Sb: LO=Sugar on Bitter Pill LO5840
John Burgoyne says, 'There is considerable evidence that some of the ideas
associated with the aspirations for new forms of learning company are
being used to sugar the pill of the delayering, downsizing organisation,
which is demanding that many of its members either leave or work harder
for the same, or less, reward (while significantly increasing the rewards
of those senior managers driving these changes). Offers of empowerment,
autonomous group working and participation in decision-making are serving
as forms of inner control (the capture of hearts and minds) to replace the
old forms of outer control (job descriptions, objectives, work roles). The
greatest threat to the emergence of a genuinely more developmental form of
organisation may be that the ideas become discredited through this form of
abuse before they have had a chance to take hold.'
==== End of quote ====
At first, I was very tempted to agree with this. The more I read it,
however, the less accurate I think it is.
He says there is 'considerable evidence' but cites none. There has been a
lot of similar discussion on this forum, and I have tried to put evidence
into play, but there has been no evidence presented -- unless I missed
something -- that what he says is actually occurring.
He refers to sugaring the pill. This is a metaphor, and like all metaphors
can be helpful or dangerous. I guess no one is fond of pills, so there is
a subtle but powerful negative agenda at work here.
He does not identify -- as we have not -- the systemic reasons behind
delayering and downsizing, but by linking this with ever higher executive
salaries (I agree this is a travesty), he again delivers a pretty powerful
negative message.
The next sentence is a very insidious one. "Offers of empowerment,
autonomous group working and participation in decision-making are serving
as forms of inner control (the capture of hearts and minds) to replace the
old forms of outer control (job descriptions, objectives, work roles)."
If they are _real_ offers -- that is, workers end up with empowerment,
group work environments, participation in decision-making -- those are
pretty tangible. What is wrong with wanting someone to make a commitment
in return? Furthermore, he has presented no evidence. I can imagine this
happening, but where is the research? This nothing more than editorial
opinion.
Do ideas get abused, as he suggests? You better believe it. Is that
happening more with these concepts than, say TQ? Not noticeably. Is he
abusing the use of language to push an unsubstantiated agenda? In my
opinion, yes. I personally want to see the data, the evidence, the
research.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean 76234.3636@compuserve.comLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>