Part 6. The BOOK of the books

37. Tourism as an example of the human behavior and the ”A damned good trip!”

A story about the real world and about my suffering when I first started to teach tourism - and ”The damned good trip!”  When I started to teach at the commercial school, I had the following subjects: economics, politics, mathematics of commerce and tourism. The teaching of the tourism was divided between two people and then there was five teachers who taught some sides of the tourism: marketing, geography, law and so on. So the subject was divided among over 7 teachers. I had a small portion of the whole cake.

The story goes on... I had the highest degrees in economics and foreign politics and also a low degree in tourism. So I knew something about the tourism. The other subject didn’t give me any problem, but the tourism was a nightmare. It seemed, that I had no clue about it.  I thought, that I am stupid.

I started to search the material for teaching. There wasn’t any ready made material to take from the shelves. I got some material, but I still suffered about 3 years. Now I know, that the problem was, that I didn’t had a clue, what was behind the tourist’s feeling of satisfaction. The main question was simple, ”What makes a service good for the client?” Try to answer that question! If you know the answer, I quarantine, that you know the answer to the most important questions of the life. You are in the Final Goal.

At the same time, when I was looking the answers to the tourism, I stated to look the answer to the question ”Why I am not insufficient for myself!”, ”Why I was suffering?” Funny is that, when I found the answer to those questions, I found the answer to the questions about tourism, quality and the good service and how in business the thing could go the best possible way.

So the subject of tourism gave me two things, the knowledge from the books and the feeling of unhappiness, because I didn’t understand, what was the main point in the tourism. I also think, that the tourism (the service sector) is the easiest way to understand, what the term satisfaction means.

The story goes on... My first thought was, that the main thing in tourism was, what the tourist felt after the journey, when he said unconsciously ”The trip was damn good!” When I crack that sentence, I know it all.

The story ends to my work in 1996. The first step was the work in 1985 and the addition work in 1987. Then was a long pause and the works during he LUMO curse in 1993 and then finally the work in 1996. Then all the questions were answered. The main question was: ”What makes the tourist and the ordinary person satisfied?” And as you see, that is also the main question in life.

I’m very grateful to a Finnish scientist, Christian Grönroos. He maid a book about the service branch. From him I got some useful tools to tackle the tourism.

The person buys a trip, because his expectations are higher that the cost of the trip. The expectations develop through the knowledge he has. The knowledge come from his former experiences and what his friend are telling and what the organizer and seller of the trip are telling.

I thought, that it is hard to find a common nominator of the knowledge and of the expectations, because people are different. So I developed in the last part of my study two characters: One was a man from country. He was stupid and he didn’t know much. His expectations would be very irrational and perhaps unreal. The other was the wizard of tourism and of restaurant business. He knew it all. His expectations were rational. He knew what to expect.

Before we go farther some words about the theory: The expectations are very important. They meet the reality after the product or service is consumed. That means that not until at home or sometimes after the consumption the person know for sure what the reality was against the expectations.

So the persona has the subjective expectations (SE). And after the trip he has the subjective feeling of the reality (SfR).What different situations you get with these two consents?

         a. SE >  SfR; so the client didn’t get what he expected
         b. SE = SfR; he got just what he expected
         c. SE < SfR; he got more than he expected.

Of what is the subjective feeling of the reality formed? There are the things, that the producer offers. Let’s take for instance a trip on a ferry from Finland to Sweden. The feeling of the reality consists of what happened during the buying situation, during the trip to the ferry, what happened during the trip on the ferry: the reception, the interior of the ferry: the design, the colors and so on, the restaurants: the food, the drinks, the service, the menu, the layout of the table, and so on, the sleeping quarters, the other travelers and the communication with them, the shows, the discos, and so on, and so on… Don’t forget the weather and did the ferry go from point A to point B without any problems.

What is the best situation with the subjective expectations and the subjective feeling of the reality? Of course point C, but…! Normally we and the providers of the services believe, that the client is happy, when he get, what he is expecting. What more can there be? If the producer starts to surprise the clients and offers more than the customer expects, he will be in no time in a bankruptcy, because it costs a lot to give the customer more than he expects.

