In deze thumbnail muur hebben we een aantal video fragmenten verzameld, vaak met bekende denkers en auteurs rond thema zoals organisatieontwikkeling en leiderschap in organisaties. Klik op een thumbnail om een viewer te openen waar je die video kan bekijken maar ook kunt navigeren naar alle andere video's.
Chris Argyris on Culture and Management
Generative Images
Joseph Kessels over Gespreid Leiderschap (In Dutch)
Frank van Massenhoven over co-creatie en the wisdom of crowds (In Dutch)
Frederic Laloux talks about his book on Reinventing Organizations
Harrison Owen about the importance and breakthrough thinking in Open Space technology (with French s
Nassim Taleb explains in Antifragile how an organization and we as individuals can cope with a very
The Cradle to Cradle as a new principle for development ?
Ricardo Semler on Semco and maximizing contribution of all
Itay Talgam using conductors to reflect on the essence of leadership
A Peacock in the Land of the Penguins, or how difficult it can be to built a truly diverse organizat
Gervase Bushe & Robert Marshak: First International Conference on Dialogic Organization Development
David Garvin and Amy Edmondson on Learning Organizations.
Ed Schein interviewed on Organizational Culture and Leadership.
Gary Hamel on reinventing organizations and management
Dave Snowden on Cynefin as a leader's framework for decision making in complexity.
Etienne Wenger elaborates on social learning and communities of practice
Gervase Bushe on Clear Leadership
-
Chris Argyris on Culture and Management
Over the past decade, I have been studying the ways executives reason while they are solving difficult human and technical problems. The executive mind seems to work in bewildering ways, a few of which I will discuss in this article. For one thing, I have identified a pattern of three nested paradoxes embedded in executive reasoning. First, the reasoning executives use to manage people and technical issues leads simultaneously to productive and to counterproductive consequences. Second, they are unaware of this feature because they are disconnected from their own reasoning processes while making tough decisions. Third, they are disconnected from their reasoning processes because of the skills they have mastered to solve tough problems. The skills that lead to success will also lead to failure. How can the same reasoning necessarily lead to productive and counterproductive consequences? How can people act and at the same time be disconnected from their reasoning processes? And why is it necessary for them to be disconnected from their reasoning processes in order to solve difficult problems? What impact do these features have on executive problem solving and on the organization? These nested paradoxes indicate that we are dealing with some deeply embedded features of the human mind. And it is the executive mind that concerns us because executives are most often held responsible for dealing with the difficult issues in organizations and in society at large. (excerpt from : Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1982. © 1982, AWCOM Periodicals Division, American Management Associations. -
Generative Images
Vision, strategy, … once logical concepts in organizational development look less adapted for a very volatile business environment. It creates followership but risks to lead everybody into selective blindness, not seing that the world has change and the once so 'clear goal' has disappeared from the radarscreen. Gervase Bushe proposes an alternative concept : GENERATIVE IMAGE -
Joseph Kessels over Gespreid Leiderschap (In Dutch)
-
Frank van Massenhoven over co-creatie en the wisdom of crowds (In Dutch)
-
Frederic Laloux talks about his book on Reinventing Organizations
In his 2014 book Reinventing Organizations, former McKinsey & Company consultant Frederic Laloux draws on numerous case studies to explore the constraints of today’s predominant “command and control” organizational model, and to provide compelling examples of an emerging model of self-managing teams that is achieving impressive results across a wide range of industries. Zappos is currently using his book as a guide in its comprehensive organizational transformation, and we at Converge drew on the book to help inspire and inform our own selfmanaging team structure. Can we create organizations free of the pathologies that show up all too often in the workplace? Free of politics, bureaucracy, and infighting; free of stress and burnout; free of resignation, resentment and apathy, free of the posturing at the top and the drudgery at the bottom? Can we create soulful workplaces – schools, hospitals, businesses and nonprofits – where we can shed our mask and where our talents can blossom and our callings can be honored? -
Harrison Owen about the importance and breakthrough thinking in Open Space technology (with French s
-
Nassim Taleb explains in Antifragile how an organization and we as individuals can cope with a very
Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty. Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon, there is no word for the exact opposite of fragile. Let us call it antifragile. Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better. This property is behind everything that has changed with time: evolution, culture, ideas, revolutions, political systems, technological innovation, cultural and economic success, corporate survival, good recipes (say, chicken soup or steak tartare with a drop of cognac), the rise of cities, cultures, legal systems, equatorial forests, bacterial resistance … even our own existence as a species on this planet. And antifragility determines the boundary between what is living and organic (or complex), say, the human body, and what is inert, say, a physical object like the stapler on your desk. The antifragile loves randomness and uncertainty, which also means—crucially—a love of errors, a certain class of errors. Antifragility has a singular property of allowing us to deal with the unknown, to do things without understanding them—and do them well. Let me be more aggressive: we are largely better at doing than we are at thinking, thanks to antifragility. I’d rather be dumb and antifragile than extremely smart and fragile, any time. (excerpt from the book) -
The Cradle to Cradle as a new principle for development ?
