Michael McMaster replied to my note -
> Joan, we are in major disagreement. The difference the points on
> which we disagree make will be signficant in practice in my opinion.
>
> > But that is my point. People, like cars, have a nature which must be
> > taken into account when managing them.
>
> This is useful (not necessarily true) when considering some aspects
> of people - say motor skills and natural physical operations - and it
> is potentially useful (and potentially more dangerous) in considering
> what groups of people will do.
This is a major disagreement since I believe it is relatively easy to
prove that people respond to the actions of bosses in predictable
ways. Most persons in authority achieve consistent results through
people, either bad or good or somewhere in between, but always
consistent. So I question your contention of "potentially useful"
since I believe that faith that there should be a set of predicitable
outcomes is necessary prerequisite to discovery. Without belief in
the viabiltiy of the scientific process, that there are underlying
rules, no scientists would ever embark on a search for truth. Why not
the same with people??
> For instance in the danger area:
> > Among others, their nature includes a dislike for taking orders
>
> This is a contextual and possibly statistical statement but is far
> from "the truth". Including myself, I know people who like taking
> orders immensely in certain circumstances while remaining
> independent people of significant self-esteem. (The football team
> takes the orders of the coaching staff and the quarterback, to name
> an example.) I find it works well when I'm with someone who has far
> more expertise and we are attempting to accomplish something.
> (Please note that "giving orders" does not preclude listening,
> dialogue, etc.)
Like any rule, it has exceptions and you are addressing them, not the
rule. There are some predictable types of orders which are not
considered objectionable and we all know that someone has to be in
charge. But these objections/responses are what makes top-down
command and control organizations so ineffective in business. There
are always some who are just attempting to escape responsibility, but
this is not good for them and no boss can afford to have many people
who are waiting around for the next order rather than taking charge
and making effective use of time.
> Joan lists some significant "if - then" conditions such as:
>
> > If bosses treat their people as valued team players,
> > they become valued team players.
>
> While I generally agree that will be the likely outcome, I disagree that
> it is reliable or that the "advice" is sufficient. I've been there too
> many times when such interpretations have failed miserably.
I tried, but failed, to make the "insufficient case. I did not
provide any of the specific actions by which a boss can make
"one-liners", such as the one above about valued team players, come
true. But I do know what these actions are and I have seen in actual
practice that they do consistently achieve the goals expressed by my
"one-liners" IF most or all are used on a daily basis. I accept that
this is hard to believe. We cannot believe what we have not seen. The
only people who read them and then believe them are those who have
already successfully used some of them. A very large percentage of
those who learn them and then try them do become true believers.
> Worse, that idea has been around for decades (if not longer) and the
> easy results are not appearing.
The problem is that there has been no coherent set of common sense
actions by which to implement the idea. That is the gap which we at
Simonton Associates are attempting to fill. The actions of which I
speak are easy individually, but require a lot of effort to effect on
an every day basis, the only basis which works.
> Joan, I don't know the specifics of your approaches and I don't
> question your personal effectiveness, the effectiveness of your
> models nor your intentions. I assume that, as intentions, they are
> aligned with mine in at least sufficiently broad terms to be allies
> in the game of realising a better life at work.
>
> What my posts are aimed at is a way of thinking and speaking that
> will impact the way that the past century of management has
> developed.
>
> I agree that management's lack of reliability is their upbringing
> (experience, theory, etc) and lack of behavioural knowledge. I am of
> the opinion that a different conceptual model, different behaviours,
> different organisation, different understanding than can be found in
> the classical management or the classical scientific model are
> needed.
I could not agree more and I appreciate your comments. More??
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/>