> Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 08:59:54 -0700
> From: BCOMPTON@novell.com (Ben Compton)
>
> Joan write:
>
> >The most important aspect of this human condition is that the boss
> > gets to decide how employees will act, what they do. If the boss
> > acts a certain way, employees will not be fearsome of their jobs
> > and will creatively commit themselves to do their best against the
> > highest standards of performance available, against all high value
> > standards. This includes being the best as concerns LO. Similarly,
> > the boss can act in a different way and cause employees to be
> > dishonest, play their cards close to their vest, not perform up to
> > normal value standards and not be good for LO.
Generally, people would follow what the managers do and not what they say.
> >So it is up to the boss to decide which actions he/she will use
> > because the response of employees has been preordained. If you
> > are interested in knowing what these actions are, email me
> > separately.
But is it true that the manager's actions have already been also
predetermined by the system? Or would managers decide on an action even
if it is going against teh book?
> I don't necessarily disagree with what Joan has said, however I think it
> is not an incomplete position. The dynamics of the system will largely
> dictate the "bosses" (or manager) behavior. And so in the end, everyone is
> responding to the systemic forces which most people don't even know exist.
> People who are placed in the same system will usually produce the same
> results.
Many have said that managers cannot be totally blamed for the things they
do because these actions are determined by the system in which they
function. So they really are like any other employee, regardless of
level. Managers are then subject to a lot controls, limited space, etc.
So, many of the actions they take are really dictated by the "book." A
manager that is willing to go againist teh system is considered an
entrepreneur in some cases, a crazy or weird guy in other cases, or a
trouble maker in most cases. One is always subject to risk of losing some
of value, if one goes against the company way!
> In my career I have seen groups literally chase their manager away -- get
> him/her fired, demoted, promoted, etc. -- thinking that their problems
> were directly related to that person. When the group "enthrones" someone
> whom they believe will solve their problems, they become startled when
> that person makes decisions similar to -- if not identical -- to the
> manager who was just removed.
Well, managers "sell" themselves as the porblem solvers. The guys who
deal with the exceptions, and if they can't do it then is OK for the
employees to throw them oout. Of course this is my own bias!
> Out of this cycle comes a conviction deep in the heart of the group that
> all managers are incompetent and cannot be trusted to do the right thing
> at the right time (the team I am currently working with has accepted this
> as an irrefutable fact). In reality, the manager has simply succumbed to
> systemic forces. I think to a large degree this is what contributes to
> "conspiratorial learning organizations" -- where the employees participate
> in a rich learning environment which excludes their management (I too have
> seen this dynamic, and have been disconcerted that it surfaces as
> frequently and belligerently as it does).
And they might actually be incompetent! It always makes me feel uneasy
when things are explained "by the system." Juran and Deming insisted that
the bulk of the problems are caused by the system (I interpret "by
management"). Who is responsible for the adjustments to the systems to
resolve the problems employees, customers, suppliers, ect. might have?
The managers are! I wouuld say that a manager who cannot "fix" the
system, when she or he is getting plenty of evidence from employees, or
suppliers, or customers, etc., is an incompetent.
Myron Tribus says that we all work in a system, and the responsility of
the manager to improve the system, with the help of those who work in it.
This is what the whole TQM/CQI movement demands of managers. In the
documentary "If Japan Can, why Can't We," Deming said something observe
the system and let it tell you what to improve. The problem I see is that
managers do not observe too much, and when something does not work they go
back to the book. I would say that way too many managers never really
question the system, and generally assume that it cannot be wrong.
> >From my viewpoint, as long as managers remain ignorant of the
> dynamics of the system they are operating in, I see little hope for any
> fundamental change in behavior.
Agree! That's why I would say that managers have to change their
traditional role of gatekeepers and become the pushers or champios of
improvements in the systems!
-- Ivan,
--*************************************************************** R. IVAN BLANCO, Ph.D. Voice 305 899-3515 Assoc. Prof. & Director Fax 305 892-6412 International Business Programs Andreas School of Business _________E-Mail Addresses________ Barry University Bitnet: Blanco%bu4090@Barryu Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695 Internet: Blanco@bu4090.barry.edu <<<<< ---------------- >>>>> "Si un hombre fuera necesario para sostener el Estado, este Estado no deberia existir." "If one man were necessary to sustain a Nation, this Nation should not exist." Simon Bolivar ===============================================================
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>