Lecture 6 LIO
The Dark Side of Learning
10-10-19
The second article of Crowdley is not part of the exam.
Against the learning imperative
- Not wanting to learn is seen as stupid
- Resistance have to be overcome. Does it have to be?
Get smart?
• ‘Smartness’ is seen as a defining feature of modern organizations
• Doing business is no longer about the use of natural resources / production of products but
the ability to ‘know’
o Managing/developing the organization’s cognitive abilities is seen as essential to its
survival/success
This does not mean production is irrelevant! It simply acknowledges that
production and its associated activities are driven by knowledge
Or not?
• Those who have first-hand knowledge of organizations know that this is not necessarily true/
smart/intelligence
• Organizations are messy entities, do things that might be perceived of irrational, engage in
behaviour that can (and does) often defy logic, things are done for no good reason
• The aim is to direct attention towards the importance of other dimensions for the
effectiveness of organizations
o Enter functional stupidity
Functionally stupid?
• Functional stupidity can be seen as the systemic absence of (1) reflexivity, (2) substantive
reasoning and (3) justification
o Systemic: people do things continuously
• It is not the absence of intelligent action but its confinement to a subject that is limited in
scope and unproblematic (It won’t get anyone upset)
• Being ‘functionally stupid’ allows one to ignore situations that could spark uncertainty and
insecurity because one does not doubt the status quo
o One knows what to expect and what expectations need to be met in order to
succeed in one’s job
o They ignore problematic situations, because it could cause anxiety, which is not
desirable. It is not about being irrational, it’s about using your rationality in a very
specific topic of set of interests.
Functional stupidity
(1) A lack of reflexivity means the current organizational beliefs and practices (rules, routines and so
on) are taken for granted, seen as self-evident
• They are exempt from scrutiny! You do not question them.
• E.g. you are so familiar to a culture (the way how we decide to structure for instance a
course/lecture) that you do not question the culture although you might not like everything.
• People do not question their organization, because it is perceived as natural.
• It looks the same as justification: what is the explicit distinctions?
o About the rules vs what we choose to do
, (2) A lack of justification means that actions taken and choices made are not questioned
• No explanations are required, asked for or given
• There is no dialogue concerning why one does the things one does, no possibility for the
emergence of ‘weak signals’ no innovation.
• It’s about behaviour which is not questioned. It’s not asked for and not given.
• E.g. when two organizations are merged, other companies also merge to keep on with the
competition.
(3) A lack of substantive reasoning means that any intelligent action is focused on a limited number
of concerns prescribed by where you focus you intelligence/rational behaviour on (a small set of
concerts)
• The organization
• The profession (Lawyers need to defend mafia guys, but they feel threatened and want more
protection. Why actually defend such a criminal? You can’t question yourself)
• The work itself
o It results in bringing about, as efficiently as possible, a well-defined outcome that is
not questioned by those involved
o A valid question about internationalization: should we use the English language?
What is asked is about the second level problems. Not the core question!
o People might be afraid to ask such questions, defined as functional stupid.
These three dimensions each highlight a specific aspect of the same underlying issue
• There is also an affective dimension to FS next to above cognitive dimension:
o Motivation
o Emotion (this one is especially important)
Put differently: any use of ‘intelligent reflection’ by an organization’s
members is limited to the confines of the established framework, practices,
structures and so on.
A different way to look at incremental change.
• FS is brought about by that fact that we live in a society where organizations make extensive
use of symbolic communication in their dealings with consumers as well as employees
o E.g. the symbols behind Coca Cola, Nike, etc. these symbols/identities are also
visible in organizations.
o Creates robust corporate cultures, identities and reputations
o Delineates desired and desirable outcomes, expectations to be met
Influences practice (clearly present in the Pixar case)
How many hours you can work (no lock on the laboratory).
FS: What it does
• FS creates certainty; in doing so, one does not have to worry about the things you do on a
daily basis
o There is a shared understanding/belief that the different aspects of organizational
life are operating effectively and efficiently for the customers and the employees.
o The world will be there tomorrow in the same way, e.g. job certainty
• The message here is that we need a certain level of intentional ‘ignorance’ to ensure
organizations can operate smoothly from one day to the next
The Dark Side of Learning
10-10-19
The second article of Crowdley is not part of the exam.