I developed a good idea, that seemed good for the time being and explain it all, although I didn’t know it for years, that I had gone into a dead end street.

I thought, that the only way the reality exceeds the expectations, is in transactions with the human beings. The customer is in transaction with the service people of the company and with other customers. The service people are using their professional skills and they are also in transaction as human beings with the client. I made a difference between these two things.

It felt, that the transaction with the service people is not as important than the transactions with other customers. The customer meats a nice person on the ferry and they have fun. The customer’s subjective feeling of the reality goes up. He gets more than he expected. SE < SfR is guarantied. He didn’t expect it. It was a nice surprise.  He game from the ferry and said silently, unconsciously to himself ”The trip was damn good!”

The summary was, that the only things, that could influence to the reality and rise it into the clouds, was the transaction, nothing else. If you take into the consideration the skills of the service people. It is a must. They have to deliver and do the job as good as they can. Do you applaud, if the service is as it should be?

What if the service is pure. The wine is bad and it is spilled to your lap. The music is out of the tune. Everything goes wrong, but you have the exceptional transaction with an other person. I think, that you still say after the journey: ”The trip was damn good!”

All the thing in the concrete side of the trip are important, but not so important, if you think about the satisfaction of the client. I hear you say, that the people are often complaining about the service and other small things as their life would depend from them. It is OK to say so, but to me it means, that when the human communication and transactions are not, what I would like them to be, I am disappointed and I use what ever small thing to complain. The guilty partner can be the waiter or what ever small thing.

A story: The author of the book ”Nothing new from the west front”, Erik, Maria Remarque wrote in another book of his about the waiters. A friend ask from other person. ”Why are you so bad to your friends but good for the waiters?” The other man answered: ”The waiters cannot defend themselves!” So the easiest way to take it out on the waiters, if you had no good relationships on the trip.

So let’s go back to the two travelers I forget the stupid man from the countryside. What about the wizard of the trade? His expectations are real. He know it all inside the trade. Let’s go to the end of the trip. The expert comes from the trip and his cheeks are glowing. He is happy. He is satisfied. He got more that he expected. You know, that nothing in the concrete setting couldn’t have done that. He knew them. The only explanation is, that he had a good relationship or he had good transactions with people.

That was how far I had gone, when I met a person, who had had a damn good trip and there was no transactions. I fell from the sky. 

So the conclusion were until year 1996, that only the real communication and real transaction and a good relationship could give the client more than he would expect.

I was a talker by the fire: I kind of knew it all about tourism and about the good trip. I  organized with two of my friends a evening meal by the fire for a group of people. My job was to talk, when they were waiting for the meal. The clients were very hungry and my friends came late. The situation was bad. It was not a good trip for the clients.

But it was not he main thing. That was while we were discussing about a damn good trip. Someone said, that there are the culture or town trips with very little transactions and the person can feel, that the trip was a damn good. I had a major problem in my theory.

Do you see the solution? I was right, but I didn’t go far enough. Now we do that! The main point is, that the client has the feeling of satisfaction. Then he has got more than he expected. What makes the client satisfied? This is a wrong form to ask the question. The right way is to ask: ”Who is responsible of once feelings?”

1. Who feel you feelings?
2. Who brings the feelings to being?
3. Who is responsible of your feelings?

I think you like to answer the two questions, that I feel my own feelings. I bring my feelings to existence. But the third question is a little bit more difficult one. When you feel good, you are responsible. You like to take the merit. But when you have the bad feelings it is because of the other people, because of the surrounding. They are to be blamed. Also those feelings are on your responsible.

Do you remember the three things - irritation - a person - reaction? Let's see, if they bring some light into this mater and especially the question of the guilt. You got some unconscious irritation. Inside you happens something. You had memories and the irritation met them. And you react the same way than in the past in the same kind of situation. The only thing you can be absolutely sure is, that you reacted, you had a reaction. You was happy. Or you had the negative feeling.

