Becoming a learning organization

Peter Senge, an American business strategist, came up with the concept of 'learning organizations' in his best-selling business management book, The Fifth Discipline. He defined them as companies '... where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.' At the heart of this vision is what he called 'systems thinking' - an ability to see and think about the organization as a whole, not just as a lot of disconnected parts. It emphasizes the need for the whole team to focus, learn, and build a shared vision.

• Do you like the idea of a learning organization?

• Do you see any drawbacks in this approach?

• How realistic is it for a company to become a learning organization?

Read the next part of the text and note the arguments for and against.

It sounds great, but does it actually work in practice? Those who maintain that it does, suggest that it usually leads to improved results. This is because 'systems thinking' means all levels of staff are actively encouraged to be creative and to take a holistic view of the business.

Conversely, there are some who question whether creating a learning organization is possible in the real world. They argue that in most cases a radical structural change to a company's culture is needed There is also a suspicion that while the ideal is to have total employee participation and engagement in the learning process, in reality management will continue to impose values on a reluctant but deferential workforce. The argument against the 'learning organization' concept is that in the long run, what employees really need is to be able to do what they do better, not to spend time worrying about the bigger picture

TEXT 6

Read the text and answer the questions:

1. What is the most critical part of organizational change that happens during that period?

2. What are the three main responses to proposals for change?

3. How might employees behave if they support the change/ are not sure about the change/ are against the change?

CHANGE

Getting any organization to change is a slow process, but it's the initial stage - when the change is first announced - that is by far the most important. That's when the people in an organization start thinking about how the change will affect them personally. They weigh up the pros and cons and ask questions about its usefulness. Reactions will range from enthusiastic support, to apathy, to rejection. The people affected by the change will typically fall into the following three groups.

The supporters

If they can see the advantages of the change, your supporters will try to persuade their colleagues to accept it. They'll take an active part in the process and will do their best to understand the new procedures and adapt to new programmes.

The ambivalent

They can see that the proposals have good and bad points, but they may be nervous about the idea of change and feel anxious about changes to their current situation. They may oppose some of the ideas, but, given enough pressure, they'll eventually accept the changes as necessary. They won't be antagonistic, but they won't be committed either.

The opponents

These are going to be the biggest problem. They'll be difficult, rebellious and unwilling, and will try hard to resist the change. If they do eventually agree to it, they will still feel resentful and will be constantly watching for the slightest mistake. If they can't sabotage the new ways of working, they may react by becoming apathetic and doing as little work as possible.

Clearly, it's an advantage to have few 'opponents' in an organization, and the challenge is to create real enthusiasm and commitment, and get enough people 'on board' in support of the change. The key thing is to involve staff at the very beginning in the problem-solving phase. If you do, they're much more likely to be positive and enthusiastic about the solution.

Task I. One successful sales company had a unique organization layout. At the top of the chart was the most important person in the whole operation – the customer. This labeled «customer» was linked with lines to boxes of functions dealing directly with the customer – sales person, technical service, order clerk, credit clerk, etc. Try to draw your own organization chart, starting with the customer.

Task II. Work in pairs or in small groups. Discuss and decide what should be regulated by government and what should be left to the private sector (education, health care, housing, social security, defense, public transport, sale of alcohol, sale of tobacco, press, broadcasting, entertainment)? Why? Give your reasons. Don’t forget to use the conversational formulas from File Useful Language.

Task III. Read the following abstract. Express your agreement or disagreement with the idea expressed in it. Give your comments.

In his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, philosopher Francis Fukuyama observed that societies worldwide can be divided into two kinds: "high-trust" and "low-trust." He also argues that the highest-trust societies—those in which integrity is most admired, encouraged, and respected—are also the most law-abiding, free, and prosperous.

At the other end of the societal spectrum, however, are those societies characterized by tyranny, thievery, dishonesty, and corruption. Each of these are, without exception, both undemocratic and poor.

Trust Is the Key. Trust is the lubricant of human relationships. Where there is high trust among and between people, economic activity flourishes and there are opportunities for all. On the other hand, where there is low trust, economic resources are squandered in an attempt to protect against thievery and corruption—or these resources are not available at all.

Task IV. Read the following text and summarize it in English.

Бизнес на условиях партнерства – явление довольно распространенное в Беларуси. Достаточно часто успешные компании создаются друзьями. Однако бизнес на условиях партнерства имеет свою специфику.

Совместная работа меняет отношения, и даже самая крепкая дружба в бизнесе подвергается опасности. И чем крепче дружба, тем более подробно должна быть прописана тема развода в контракте.

Конечно, это вовсе не обязательно, что партнеры по бизнесу когда-то разойдутся, но такое развитие событий вполне вероятно. Скажем, бизнес не получился – компания в убытках, и в какой-то момент становится совершенно ясно, что она не поднимется. Вот и причина для развода. Или совершенно противоположный вариант. Бизнес развивается отлично, у партнеров одинаковая система ценностей, взгляды на предприятие совпадают. Такая идиллия продолжается десять лет или даже двадцать. А потом выясняется, что у партнеров разные планы на будущее, системы приоритетов обоих партнеров становятся несовместимы друг с другом. А значит, им придется разводиться. И хорошо, если условия развода были предусмотрены в контракте. Хороший контракт позволяет развестись с горечью, но без ненависти.

К сожалению, законодательство не всегда позволяет учесть все вопросы, необходимые для такого рода соглашений. Но в любом случае, если договоренности обоих партнеров закреплены документально, появляются основания для того, чтобы принять взаимоприемлемое решение. Партнеры могут мирным путем достичь согласия, опираясь на контракт, либо пригласить в качестве третейского судьи человека, которому оба доверяют. Обращаться в суд можно в случае, если не сработают эти варианты решения проблемы.

При создании бизнеса на партнерских условиях в контракте необходимо предусмотреть следующие моменты: должна быть прописана политика начисления дивидендов, права и льготы учредителей, необходимо изначально оговорить, будет ли меняться состав партнеров и, если придут новые партнеры, как будут строиться отношения с ними. И конечно же, в контракте необходимо определить, каким образом принимаются решения. Наихудший вариант – пятьдесят на пятьдесят, то есть когда у партнеров равное право голоса. Должен быть кто-то один, кто возьмет на себя ответственность и скажет: будет так. Бизнес – это ведь не математика: оба предлагаемых решения могут оказаться правильными. Но необходимо выбрать и реализовать только одно из них.

Task V. Read the following dialogues. Try to guess the meaning of the business idioms given in bold. Give their Russian equivalents.

1. A: How did lunch go, Jane?

B: Well, a lot of small talk. We never really got down to the nitty-gritty.

A: That's a shame; I was hoping we'd get the contract sewn up.

2. A: Surely you weren't happy about the deal with Kinlan?

B: Of course not! I told you, I had misgivings right from the start.

3. A: The contract at last! Terrific!

B: Let's read the small print first, shall we, before we get carried away.

4. A: I think McCollum's overdoing it.

B: I agree. He looks as if he's on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

5. A: Really, the crunch came when Kinlan asked for another six weeks to settle.

B: That does sound a bit much. That's putting it mildly.

6. A: Weren't you a bit taken aback when Richard told you about the American?

B: Of course. It cut the ground from under our feet with van Brasil.

7. A: What's this you've just dumped on my desk?

B: Oh, nothing much — a run-of-the-mill job... just a bit of proof-reading.

A: Yes, but eight hundred pages! It's a bit much...