On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, jpomo@gate.net wrote:
Joan Pomo said...
[much snipped]
> The above seems to work well in the workplace since armed with these
> models, any boss can then track down the "excuses" in use and correct the
> leadership which communicated them. The boss can also use the tactic of
> causing people to change from being externally directed followers to being
> internally directed non-followers, this tactic having the largest effect
> on commitment and creativity.
I find this hard to understand, Joan, for a couple of reasons. First,
there is the logical level which seems to be contradictory. Specifically,
when you say the boss is "causing people to change from being externally
directed followers to being internally directed non-followers", would that
not be something of a conundrum? If the boss is "causing" this to happen,
would she or he not be creating "followers" in the process? What if they
did not follow what the boss was intending for them to do and stayed
externally directed followers. Would that not then make them also the
other as well? I know that this is taking the issue to absurdity, but I do
this to raise the question of whether there is, in fact, a "causer/causee"
relationship to begin with.
At a second level, as a practicing counselor for quite a number of years I
have found that the notion that I or anyone else can "cause" that sort of
shift in other people is not likely no matter how much I would wish it so.
People cannot shift from one to the other even when _they_ wish it so
without considerable risk, effort, pain, learning, and growth over time in
a supportive environment for change. If working to create this kind of
environment and this sort of process is what you mean by "causing", then I
am in agreement that it could happen for some people--especially as they
learn the power of working effectively in teams to amplify their
strengths, energies, and talents.
I believe that the problem I am having with what you have described comes
from my perception of your focus on the boss as the source of power and
your use of the words "tactics" and "cause" as the expression of that
power. I am not sure if it is a "semantic" or "substantive" difference in
the way we understand things to be, but I would like to hear more about it
from you (and others) to help me make better sense of it.
Let me know if this makes any sense to you.
Tobin
--Tobin Quereau Austin Community College quereau@austin.cc.tx.us
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>