Dale Emery writes: If you see management as the keeper of the system, and you
already have a bias that management is the problem, you'll go looking for
problems in "the system."
Rol Fessenden writes: "I wonder why is there so much anger out there?"
Perhaps this is only _MY_ answer. I suspect not.
There is no single factor in my mind which creates anxiety/ rage more than unfulfilled
expectations. Furthermore, I beleive there is a distinction to be made between
nay-sayers of management and/or a system and those who are willing to be part of the
solution yet recognize the shortcomings of the status quo (whatever nomenclature one
would choose to describe the status quo).
The intent of studying systems theory is to encourage an organization's people to think
about paradigms, unintended consequences, team learning, etc. This practice results
from the basic premise that all components interactively affect outcomes. Included in
this, there is the explicit recognition of leverage within the components of any system.
IMHO, without the years of consulting experience many of you have, it seems to me that
an organization _CANNOT_ leverage itself when the recognized methods for changing
paradigms (read "policies") are not functioning to make important change happen. In
many organizations, the recognized mechanism for change resides with the management
team. This is where the leverage continues to be greatest.
In two weeks, I will be moving to another firm to do much the same work while continuing
to develop professionally in other ways. My move is prompted by the understanding that
my current organization's system has radically changed. Although I have put forth a
good faith effort for over a year in roles for which I am not compensated, I don't seem
to have a voice.
My current organization is experiencing triple- digit growth nationally over the last
year without having the infrastructure in place... particularly those skill positions in
management which are needed to manage the growth. (Can you say "merger" and "riding the
wave"?) Locally, at this time last year, there were 250 employees. Today, there are
650. In the next two months, the local site head count will grow by a minimum of 50%
again. Undertrained mid level managers are focused on facilities and recruiting (read
"body count").
Since November, I have talked with the local operations manager, HR representatives, my
immediate supervisers, OD trainers in the headquarters, et al and suggested that
managerial training is our highest area of leverage. Sounds like what one would want to
do to better the system.
Some education has occured in the existing staff. However, there has been no proactive
evaluation of where tommorrow's management will come from _and_ no systematic effort to
develop training to meet these needs.
As one might suspect, there has been an alarming turnover among the worker bees, even
for the industry. In the past year, one operations manager and one HR manager have
departed as well as several line managers.
So my point is simply where has the system broken down? How does the system improve
itself without direct action by those at the top?
--Stephen Weed <slweed@cyberhighway.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>