Cradle to Cradle, coined by Walter R. Stahel in the 1970s and popularized by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their 2002 book of the same name. This framework seeks to create production techniques that are not just efficient but are essentially waste free. In cradle-to-cradle production, all material inputs and outputs are seen either as technical or biological nutrients. Technical nutrients can be recycled or reused with no loss of quality and biological nutrients composted or consumed. By contrast, cradle-to-grave refers to a company taking responsibility for the disposal of goods it has produced, but not necessarily putting products’ constituent components back into service. -
Ricardo Semler on Semco and maximizing contribution of all
-
Itay Talgam using conductors to reflect on the essence of leadership
-
A Peacock in the Land of the Penguins, or how difficult it can be to built a truly diverse organizat
This little film is about how difficult is to embrace diversity and new and innovative thinking in a set corporate culture. -
Gervase Bushe & Robert Marshak: First International Conference on Dialogic Organization Development
The “visionary leader” narrative and Performance Mindset that predominate in theories and practices of change leadership are no longer effective in an environment of multi-dimensional diversity marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Developments over the past thirty years in organization development theory and practice, which have led to what we call Dialogic Organization Development, implicitly suggest a different leadership narrative and mindset are needed. Consistent with transformational OD practice, seven core assumptions of a Dialogic Mindset for leaders are described. Relying on one person to “show the way” has become a barrier to leaders enacting the kind of emergent change processes needed in rapidly changing, complex organizations. The contours of a new leadership narrative are identified followed by a discussion of the implications for leadership development. -
David Garvin and Amy Edmondson on Learning Organizations.
There are six common characteristics that are necessary for an effective learning organization but these are frequently missing from organizations, whether public and private, for profit or non-profit. To encourage learning in organizations, first you need a culture that is willing to stimulate, to test and to adopt new ideas. Second you need a learning culture that encourages and rewards skill-development. Third, and this is probably the most difficult, to be a learning culture you must recognize and accept differences. A learning culture will not attempt to create a homogeneous pool of employees, or encourage a homogeneous set of attitudes or perspectives. It will encourage people who think differently, will actively encourage dissent, disagreement and debate. The fourth requirement is to provide timely, accurate feedback, not just on individual performance but on corporate and organizationwide initiatives. This will involve pursuing regular feedback from customers and suppliers. Then, the fifth requirement is for a culture that encourages appropriate risk-taking and learning from mistakes. But there are two quite different kinds of mistakes – those that are wellintentioned and informed, based on the very best information available at the time, and those that are poorly informed, that reflect improper thinking, improper reasoning, insufficient datacollection. The latter are generally not to be tolerated. Very few organizations will accept mediocrity. Meanwhile learning cultures encourage learning from the former. The final requirement for a learning culture is the wide sharing of knowledge in a reward collaboration both within the company and also with partners such as suppliers and customers. Here the barrier is pretty obvious. (Excerpt from interview with David Garvin. Source : http://first.emeraldinsight.com/interviews/pdf/garvin.pdf -
Ed Schein interviewed on Organizational Culture and Leadership.
The ability to create new organizational forms and processes, to innovate in both the technical and organizational arenas, is crucial to remaining competitive in an increasingly turbulent world. But this kind of organizational learning requires not only the invention of new forms but also their adoption and diffusion to the other relevant parts of the organization and to other organizations in a given industry. Organizations still have not learned how to manage that process. The examples of successful organizational learning we have seen either tend to be short-run adaptive learning — doing better at what we are already doing — or, if they are genuine innovations, tend to be isolated and eventually subverted and abandoned. For example, a new product development team in a large auto company worked with the MIT Organizational Learning Center to develop a capacity for learning. By using various techniques derived from “action science,” systems dynamics, and organization development, the team created high levels of openness between hierarchical levels and increased communication and trust among its members.1 This openness and trust permitted team members to reveal engineering design problems as they arose instead of waiting until they had solutions, as prior tradition in this company had dictated.2 Early identification of those problems was crucial in order to avoid later interactive effects that would require costly, complex redesigns. For example, changing the chassis design might increase weight, which might require a different tire design, which, in turn, might cause more internal noise, and so on. By revealing such problems early, the team could view the whole car more systemically and could therefore speed up redesign. From : Edgar H. Schein., Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning. MIT Sloan Management, October 15, 1996. -
Gary Hamel on reinventing organizations and management
In most organizations the costs of bureaucracy are largely hidden. Our accounting systems don’t measure the costs of inertia, insularity, disempowerment, and all the other forms of bureaucratic drag. Nowhere do we capture the costs of a management model that perpetuates a caste system of thinkers (managers) and doers (everyone else), that regards human beings as mere “resources,” that values conformance above all else, that squeezes people into slot-shaped roles irrespective of their innate capabilities, that swallows up human initiative in the quicksand of bureaucratic busy-work, and that regards freedom as a dangerous threat to alignment and discipline. (From : Gary Hamel & Michele Zanini., What We Learned About Bureaucracy from 7,000 HBR Readers. HBR, August 10, 2017) -
Dave Snowden on Cynefin as a leader's framework for decision making in complexity.
