Pete Heineman wrote
>The alternative proposed by numerous listings of bottom-up, guerilla,
>brush-fire tactics represents an initial step towards autonomy; the
>decision to act on our own.
The implications of that decision include the risk of getting fired.
Another is that the people involved are so committed to the success of the
organization and so convinced that what the are proposing contributes to
that success that they are willing to run the risk of being out of work.
How should management react? What would you predict be the reaction of
your management?
>The dependent nature of man is to take a predictable path and to choose
>maintenance instead of enlightened self-interest. We look for "leadership"
>thereby implying that we are willing to "follow" others' interests.
While I agree that the culture of business encourages a dependent nature
isn't it better that we encourage a interdependent culture? I would like
every member of an organization to think 'My success, our success our
company's success are all the same thing.'
I think that this type of culture is one part of the concept of L O.
>Whether we like it or not, or believe it or not, leadership is solely up
>to the individual.
I don't think so. Leadership requires at least two people. Someone must
agree to be led. There are responsibilities from both roles to the other.
> The safe path in any organization is to avoid the frontier and to ask
>others to chart the new territories for us.
IMHO this is one of the desperate cries from people throughout our
culture, at least in the US. In government, business and industry we are
seeking leadership and not finding it. Our failure has many, many causes,
IMHO one of the biggest causes is our need for instant gratification by
the least painful path.
Rectification of this situation will probably be the result of massive
self mastery turn arounds in our general population.
>Power is a function of both position in the hierarchy and a state of mind.
>........ I have observed, however, that the perception of
>position and power is highly overrated.
As an example -- how far is the President of the US able to move the
federal government?? In the Navy we used to say that the only thing the
Chief of Naval Operations could really change is the Uniform. Then the
bell bottomed big collared sailor suit was reinstated by popular demand.
So much for power.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's better at sea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bhobler@cpcug.org Still a Submariner
William J. Hobler, Jr. Preferably Bill
Learning is the heat that keeps organizations flexible,
it is like the fierce flame that keeps steel molten.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ; ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
"William J. Hobler, Jr." <bhobler@cpcug.org>