Against the learning imperative
- Not wanting to learn is seen as stupid
- Resistance have to be overcome. Does it have to be?
Get smart?
• ‘Smartness’ is seen as a defining feature of modern organizations
• Doing business is no longer about the use of natural resources / production of products but
the ability to ‘know’
o Managing/developing the organization’s cognitive abilities is seen as essential to its
survival/success
This does not mean production is irrelevant! It simply acknowledges that
production and its associated activities are driven by knowledge
Or not?
• Those who have first-hand knowledge of organizations know that this is not necessarily true/
smart/intelligence
• Organizations are messy entities, do things that might be perceived of irrational, engage in
behaviour that can (and does) often defy logic, things are done for no good reason
• The aim is to direct attention towards the importance of other dimensions for the
effectiveness of organizations
o Enter functional stupidity
Functionally stupid?
• Functional stupidity can be seen as the systemic absence of (1) reflexivity, (2) substantive
reasoning and (3) justification
o Systemic: people do things continuously
• It is not the absence of intelligent action but its confinement to a subject that is limited in
scope and unproblematic (It won’t get anyone upset)
• Being ‘functionally stupid’ allows one to ignore situations that could spark uncertainty and
insecurity because one does not doubt the status quo
o One knows what to expect and what expectations need to be met in order to
succeed in one’s job
o They ignore problematic situations, because it could cause anxiety, which is not
desirable. It is not about being irrational, it’s about using your rationality in a very
specific topic of set of interests.
Functional stupidity
(1) A lack of reflexivity means the current organizational beliefs and practices (rules, routines and so
on) are taken for granted, seen as self-evident
• They are exempt from scrutiny! You do not question them.
• E.g. you are so familiar to a culture (the way how we decide to structure for instance a
course/lecture) that you do not question the culture although you might not like everything.
• People do not question their organization, because it is perceived as natural.
• It looks the same as justification: what is the explicit distinctions?
o About the rules vs what we choose to do
, (2) A lack of justification means that actions taken and choices made are not questioned
• No explanations are required, asked for or given
• There is no dialogue concerning why one does the things one does, no possibility for the
emergence of ‘weak signals’ no innovation.
• It’s about behaviour which is not questioned. It’s not asked for and not given.
• E.g. when two organizations are merged, other companies also merge to keep on with the
competition.
(3) A lack of substantive reasoning means that any intelligent action is focused on a limited number
of concerns prescribed by where you focus you intelligence/rational behaviour on (a small set of
concerts)
• The organization
• The profession (Lawyers need to defend mafia guys, but they feel threatened and want more
protection. Why actually defend such a criminal? You can’t question yourself)
• The work itself
o It results in bringing about, as efficiently as possible, a well-defined outcome that is
not questioned by those involved
o A valid question about internationalization: should we use the English language?
What is asked is about the second level problems. Not the core question!
o People might be afraid to ask such questions, defined as functional stupid.
These three dimensions each highlight a specific aspect of the same underlying issue
• There is also an affective dimension to FS next to above cognitive dimension:
o Motivation
o Emotion (this one is especially important)
Put differently: any use of ‘intelligent reflection’ by an organization’s
members is limited to the confines of the established framework, practices,
structures and so on.
A different way to look at incremental change.
• FS is brought about by that fact that we live in a society where organizations make extensive
use of symbolic communication in their dealings with consumers as well as employees
o E.g. the symbols behind Coca Cola, Nike, etc. these symbols/identities are also
visible in organizations.
o Creates robust corporate cultures, identities and reputations
o Delineates desired and desirable outcomes, expectations to be met
Influences practice (clearly present in the Pixar case)
How many hours you can work (no lock on the laboratory).
FS: What it does
• FS creates certainty; in doing so, one does not have to worry about the things you do on a
daily basis
o There is a shared understanding/belief that the different aspects of organizational
life are operating effectively and efficiently for the customers and the employees.
o The world will be there tomorrow in the same way, e.g. job certainty
• The message here is that we need a certain level of intentional ‘ignorance’ to ensure
organizations can operate smoothly from one day to the next