At the heart of Cynefin is an argument against universal approaches, in favour of using a contextually appropriate solution. It frankly amazes me that this is considered novel or revolutionary in nature. There is a British phrase that is appropriate here: horses for courses. Before placing a bet you check out the track record of horse on different ground. Some do better on heavy, some on dry and so on. Different things work or don’ t work in different contexts. Over the years I have been increasingly frustrated by advocates of valuable new things who feel that their enthusiasm should be shared by everyone else, be universal in application and involve the ritual burning of all that has happened in the past; a bonfire of vanities. Over the decades I have seen it with successive management fads, some of which have high utility some little, but all appropriate in context. Business Process Re-engineering provided value, but it claimed universality and failed, Six Sigma was a lets do it harder and see if it works this time attempt to overcome that which of course made things worse. We had the Learning Organisation, Blue and Red Oceans, Balanced Score Cards and now Agile. All devoid of underlying theory other than in retrospect, mostly providing value, but only within context despite the claim of Universal application. Each fad then attracts its own followers, masters of retrospective coherence who ride the waves of fashion. Cynefin is about saying that, in the main, most things had value within context and started to fail when they moved outside of that context. Often advocates simply failed to understand that and were more concerned to condemn heretics that to create something of lasting value. They avoided the very simply truth that condemning what went before does not of itself legitimise what you propose as an alternative. This approach also allows for change and movement between applications as a field emerges and the entry of new ways of thinking under conditions of uncertainty. (excerpt from a Blog by Dave Snowden at : http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/a-forward-to-a-cynefin-book/ -
Etienne Wenger elaborates on social learning and communities of practice
Our institutions, to the extent that they address issues of learning explicitly, are largely based on the assumption that learning is an individual process, that it has a beginning and an end, that it is best separated from the rest of our activities, and that it is the result of teaching. Hence we arrange classrooms where students – free from the distractions of their participation in the outside world – can pay attention to a teacher or focus on exercises. We design computer-based training programs that walk students through individualized sessions covering reams of information and drill practice. To assess learning we use tests with which students struggle in one-on-one combat, where knowledge must be demonstrated out of context, and where collaborating is considered cheating. As a result, much of our institutionalized teaching and training is perceived by would-be learners as irrelevant, and most of us come out of this treatment feeling that learning is boring and arduous, and that we are not really cut out for it. So, what if we adopted a different perspective, one that placed learning in the context of our lived experience of participation in the world? What if we assumed that learning is as much a part of our human nature as eating or sleeping, that it is both life-sustaining and inevitable, and that – given a chance – we are quite good at it? And what if, in addition, we assumed that learning is, in its essence, a fundamentally social phenomenon, reflecting our own deeply social nature as human beings capable of knowing? Excerpt from : Wenger, E. (1998). Introduction: A social theory of learning. In Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, pp. 3-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Gervase Bushe on Clear Leadership
All over the world we are witnessing a revolution in organizing. Just as the industrial revolution created its new form of organization (bureaucracy) the information revolution is creating its own new form of organization. We are moving from command and control to collaboration, from organizing based on a few leaders telling everyone what to do to dispersed leadership, with managers, professionals and teams authorized to make their own decisions. In the 80’s and 90’s I was involved in designing these new organizational structures – team based manufacturing, cross-functional teams, delayered and network organizations, and so on. The combination of information technology and new forms of organizing have resulted in an explosion in innovation in how we structure organizations, all intended to increase the capacity for people to collaborate – to harness the intelligence, knowledge, and commitment of everyone in the system. Yet, few of these innovations have lived up to their promise. Studies of innovative work systems show that most of them revert back to command and control within a few years. In the 90’s I became fascinated with why that happens – why are we unable to sustain collaborative organizations? Almost all the leaders I meet in the public and private sectors want to create collaborative work systems. Almost all the professionals, managers and employees I meet want to work in collaborative work systems. It’s not a motivation problem. I’ve come to believe that the problem is that we are using outmoded definitions of leadership, teamwork and people skills. Our images of how to manage people and teams are still rooted in the past. We’ve created amazing new organizational forms but we’re trying to run them the same old way. The core of the problem, as I see it, can be captured in the following story. It’s a story about a branch of a company run by a man who prides himself on being a collaborative leader. All the managers who work in it want to work in a collaborative organization. Many of them think things in this organization are pretty good. See if it’s at all familiar to you.