Let's forget the good feelings and let's concentrate to the bad feelings. You felt insecure, small, bad, you was not valuated, and so on. There are not the final feelings. They are the feelings, that come from the first feelings. You kind of react your own feelings. You are for instance angry, you don't think good about the other person. You either attack or ran away.

Let' say, that the person you are communicating, is doing what he is doing to you deliberately. He likes to be bad. He wants to irritate you. You react. Is your partner responsible about your behavior, about your feelings. Of course not. He is only sending the irritation. You are receiving it and processing it. Why don't you only See, that your partner is upset and let it be? You are always guilty or responsible about your feelings. Not the other person.

Your partner is sending some messages and you feel that the messages are bad ones even, when your partner is not at all sending such messages. Who is to be blamed? The sender is never responsible of the feelings of the other person!

How about a person who Knows Absolutely Himself, how he reacts in that kind of situation. Is he all numb? Doesn’t he reaction? Is he calm all the way? No one can get away from the memories. They are always there. So when he is Attention, he see all the irritations, but he doesn't irritate. He sees his first, original reaction. And it is the same as yours when you got angry. But he doesn't react to his reactions. He kind of order them away, saying thank you but no thank you.

Back to the ferry and the sudden, surprising feeling of satisfaction, when the subjective reality was over the expectations. In more simple way I could say, that the client got more than he expected. It was "A damn good trip!"

The client feels that feeling, it is the fact. The real transactions on a ferry were only one thing, that can course the feeling. It may even be the most important thing. But what really happened?

I discovered the answer, when I took into consideration the normal goods. How the goods bring the satisfaction. Normally there are very little transactions or person contacts?  The answer was very simple. The person gives himself the psychological strokes - "I am good or/and I am better!" It brings the feeling of satisfaction. "I am now better than I was yesterday!" and/or "I am now better, than the members of the group I'm comparing myself!"

I have to bring into the picture also my former comments about the insufficiency of the human race. When we are insufficient, we have a certain kind of permanent condition. We are always observing the surrounding, if we could get some good feelings. And when we get one, we are overjoyed. It is always a pleasant surprise.

So when we meat something, that makes us a little bit better, we start stroking ourselves and from that comes the feeling of satisfaction. We give it to ourselves.

Let's take a very simple example. You buy a car. Your car is very fine. We look in the following text all the different situation you are in, when you buy the car and when you use it.

You have read, that the car is excellent. The test results are good. It has many good qualities. You can sell it later away and get a good price. It is safe and beautiful.

In the shop you behaved well. You got many extras. You got the price down considerable. You did all the thing in the buying situation very well.
- As a result you make a unconscious decision: "I am good!" I made a good deal!"
- All the things that are with or inside the car make you feel better. ”The car is good! I am good!”

You are driving the car. It goes well. You have tried all the things in your car. They work well and you can use them well.
- As a result you make a unconscious decision: "I drive good!" "I can use the car very well!" "I am good!"

The people are admiring you, when you are passing by.
- As a result you make a unconscious decision: "I am good!"

You read later the advertises of the car. They are very good. You made a very good buy. They are stroking your ego.
- As a result you make a unconscious decision: "The car was a very good business!" "I am good!"

As you see there was very little transactions in the situations. So it was evidence for me that the transaction is not necessarily the major thing in the satisfaction of a client. The most important thing is that the client’s me is better. The client himself is responsible of the strokes that give the feeling.

On the ferry the real personality of the expert comes to consideration. The expert or the wizard was an ordinary person, who was governed by the operation system of the thoughts. How a person behaves, when he knows more than other people? He show it! Let's think, that the expert was a gentleman. He doesn't put down people, who do things the wrong way. When he doesn’t flatten the waiters, when they haven’t the needed skills, he thinks.”I am good!” He is a demanding customer. He know's what he wants. "I am good!" He orders the best quality but not the most expensive things. "I am good!" If he sees a mistake, he doesn't correct it. "I am good!"  He know the wines and orders accordingly. "I am good!" In bar he order the best to show to his partner. "I am good!" 

The main point is, that by doing things like this, he rubs himself and gets the feeling of satisfaction. He doesn't have to be in a good transaction.

