Re: Self Organizing systems LO4034

Rol Fessenden (76234.3636@compuserve.com)
03 Dec 95 18:33:38 EST

Replying to LO3873 --

I -- Rol Fessenden -- wrote

"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>

to which William J. Hobler replied:

"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."

** End Quote **

Actually, what I referred to was different members of the _same_ team
having different solutions, generally solutions that relied heavily or
exclusively on their own specialty. In other words, these are teams that
do not yet adequately understand or value what their teammates bring to
the task. Some teams really do come up with their own unique approaqches
to problems, and that is celebrated. For some reason that no one
understands, some teams refuse to be teams.

** Another quote **

Rol Fessenden wrote about having to cut a non-productive self organized
team

"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."

To which William Hobler replied:

"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."

** End quotes **

Your last sentence is really what I was trying to say. _Naturally_
self-organizing teams -- that is, without the benefit of higher-level
sponsorship -- run the risk of investing in something that the company
does not value sufficiently. Leadership needs to prevent that misplaced
use of scarce resources. Leadership's involvement implies that these are
not -- by definition -- naturally self-organizing. Have I made this
confusing enough?

--
Rol Fessenden <76234.3636@compuserve.com>