Rol Fessenden wrote
<Quote> Even living organisms practice destructive behavior. ....
Therefore, having the intention built in is a necessary, but not nearly
sufficient condition for success. <Close quote>
Agreed. The incentives leading toward mutually beneficial behaviors,
conditions that encourage this behaviors and the necessary knowledge to
make informed decisions are also necessary. I think that Zuboff''s
descriptions of the way different paper pulp mills dealt with the growing
ability of the 'non-engineers' is a good example of the environment that
makes for good 'self organization' and that is not good. There are many
factors that influence the results of self organizing teams. One of the
most important is assuring that all employees have open access to all
possible information about the business and the interrelations of that
information. It must be a 'total systems' solution.
Rol Fessenden wrote
<Quote> In any reasonably complex situation, the values and goals can be
universally agreed, and even admired, but different groups can 'see'
different solutions or approaches to achieving objectives. <Close quote>
Yes, this is a benefit that should be grasped - whenever a team comes to a
leader with alternative solutions and or solutions he or she didn't think
of they should cheer. A leader asked to decide on two, about equal, ways
of accomplishing a goal should answer "YES!" without making a choice.
Sometimes a leader must force employees to empower themselves.
Rol Fessenden wrote about having to cut a non-productive self organized
team
<Quote> That's not a particularly attractive approach when peoples' lives
and jobs are at stake, so leadership must have some role that minimizes
the cruel down-side of natural processes. Ironically, 'naturally
self-organizing' may be the most effective approach to experiment hundreds
of times, pick the best approach, and cut the losses on those that didn't
work. <Close quote>
3 M company does this all the time - experiment, try new things and cut
the losses as soon as possible. What they don't do is fire the people, a
failure is something from which to learn. Leaders have to protect from
fatal failures.
What is more insidious than self destructive behaviors because the
incentives are wrong is cancerous behaviors. Cancerous tissue lives and
takes over a healthy organism as it kills the organism. Many times it is
not discovered until it is too late. IBM had the cancer of stagnation of
strategy in their long concentration on mainframe technology. It looks
like they will survive, but only after major, and painful surgery. Is
Apple going to survive? This is an iffy situation for Apple.
I think that the book 'Built to Last' by Collins and Porras gives examples
of several corporations that atrophied to death simply because they
couldn't recognize the cancer they had. Interestingly enough, to
recognize a cancerous situation requires the perceptive judgement of
people who are thoroughly informed about the healthy state of the
business. The 'old timers' have an edge in this one.
-- "William J. Hobler, Jr." <bhobler@cpcug.org>