrastructure’ involves changes in the social structure or organizational structure, which are manifested in work restructure and redesign. The organizational architecture for learning organizations is not complete without the third element, which is theory, methods and tools or ‘bodies of actionable knowledge’. Such are embodied in whole-system participative work, the Phase II and III of the SC, and the whole process in itself.
These elements of the learning architecture are only a tangible form of learning, which is influenced by the less apparent one: the deep learning cycle.
Deep learning uncovers blocks to change
Taking into account the learning component of implementing phase III of the SC would help in identifying and eventually dealing with the constraints of integrating the system and the environment. Ideally, the outcomes of the Search conference would lead to sustainable change and development for the organization. This however, have to be contended with the fact that there exists a probable gap in implementation if the organization is not able to effectively learn at a deeper level.
This means that existing organizational defenses limits the learning capability of the organization and blinds it to the first order error – the corrections needed for the development of the triumvirate. A lack of double-loop learning would also lead to insolvable gaps in explanation regarding misalignment of formulated system with environmental demands, hence leading to ineffective strategies.
Large Group Interventions facilitate integrated innovation and change
Large group intervention techniques (LGIT) for organizational innovation and change impact on the deeper learning processes occurring in the organization. Paradoxically, the deeper learning processes also determine the outcomes and the feasibility of the interventions. LGIT, as epitomized by the “Work Out’ at General Electric (Bunker and Alban, 1997), enables open, fact-based inquiry into the potentially threatening issues faced by the organization.
A safe space for large group transformation
LGIT and the collaborative action-learning process of clients and consultants also provide a structured environment for learning, which facilitates the probing, and resolution of ‘collectively difficult issues’ since it requires sophisticated inquiry skills that some individuals may lack. This provides a balance in the learning process that enables people to ‘receive feedback without loss of self-esteem, collaborate without feeling out of control, and own up to weaknesses without feeling incompetent’. (Beer, et.al., 1996: 14)
Whole System Development
The whole systems development such as the future search and the search conference is the culmination of a historical learning curve of social action. According to Handy (cited in Pedler, 1997) in the 1900s, experts solve problems, in the 1950s, everybody solves problems, in 1965 experts improve whole systems and finally, in the next millennium, everybody improves the whole system. This has been the result of the demands for public learning, changing policies and practices, and true desire for transformation. (Pedler, 1997)
Thus whole system development provides a venue for a high aggregate, deep level learning that serves as the impetus for change, not only for the organization itself, but to its external stakeholders as well.