Let' take a quit normal example. You have a good night in the restaurant. The service was good, but not exceptional. The wood was good, but not exceptional. The orchestra was good, but not exceptional. And the evening was so good. You remember it long.

The night was over and tomorrow you found out, that you have become a repeater. You come back to the restaurant night after night. You are looking for that especial night. If you don't know, what makes you satisfied, that is the usual story. Now you know it better.

In short: I thought, that the transaction with other human beings make the trip or traveling ’damned good’. Then I met a tourist, that had a damned good trip without transactions. He was satisfied. It took over 5 years to me to understand, that the client gives himself the feeling of satisfaction by striking his ego, me with the unconscious ”I am good!” thoughts. And because the client is a human being, he is always in a insufficient situation and the good feeling is always a surprise and the expectations are exceed.

1. The person is always insufficient to himself. - He has ’a radar’, which is ready to take a notice of anything, that makes him a little bit better. There is always the shortage of the feeling, me being good.
2. Now the situation gives him a feeling, that he is a little bit better. He gives himself the positive psychical strokes. ”I’m better now!”
3. That gives him the feeling of satisfaction  It is always surprising and unexpected. And the reality goes over, what he had expected.
4. The satisfaction make the quality and the good service.

What do you get, when you decide, that the quality is defined by the customer with his feeling of satisfaction? What ever you get for the running of the business, it is less than the following. The good feeling or satisfaction is the most important thing in the life!

 

38. The scientists who were studying the Learning Organization were stopped to ’the brick wall’

This is a real story and it shows you, how you can use the Perceptions you get, when you Know Absolutely Yourself. It is also a story of how the society and especially the service sector has come to the end of the line, where the old ways doesn’t work anymore.

The learning organization is a theory of how the organizations can become more effective. In a way the whole theory is lying on the thoughts of the quality. And still more it is lying on the peoples unconscious perceptions of themselves. If that is true, then the answers come from behind the Border. But let’s see!

The organizations are simply asking this question: ”How to get more from the workers and directors?” And when that is the question, you see very easily, that there behind is the question of how to sell more. That means that the quality is the main topic. The more satisfied customers the organization has the better the result.

The first thoughts and especially the actions by the quality came from Japan. They used first the quality control, the quality circles, the quality management, and so on. In western world at first these thoughts were implemented as they were. But they didn’t suit easily. I think, that was one of the things, that gave the birth for the theory of the learning organization

What do you think about the following? I read many books about the quality. I was searching from the indexes some words: good quality, the quality defined by the customers, the satisfaction of the customers. I didn’t find no definition of the quality. I found just one reference in which there was some remarks about giving the customer more than he expects. I started to think, that the writers don’t understand at all the meaning of the quality. Soon I got the answer.

The story behind the reference I mentioned was written by a western author. He was talking about the subject - reality > expectations - in a style, that made the thing insignificant. He told in a way, that only the Japanese can think that kind of method. The engineers of a factory went to playground to see how they product worked. They wanted to see, if the customers were satisfied and if the reality exceeded the expectations. It may indicate, that the Japanese have perceived, that you have to exceed the expectations of the customer. And only that brings the feeling of satisfaction. 

I was disappointed, that there was so little about the exceeding the expectations. Because I think, that that is the only way to define the quality. It didn’t take long before I understood, why there was so little about the quality.

Take for instance the term quality control or the quality management. What they mean by these terms They mean, how to produce a product, that is working or the product that has no faults. What it has to do with the quality? Nothing of course! A customer is not over joyful it the product is what the producer or the seller promises. It is must! The product must be intact. Is the buyer of a car happy, if the car goes? Or is the tourist happy, if the ferry goes to the right harbor?

There is the old contradictory situation between the customer and the producer or the seller. As you may know, at first there was talks about what is more important, to watch the things from to point of the production or from the point of the marketing. Nowadays they are talking, what is more important, to watch the things from the point of the customer or from the point of the seller or of the producer. And I think we are still only talking these things not doing them. The customer is the center only in talks.

