Michael McMaster wrote -
> I take "control" to mean pretty much what you indicated - some
> direct, traceable, linear cause & effect. It's not a term that
> allows for complexity, independent action of others, nor emergence.
I agree.
> It applies perfectly to a car - even though there are other factors
> involved such as environment writ large. The driver is in control in
> that clearly no one else is. It is not relevant to control that the
> top speed is not determined by the driver - that is already in the
> nature of what is being controlled. (We are talking about driving
> cars, not building them.)
But that is my point. People, like cars, have a nature which must be
taken into account when managing them. Among others, their nature
includes a dislike for taking orders and a tendency to become robotic
with brains turned off when given "too many orders".
> Compare the reliability of outcomes produced, the predictability of
> outcomes produced, with that of driving a car and tell me we are
> dealing with a phenomena of similar kind.
That is exactly what I contend is the truth. If the people arena
appears to be fraught with "chaos", it only exists in our lack of
understanding. It is predictable IMHO.
Here's some examples. If bosses treat their people as valued team players,
they become valued team players. If bosses show that they "care" about the
people, the people begin to show "care" about their work. If the boss
treats juniors as if they are the boss' customers for all manner of
support (training, information, tools, material, etc.) and corrects what
they believe to be wrong or explains to their satisfaction why it is
really correct, the people will treat each other and their customers to
the same high standards. If people are given access such that they can
put in their two cents to whatever level they desire when they desire to
do it and are given responses worthy of the two cents, the people will
become committed to their work because influence grants ownership and
ownership grants commitment. If people are treated with compassion and
understanding when they have their "day in the barrel", they act
compassionately and understandingly towards others rather than
uncooperatively or with discrimination. (I have not included many
specifics, but there exist specific actions to implement each of these.
Also, doing one without the others degrades results.)
There is much more which can be predicted, including all the cases at the
other extreme and in between if you want to be at 30% or 50% or 80% of the
way between "turned off and demotivated" and "turned on and highly
motivated, committed, creative team players who love to come to work".
> If managers are so "in control", then why can't they produce the
> results they promise, let alone the results they want?
Because most don't know how to do it given what their upbringing has
taught them. And although I have thoughts on responsibility,
accountability and authority, this post is already too long.
Michael then states -
> If it isn't obvious, I'm not interested in attempting to mediate in
> an organisational environment that is inherently lacking in design
> and operational principles and attempting to resolve issues as though
> the inherited social norms are givens within the corporation as
> without. I am interested in creating environments, cultures,
> structures, etc which give people an ability to coordinate their
> personal expressions for productive ends.
And this is exactly my interest, as well. This is what I meant that any
boss can "control". I apologize for using the term.
Regards, Joan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Pomo The Finest Tools for Managing People
Simonton Associates Based on the book
jpomo@gate.net "How to Unleash the Power of People"
About the book go to http://pages.prodigy.com/DMHD39A (use caps)
--"jpomo@gate.net" <jpomo@gate.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>