This is a long one, folks.
In LO10749 Ben Compton wrote:
> We're now preparing to take our thoughts into cyber-cafes where the
> socially conscious people hang out, and tell them, "You want to save the
> environment? You want to corporations to have a conscience? Then you've
> got to go to work for a company, and you've got to influence it. Most
> meaningful social change comes from the corporate world. Don't condemn
> them from the outside. Get a job, and change business from the inside."
> We're putting it together with music, so the presentation will include
> both dialogue and music.
I left the corporate environment a while back and am glad I did (at least
THAT corporate environment). I still hear a lot of the goings-on there
and have been interested to hear some of the stuff that has transpired.
The upper-level manager who was over me was having an affair with an
underling. Together they ruined and chased off a lot of very good people
who couldn't support their activities. They have since been fired for
these activities.
A major reorg is underway within the managerial ranks. Those who came
from the corporate structure (branded on the butt to prove it, too) are
being put into upper management positions regardless of qualifications.
Those who were there before the company took over the site, as well as
those who came after the transition from other-than-corporate sources, are
being systematically placed elsewhere, even if they are more qualified and
competent that the branded corporate people.
The management contract was recently rebid and won by the same
corporation. Even before the rebid the president of the management
company (my former company) and the senior manager of the owning agency
are both under investigation for unethical use of undue influence in
hiring decisions (they got their children hired at the site). This
allegedly went on even as large numbers of regular employees were being
laid off.
So what is the point of all of this?
I agree that employees have an obligation, as corporate citizens, to help
bring about change for the betterment of the organization. However, in
many organizations, especially businesses, those who are inside are
considered obvious troublemakers when they seek to do this. The real
impetus for change, sometimes even low-level, relatively insigificant
change, comes when the senior people in the organization see something on
the oputside and decide that this is a great idea for THEM to bring to the
organization.
The people I mentioned above were all people to whom I tried to bring good
ideas for change. Because I was an insider, my ideas weren't seen as
credible. After all, if I really knew what I was talking about I would be
at their level in the organization. Better yet, if I knew what I was
talking about, I would be on the outside making megabucks as a consultant
or motivational speaker. I watched idea after idea get shot down and
ignored, only to have many of those same ideas fed back to me from above
with other names (such as Senge, Deming, Drucker, etc.) attached. When I
brought up that I had previously suggested the same ids and actions,. I
was branded as a person who sees himself as a "victim of the system" and
seeks to find proof of this victimization in everything that goes on.
This is part of the reasons that I left.
The idea of not just sitting on the sidelines taking potshots and getting
personally involved instead has merit. I agree. However, often this is
just not practical. Sometimes the real chance to make a difference comes
from being on the outside.
Yes, I know that my previous management may have been out of touch with
current thinking. However, I have found that many
organizations/corporations are in that same condition. Simply changing
organizations does not mean that the conditions will change.
Respectfully submitted.
--Clyde Howell orgpsych@csra.net
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>