So the goal of the organizations is to produce the intact products more cost effectively. And sell more. And so make more money. The workers in the organization are the key resource. Also that is more talk than deeds. If the organization is in the trouble, the first thing to do is to cut the costs and get rid of the workers.

In the background in the organizations and in the businesses is the old question, how to get more from the workers. When the first people was employed, this question was activated. In former times the means were the stick and the carrot. Now the times have changed for ever in the certain business sectors. Now the question is how to bind the workers and the leaders to the goals of the company. How they became to think that my goals are the same as the company’s.

The organizations are looking for the right knowledge. You have to find the right knowledge. You don’t know it yourself. When you find the knowledge, you have to learn it. This is one of the biggest mistakes and I think it comes from the school system. So the basic thought is: There is the right knowledge somewhere far away. You have to find the person, who knows. Then you adopt his knowledge and also you know it. You put the knowledge into use and you business will flourish.

A story about the ice hockey: I was watching the Finnish league game. I thought, that they are not as good players as the players in NHL. The next thought was that the NHL players does something better. So the Finnish players should learn the better ways to do their job from the NHL players.

Then suddenly I Perceived, that it can be also so, that the Finnish players do something the NHL players don’t do. So the main thing would be to learn away some bad habits. Then the main thing would be to not to learn to do right, but stop doing things wrongly.

This idea may seem a minor one, but it could turn everything upside down, if it could be put into the use. The knowledge is not far. Just look the mirror and there you see it. Why it is so difficult or almost impossible to see near? Why we like to look the right knowledge from the far?

The explanation is very simple. Use this unconscious saying the every person: ” I am already good, and I want to better!” What you get? I am not to blame for the bad habits in my work. I am already doing my work good. I only want to do it better. So I search the right knowledge from far and then I am working better.

If I would look for myself and my bad habits, I would make myself even worse. And that is impossible for the person in the operation system of the thoughts. The problem is not me, but others and the surrounding.

One of the main thoughts in the theory of the learning organization is that it is more important to learn away the old habits not to learn directly the new things. The solution comes from seeing the wrong ways to do things in the organization Everybody is doing the self search. And the old habits go away. It is impossible. A human being is not capable of doing that. No way! The person should know himself if he could do that.

The quality circle is a good example of this. It was basically a very good idea. The idea was, that he human beings in work assemble together and talk about their work and the problems in the work. It didn’t work. The reason was, that the people were picking other persons faults not their own faults. And you know, what the result is from that kind of meeting.

You should remember, what I have been talking about the human beings capability of meeting his own problems. And my view is, that the human being cannot do that. He likes to turn away from the problem area. If you ask him, did he turn away because he sow the problem, he asks, what problem. I have not seen any problems. I have no problem. If this is the situation, you can easily see, that there is no way to implement the quality circle in the business. ”I am already good, I want to be better!” You the normal person see, that he cannot become a better person by seeing his own problems or the bad sides of himself. That is the unconscious fact of the human beings.

A story about the school system of the Summerhill: I got a Christmas present years ago. It collected the dust on the book shelf. Then I read a book of Anthony de Mello, ”The Awakening”, and he said some good words about the Summerhill school system. I had to read the book.

I Perceived, that again there was one of my kind of person and he had slipped from my hands. He was right in almost all the things, he told in his book. I borrow one thing about the good life. He said, that the good life or the successful life is, when ”a person is happy and enjoys, what he is doing”. When that kind of a person wants to learn, he learns everything in no time.

A story about a TV program in year 2002: The program was from the Japanese school children and their behavior They were murdering people, because they wanted to know, what it feels like. The punishments for the murderers were laughable short ones. The main point was for me, that the students have a gigantic pressures to succeed in the school and get good grades to go to good work or to a good university.

Like everywhere in life, there are those who succeed and those who don’t succeed. But in Japan the later ones seem to have no hope. The system is totally wrong. It is the worst possible and totally opposite to the system of Summerhill. Goodbye the youth of Japan. 

So in the learning organizations the main cure comes from the Attention, Attention, Attention… The learning organization is an ideal model. Here in the world doesn’t exist any real learning organizations It will be the reality, when there are enough the people, who Know Absolutely Themselves.

