Eric Verbeek - Learning Log

Understanding the new global business environment

Personal Learning Log Eric Verbeek RSM-EMBA 2005

It is not difficult
It is different
and different
is worse than
difficult

The development of the three scenarios on the future of the global economy in 2020 has been a rewarding experience: the process is more important than the final result, i.e. the three stories. In a way, the process of thinking through all future possibilities is the final result. It was hard to let go of my beliefs that I had prior to the scenario process. The beliefs that I had, packed together in a mental model, created a kind of mental cage: all my observations were connected and matched to this model. Information that did not fit in the model was neglected, since they did not fit into my picture. By doing so, I created my own official future by disregarding events and driving forces that were true at the same time. Because of this process, I have gained a lot of new knowledge.

I define knowledge as meaningful information. Information becomes meaningful via the context where it is being used. And the composition and influence of the context (different parties, more information) is changing more rapidly. This makes productive collaboration and the sharing of knowledge in projects more difficult. This situation can be characterized as follows: - multi-party environment with multiple goals - collective language is missing: we talk to each other, but we don’t understand (verstehen) each other - dialogue is not accomplished: we don’t have the time nor the place nor a collective language - new insights and knowledge is implicit and is not shared

In these situations, scenario thinking can be the lever to create a collective understanding and definitions of context, stakeholders and driving forces. I think it is a very powerful tool for change, since it forces everyone who is participating to redefine the way we think on the future.

As a group it took us some time to invent a common language on the subject. The different context we all live and work in created a lack of understanding in the beginning. Because we planned every week for a meeting, we soon created a mutual understanding on the subject. This mutual understanding became immediately a new mental cage as I noticed in the presentations we had on Friday the 9th of December. It appeared that we were lacking a common language again: “They do not understand us”. What I have learned from this experience is that bridging the gap between two worlds via clear communication is important. This means create time for processes where suspending judgment, identifying assumptions, inquiring, reflecting and listening are important parameters.

Moreover, taking time for this type of process raises new questions like: did we address the right problem? It is funny since, as a consultant, this is part of my work for clients: addressing the right issues and looking for new solutions from a different perspective. This is where my added value should be. In the contracting phase, this is a normal part of my work and I am committed to it. The contracting phase is the time to reframe the problem. However, when the contracts are signed and there is consensus on the reframed problem, I start working with the same kind of blindness as the client’s organization members. While my added value in that process should also be to question the system, I have already become part of the system.

The systems approach is very useful in my work. Too often I take on a project without giving too much attention to the broader context of the project: are all stakeholders involved, what is their position, what is the effect of other projects on my project, etc? And the final question should be: do I need to solve the problem at hand or can the organization do it themselves?

I think that in many occasions the solution or direction for change is embedded in the organization’s employees. This requires me to change first: I need to stop thinking in clear scarcity: “they cannot do it, I have to do it myself” and “I have to do this assignments to earn a living” and change my perspective (mental cage) to indistinct abundance: “they can solve the problem by combining all pieces of information within the organization” and “how do I attract the assignment that are fun to do and make good money too”.

In this way I can create an environment at work where learning is not the final result (we are teaching the client how to solve the problem; the client’s team members are learning) to learning as a continuous process (we are learning together with the client, both parts have substantial information that can help solve the problem). In this line of thinking, an employee is not a one-dimensional production factor but a source of information, meaning and connectivity. This employee contributes to the continuity of the organization via his (personal) history, knowledge, skills and role/position.

In my opinion, managers need to foster the energy and creativity of these sources (employees) in the organization by communicating internally and externally on the pre-conditions of the change process. Next to that, they should organize and facilitate dialogue among all organization members. In this process the manager and the admin staff are of equal importance, since both have some pieces of the puzzle. The pitfall is to think that a new tool (like scenario planning) will solve the problem. Like all other tools it needs to be adjusted to the context: the decision should be made deliberate to start a scenario process.

The introduction of a new tool (e.g. a management information system) in an organization can be seen as a new medium, in many instances enhancing the power and senses of the Board in their need for better and more control over the organization’s processes: “we don’t know what is going on”. This new tool retrieves the old way of management and organization, when the manager had complete information and was aware of all what was going on in the organization. It makes direct contact and reporting on what is going on to the Board obsolete; a smooth information system can do the trick. All those inefficient meetings can be disregarded by the organization, since the Board has its own “dashboard” with steering and controlling information on the performance of the organization. Because of that, communication between Board and second level management decreases. In the end, the second layer will be waiting for the Board to make decisions, since they have all information “Don’t bother thinking and acting yourself, the Board will say something different on the way we should go”. This reverses the effectiveness of the management information system. And the Board will start the next reorganization: “towards self steering teams”. And the cycle starts all over again.

This is the power of McLuhan’s way of thinking: it can also be applied to all kinds of processes. To put it in my own words: every force has its countervailing force, e.g. when I am trying to control something too rigidly and too strictly, chaos will appear somewhere else. The challenge is to look for a kind of balance, to allow for an amount of “freedom” and an amount of “order” together at the same time.

These unforeseen counter effects can be researched by the application of system diagrams. Making these diagrams already gave me a better insight. Moreover, a system diagram is good means of communication too. Not only can they be applied to the building of scenario’s but also to disclose unknown patters of behavior in an organization. I built a very simple diagram in an assignment for a client, inspired by the material from reader. This very simple diagram helped tremendously to make clear the problem and start a discussion on the way we should move ahead.

The research we did as a group made me more aware on the problems we face as humanity. The shortage on oil and the rapid decline of our environment may have strong negative effects on our world we live in the near future. Diving into the future of the global economy by researching related subjects made me really learn to understand what is going on. Next to that, the day-to-day things I read in newspapers, on the internet or when I listened to the radio started all of sudden to make more sense. All subjects became more connected. I could place them in the broader picture.

The scenario process we did was in my opinion too quick and too short. There was too little time to really think things through and discuss them again and again. That is one part of the coin. The other part is that the scenario process has had the most influence compared to my other MBA classes on the way how I perceive the world. Although time was short it was powerful. For me the key for this effectiveness was that it was different. Learning about the future forced me to change, since thinking about the future is an assault on your system of beliefs. And therefore different from learning about how to calculate Beta or how organizational behavior works. That type of learning is about tools. Therefore, I think learning as a process as opposed to learning as a product is closely connected to change. This made the difference for me, since it required me to change my thoughts and beliefs about the future, while knowing that I immediately would walk into another cave of beliefs. Bottom-line, the scenario classes and the scenario process have made me experience that change is everywhere, complex, non-linear and inevitable. Experiencing the way of scenario thinking makes it powerful since I cannot ignore an experience as I can with new knowledge. Although I only made my first steps into the scenario thinking process I already have hunger for some more.

And that’s a good way to finish an MBA!