> Nature is a lot smarter than we are, because there is better
> balance among all, and I mean all the elements participating in it.
To replace the anthropomorphism of "smarter than we are" with the idea of
operating according to design (while we recognise "design" as an
interpretation that we humans put there or distinguish) will suggest the
formulation of the problem that might yield gold if we're interested in
what works and what doesn't in human organisational design.
> you might be right in the "motivation" and OL, TQM/CQI, and other
> contemporary approaches may not go together. I'll try to explain this!
> (snip)
> Motivation as we now it does not go together with OL or TQM/CQI
> attempts. The major reason is that motivation is basically an
> indidualistic approach to dealing with individuals in organizations. But
> most of what organizations try to accomplish require or demand teasm
> efforts, whether we understand this or not.
The idea that "motivation" is individualistic rather than team oriented
does not solve the problem. It is just an example of how motivation
doesn't work. The word comes from "causing motion" which in human terms
has come to mean causing internal states (feelings, wishes, thoughts of
inspiration, greed, longing) in others that will _cause action_. This is
an example of reductionist psychology that won't alter because we try and
apply it to teams. You can argue that teams have their own mind or
consciousness or being but that will only change the methodology of
motivation and its focus from individual to team.
(As an aside, to argue that organisations require "team effort" is to miss
the point of systems understanding referred to later by Ivan. While
valid, team effort is only a part of the system in the same way that
individual effort is only part of the system. The system is whole and
beyond either teams or individuals.)
By accepting the term "motivation", the battle is already lost. That is the
value of uncovering the existence of metanarratives.
> Well, OL, TQM/CQI, and others
> demand teamwork, openness, trust, etc., and most of the motivational
> efforts promote secrecy, individualism, "heroes recognition," and other
> dysfunctional behaviors.
Here we see the acceptance and assumption of "motivational efforts" as
valid and the source of action. Ivan then deals with the negatives and
ineffectiveness of what is happening, of specific instances or kinds, but
fails to even call into question the idea itself.
Ivan usefully points at the motivational theories and applications that do
not work. However, he fails to point out that these are natural results
from the assumptions of motivation itself and merely expected results from
erroneous beginning assumptions. The dysfunctional motivation efforts are
dysfunctional wherever human cooperation and coordinated action are wanted
along with intelligence and creativity. If all that is required is
mechanistic coordination, then the system is already flawed because of the
nature of human beings - complex, adaptive, intellligent. With these
assumptions, we know that they will not coordinate effectively no matter
how tight the controls or detailed the systems. The assumed nature of
human beings will express itself and disturb the system's working.
> My criticisms here are not totally addressed to the developers of
> most of the motivation models, but mainly to how we teach them and apply
> them.
> I believe that organizations need a universal approach to
> motivation.
He goes on to tell us about some interesting experiments and exercises
with his classes which do nothing to deal with the larger question of
challenging the metanarratives of motivation because he has already
accepted it. The experiments themselves may be very useful in such a
challenge if it were undertaken.
> Does this approach exist? I am not sure, but I have been
> putting my learning partners in the classroom to work on that. It has been
> fun, and the jury is still out. But I can see that we can have more
> effective organizations if we can achieve that universal approach to
> motivation. I can anticipate that it will be based on notions such as the
> shared vision, the basic human needs to be treated with diginity and to
> self-actualize, life-long learning, the understanding of systems thinking,
> and others.
Here, Ivan falls into the motivational trap that he blamed existing
failures on. Namely, he suggests individual (pyschological) factors as
the basis for motivation that he expects to be effective - "basic human
needs of ....." He also has managed to include all "good" things such as
shared vision, life-long learning and understanding systems thinking as
motivators. This will lead us to the point where thinking, understanding
and values become merely motivators (in order to's) and lose their much
deeper possibilities and characteristics. The dangers of the very concept
of motivation have been revealed in a particular way for us.
I suggest that the "good" things be considered an understanding of the way
that human beings work and that we understanding of the nature of those
things so that we design systems, organisations, environments which
nurture them. I suggest the language and metaphors of natural living
systems to help us do this without introducing any language of "motivation".
> There needs to be a balance and a harmony among all players,
> so that organizational (members) learning and growth is not interrupted.
> Today's motivational models do not contribute to or deal with our
> understanding of these notions.
I suggest that today's "motivational models" do not contribute to or deal
with the important issues (nor less important ones in useful ways) because
we have accepted the metanarratives that are the very source of the
problem. One is the idea of "cause of motion" which is a mechanistic and
ultimately reductionist psychology. Another is heirarchical command and
control idea that is assumed in the approach that it is the job or
interest of one group of people to get another to do something - whether
through motivation or force. Whether we choose fear as our "motivator" or
enlightened self interest as our "motivator" we are still assuming that it
is the job of some individuals to act as outside forces to cause others to
do something that they would not otherwise do. This is a recipe for the
kinds of trouble that we have.
I return to nature and design, as Ivan mentioned at the beginning. Do
plants grow because they are motivated? No. Plants grow because their
design (not forgetting that is a human method of describing what _is_ in
nature) is to grow when the conditions are appropriate. Is providing the
conditions motivation? Only if you insist on looking through that lense.
But then you have collapsed "source of motion" with an emergent phenomenon
with complex sources interacting. If you reduce the last sentence to a
causal explanation, then you've only returned to a more sophisticated
reductionism. The language of complexity and emergence is designed to
grasp that we are not dealing with cause and effect systems at all. It
also goes beyond systems dynamics ideas of systems.
We will become powerful when we see that what is missing, as pointed at by
Ivan at the beginning in his reference to "nature being smart", is designs
which work when conditions are appropriate.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Postmodern society is the society of computers, information, scientific
knowledge, advanced technology, and rapid change due to new advances in
science and technology." Postmodern Theory, Best & Kellner