I like Michael McMaster's characterization of 'they'!
>I do not accept that it can be "just a few COLD managers". There is
>a system operating and if a few cold managers can do such things,
>then there is a larger system which is allowing, encouraging,
>causing, etc.
>
>But then, it isn't "they" at all. It is the system.
>
But I question what the system is if it isn't 'us', that is the people who
are in the community in question?
Here and elsewhere on the list we seem to be trying to 'lay blame' on
something that makes organizations dysfunctional. And the, seemingly,
convenient and non-threatening answer is 'the system.' To me the only
discerning part of all communities are 'us' the people in them. Therefore,
I reason that we are the cause of our organization's dysfunction.
I think that a series of questions along the line of, why do we respond in
this dysfunctional manner?, are more productive. Why am I angry when
I fill out a supply request for paper clips and present it to my boss for
his/her approval? This can start a move to eliminate a petty procedure.
To the position that the system is bigger than all of us, therefore our
dysfunctional behavior is reaction to something we believe we cannot change.
I have two thoughts. First, why not move from the community to a new, less
dysfunctional community? Second, if we do not take some action to change
the organization (the system) then we are stuck in a morass of our own
making. Whether we are in leadership positions or are followers we are
mired down. The leader because s(he) perpetuates the system and the
followers because they acquiesce to it. Both are causes of dysfunction.
--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/>