A story about C. Argyris the most valued scientist on the field of the learning organization in my mind  Argyris studied with his colleague, Schein long time the learning organization They wrote many books. I have been reading many of them. Sometimes I kind of woke up and was surprised.  What he hell! When they changed the singular form into the the plural form?

They started to take about, that the people in the organization for some reason behaved the same way. They developed a theory and used rightly the singular form of the theory, because the people behaved the same way. Now I found out, that they were using the plural form. At first they were using the term ”a theory-in-use” and now they use only the form ”theories-in-use”. It may seem a small thing, but I guaranties, that it is the most important thing there is. Wait and see!

The story goes on... Argyris and Schein discovered, that the human beings had in organizations some kind of unconscious ”defense system”. (Singular form!) For some reason the defense system started and the behavior was very bad for the goals of the organization

This was the FACT, that they found out... This is an absolute truth. This happened and Argyris sow this and I think it bought him much sorrow.

Argyris was also teaching the leaders of the organizations, big and small. They game from all over the earth, from different cultures. In one course there was a questionnaire for the leaders: ”Tell the 10 things the leader definitely must not do!” It was easy. The answers were collected to the ’bible’ of the leaders.

After awhile the teachers went to the same organizations to look around, what they had learned and who they implemented it into the work. The surprise was great. The leaders followed the ’bible’ - ’Don’t never do this things!” - as if the name of the ’bible’ should have been ”Do definitely this 10 things as your life would depend from them!” They simply used those 10 things in their everyday work. What was wrong? Where the leaders working wrongly?

The teachers thought, that the leaders meant by answering the question, that ”These 10 things are bad for business, so we are not doing them in our work”. In a way they said, that they are following the theory OK(tOK). If that would have been true, their behavior should have been behavior OK (bOK). Now the behavior was b-notOK. Something was wrong.

When I looked the explanations from the books, it seemed that the teachers had a very big problem. To me it was simple. The words were different from the deeds.

A story about how the problem was solved... The teachers solution was at last, that there was nothing wrong in the answers and in the actions of the leaders. They said one thing and did the other thing. They kind of said, that they don’t do the 10 things because they are bad for the business. So the problem of the teachers was, that they couldn’t understand, that the managers of the companies could do that.

The theory of the teachers of the theory of the learning organization was:

- If the managers are saying, that they follow the theory OK, then their behavior should be bOK.
- If the leaders are saying, that they follow the theory OK, and the their behavior is b-notOK, there is nothing wrong, because
- their real unconscious theory, t-notOK is in use. So it is right, that it brings the behavior b-notOK into the surface.

The FACT was, that the managers all over the world, in small and big organizations, followed the same single theory. The talks and the deeds were different. They said, that it was wrong to do the 10 deeds and they did them over and over again and they were unconscious about that they did so. They thought, that they had the GOOD theory in use.

What has been told: Some things in the organization are influencing the behavior of the managers. They want to behave a certain, correct way, but it seems, that something influences unconsciously to their behavior and the result is bad for the business. This kind of behavior is common in all the organizations And normally the managers don’t behave this way and then they do their work properly.

Your conclusion could be now, that when the managers knew the problem, they changed their behavior The story of Argyris doesn’t tell that. How on earth is that possible, that he doesn’t tell that? I think that the only new thing for the manager was, that they now suffered every time they were conscious, that they followed the bad ’theory-in-use’. And they did the 10 forbidden deeds over again.

Also you could think, that the main point in the Argyris studies would be, that what the hell in the organizations made the managers and other people behave that way. But no, there is no answers to that question. You later see, why I think it is natural.

The story about the defense system of the people ... I think that it was the FACT I have been telling you, that made Argyris to develop the new form to speak about the ’theory-in-use’. Now he says, that the leaders have a ’unconscious defense system’ (A singular form.) He is speaking, that all the people in the organizations have the same kind of defense system. He starts to research the studies of the behavioral science. He is looking for the knowledge.

