In LO11112 Clyde Howell writes:
> The camera operator in a local television station decides that s/he is
> accountable for the quality of his/her work. This makes a better
> broadcast but it doesn't directly contribute to the goals of station or
> network management to increase market share. Still, this is the level at
> which a true difference is made.
>
> The compensation analyst slaves to do market comparisons and job analyses
> to establish a wage rate that is market-comparable and fair, deciding to
> be accountable for this work. This is VITAL to the success of a large
> organization. Yet, it does little to directly impact the success of that
> large corporation as it strives to make better tires, produce cheaper
> power, cater to the tastes of personal computer users, etc. And, still,
> it is at this level that the true difference is made.
>
> I guess I am saying, in a rather long-winded fashion, that It seems to me
> that, in many (most?) cases, a vision or a mission is irrelevant in
> deciding whether to be accountable and in determining whether a difference
> has been made that betters the organization.
I agree that it is certainly not the norm in todays larger organizations
for there to be a clear, and applicable, mission statement. I would also
agree that in most cases workers in most of these organizations end up
"doing their own thing" because they have a confused direction coming from
senior management.
In my opinion clear direction must be directed from the senior management
in the form of a direction or a mission statement. It is in this manner
that companies can evaluate where they stand regarding the goals that they
have set out for themselves. I have always found that the majority of
individuals who are working hard, and taking accountability for their
work, do so because they take a certain enjoyment or pride out of doing
their job, this usually happens because the organization provides the
proper atmosphere. Your examples are of the people who recognize how they
can contribute effectively, and take accountability for their work in a
positive fashion for the organization.
What if these same employees chose to take a different course of action,
ie. not slave or take pride in their quality of work. First there must be
an authority to ensure that the choices employees are making benefit the
organization according to the goals and values the organization has set
out. Any decision that any employee makes will effect the organization,
and the employee used in your examples probably have more effect that we
know. I agree on the point that everyone is in charge of their own
accountability, and that managers who try to control events are setting
unrealistic expectations. I would say that accountability, authourity and
mission statements are all linked in that they give managers a way in
which to evaluate the choices, or accountability, that an employee makes.
Not nescessarily to change the details of that employees work, but to
ensure that the organization and the employee are charting the same course
(and changing it when need be). Give people the goals, and then let them
run with them, this makes accountability a truly empowering thing.
I realize that the organizations I am talking about are few, which is
exactly the reason that I am interested in the learning organization.
There are many lessons to be taught by this minority.
Just some thoughts, look forward to hearing back.
Chris Speyer
Forzani Group Limited
Western Canadian Training and Development Manager
speyerc@cadvision.com
--Chris Speyer <speyerc@cadvision.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>