On June 27 Rol Fessenden posted one of the most revealing dialogs about
the hard part of leadership I have ever seen. What Rol discusses is what
US Navy (and I'm sure the other services) officers debated long into the
night. How does one balance humanity toward a fellow human against the
perceived good of the whole organization.
Rol writes
> I suspect that for many people, even
>managers, being in the position of having to terminate one person for the
>good of a larger group of people will feel like a conflict in values to
>them.
If you are a thinking manager you cannot avoid the conflict. You know
that the current situation is hurting the people in your group and that
termination will hurt the family of the person involved and the person.
It is a choice between two evils on this level alone.
Rol continues
>Many people on this list express that virtually everyone is savable
>and worth saving.
I subscribe to this notion. But reality must be faced. This may not be
the the place and these may not be the people to save this person. I have
advised several people to leave an organization because the cultural fit
was not proper. In several cases the people had outgrown the
organization.
Again Rol
>Some people would probably subscribe to the notion that
>all or virtually all problems which appear to be individual's problems are
>in reality management failure.
Recognizing that it could very well be management's. But I ask, which
management? Is it the management of the individual over his or her life?
Did the individual come to the situation with baggage from a previous
manager? There are too many imponderables to take blame for this type of
situation.
Rol continues
>For me, the struggle I described
>will result in clarity of values around most or all of the points on which
>I was conflicted. So I will choose perhaps a different action, a different
>outocme, and yet for me as well, I will have achieved clarity around the
>points of conflict.
For myself the clarity I want is illusive. Each additional conflict
causes additional reflection and additional insight. But it always seems
that there are more questions than answers.
Rol concludes
>In one sense, therefore, you are right that the conflict in the end will
>no longer exist. ... At some other macro level, there
>really is a conflict, and that is exactly why we have such a struggle to
>reach a conclusion.
And that is why the really good leaders are resilient. To be so they must
have an inner strength that comes from deep self mastery. The Navy found
during the Vietnam war that the best preparation for these trials was a
deep religious or philosophical foundation. The type of depth needed only
comes from reflective introspection concerning values and what are
acceptable behaviors -- acceptable from your self and by your self.
After such a deep post Rol states
>I hope this is not too rambling.
As for me Rol, you can ramble on this way whenever you wish. It is the
meat and bone of learning. Thank you.
Respectfully
Bill
--bhobler@worldnet.att.net Bill Hobler
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>