This discussion reminded me of some direct experience, and a big question
for a Learning Organization. In 1990, I encountered an "Action Leadership
Model" developed by Dr. Robert Terry, then director of the Reflective
Leadership Center at the University of Minnesota. His model suggests that
any problem can be framed for action in one of six modes: 1) Existence -
the history of the organization and/or problem; 2) Resources - what I have
available to deal with the problem; 3) Structure - the avenues I have
available to deal with the problem; 4) Power - and its allocation and flows
through the organization; 5) Mission - what the organization is overtly or
covertly trying to accomplish; and 6) Meaning - why the organization and
its members do what they do. The punchline is this: Whatever level we
initially frame the problem at, the real problem lies one or more levels
"up" the ladder.
To apply to the above edited posts: If CEOs say the issue is one of big
egos, is the problem really one of creating the structure to exercise their
control, or is it one of resolving excessive (and potentially
counterproductive) concentration of power? Or, does the CEO and his/her
organization have the same mission at both the formal and informal levels?
One does not truly move "up" the ladder in this model, the better image is
a circle rather that a line. However, solutions can only work one way:
resource solution will not solve structure problems, structure solutions
will not solve power and mission problems; solutions do not work "up" the
ladder, but they may work "down" the ladder. A mission solution may solve
a resource problem. A meaning solution may solve an existence problem
because it may change the history of the organization. This is how the
model can become a circle rather than a line.
This is a rather crude practitioner's description of the model. I believe
Bob has published a book that would discuss this more thoroughly and
eloquently, and I will get the title info if people are interested. The
bottom line is that I have found this model to be a subtle and effective
method of communicating the depth of the issues at hand when a divisional
VP assigned a task team I was a member of to develop a structure to deal
with a plethora of problems his organization was consistantly
encountering. I believe the focus groups identified eleven problems, and
by applying this model, we were able to communicate that only two or three
of the problems could be solved by his new structure. He chose to ignore
our warning, but at least the door was opened.
I invite comments if anyone else has similar experience. Also a question
from one relatively new to the Internet: what does IMHO mean? I feel like
I'm missing about 2% of the information or intent by not knowing. Thanks.
David H. Richards
University of Minnesota
Facilities Management
2904 Fairmount Street S.E. phone: (612) 625 0328
Minneapolis, MN 55414 fax: (612) 626 9408
USA Internet: richa047@maroon.tc.umn.edu
-----
Host's Note:
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
FWIW = For what it's worth...
BTW = By the way
AFAIK = As far as I know
etc.
-- Rick Karash, rkarash@world.std.com, host for learning-org