Argyris is in a strait: Argyris told, that the FACTS led him to search for the answers from the behavioral science. He looked the solution and the salvation, but he was disappointed. The work was in vane. There was no answers. The behavioral science didn’t know anything about the this problem and about this kind of behavior

But he still believed into the behavior science, because he told, that he was sure, that the people outside the organizations have the different kind of defense systems - ’theories-in-use’ (the plural form), because the behavior scientists said so.

Why on earth he hung himself to the rope of the behavioral science, because they don’t seem to know nothing about the behavior of the human beings. I think that this is a normal thought, because we think, that the behavior of the people is different.

Argyris didn't tell, what in the organizations made people behave the same way and why the defense system started to work. So when I go farther, I cannot borrow from him. I give you my own explanation:

”Every time a person unconsciously meet in the organization and in ordinary life an unconscious threat of the me of the person, the unconscious defense system of the theory-in-use starts to work unconsciously. The result is what Argyris tells about the actions: The people attack against other people or they start to defend their me or ego. What ever they do, the main thing is that their work is inefficient.”

So you don’t have to learn new and better things to work. You only need to stop doing the wrong things.

My conclusions were…
• Argyris is the best scientist I know on the area of the learning organization, but he is a prisoner of the operation system of the thoughts. He cannot Perceive, that the behavior of the people is the same, when you go deep enough.
• All the people have the same kind of defense system or ’theory-in-use’.
• The learning organization is and will be a dream, until there are enough people who Know Absolutely Themselves in the organization

Quality: Let’s go back to the theme of quality. What is the quality? If it has to do with the feeling of satisfaction of the customer, nobody knows, what the good quality is.

In tourism they have discovered the classification of the quality. Good! What makes the good quality of a hotel? You have a view about them, so I don’t tell you all the details. And most of all, I don’t tell you the details, because they have nothing to do with the quality. If the customer is defining the quality through his satisfaction. The things there are in the hotel, have nothing to do with the quality. It is more true, than to say that they have something to do with that certain feeling of the clients.

To me the quality means, that the only one who can define it is the client. And the client define the quality unconsciously by being satisfied. He doesn’t usually know, what makes him satisfied. But he definitely know, when he has that feeling. That is the FACT.

So if that is true, then the good quality and the good service and satisfaction are nearly the same thing.

I have earlier said, that I had very good feelings, when I read the some parts from the book of Robert Pirsig, ’Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. Black Swan 1989. It was and still it the only book were the term quality was Perceived correctly.

Pirsig tells a story about the former craftsmen. He tells, that they cared. They cared about their products, about their work and so indirectly about their customers. If they would be in the modern world, I would say, that they also cared about their organization or their company and the surrounding.

So the question in the modern world and in the modern organizations is, how to get the the workers and the managers to care about their work, products and so indirectly about their customers and their organization? The most simple way is to say, what was the main thing with the former craftsmen. They sow the satisfaction of their customers. They sow the work of their products. Do that for your workers and your managers and they learn and start to care.

In short: The main thing in the learning organizations is to start learning away the old, bad habits. That is the most difficult thing to do, because the people don’t want to see from eye to eye their behavior and their problems. So the LOs are still a dream. There are no LOs in the world. In a way the theory of LO is the last form of management. So the organizations, who are working with it are today the leading edge companies and most certainly they are working in the service sector or they are service oriented companies. They have used all the older ways to manage the company and now they have stumbled into the Last Frontier.

The main obstacle to the efficiency is the defense system of the people. It starts always, when a person meet unconsciously something, that is attacking the me of the person. The person starts to defend himself or he runs away from the problems. The good goals of the organization goes into the waste basket. Behind all these is simply the unconscious feeling of insufficiency of the people.

You can make calculations. How often do you think the defense systems starts to work? If it starts often and lasts long, you can say, that all that time the ineffective is shadowing the work in the organization You can also calculate, what it the price of the inefficiency.

The final help for the organizations comes from the workers and the managers, when they Know Absolutely Themselves. Because that thing is nonsense to the thoughts, it it hard to sell for the companies. A small help comes, when the manager of the organization recognizes the problem and the problem comes conscious. Only those thing, that are recognized and are conscious can be lead.

The BOOK of the books Part 7.