Discussion: View Thread

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 Ed Brenegar wrote Re: Gov't vs. Private rules
>
>Jack Ring writes:
>>...As Prof. Adizes clearly illustrates
>> in his Corporate Lifecycles model, private enterprises can become so
>> in-focused that they swing their efforts toward preserving and sustaining
>> the institution rather than serving customers or employees. When the
>> orientation of objectives swings from serving others to serving self then
>> the problems start to occur (unless, of course, you are the monarch).
>
>I don't think this criticism should be associated just with private
>enterprises. It is true of any human endeavor. Once you have lost clarity
>of purpose and measures of achievement, all there is left is perpetuation of
>the institution. I see it all the time.
>
>What is the cause of this? Any number of things, but more than anything is
>the human pension for security and safety. [...]the reality that
>attention to the Core
>Mission and Values of an institution are what sustain an organization over
>time. And with each passing month of service to clients, I'm more and more
>convinced of this truth.
>
I agree that the phenom is seen far beyond private enterprise. But I have
some trouble with your diagnosis, therapy and prescription.
Have you ever met a person who did not like to learn?
The brain's secretion of enkaphalons is the most powerful narcotic and can
addict anyone to learning despite any ramifications of security and safety.

It is when the individual is submerged in organizations and institutions
that they are suffocated by power games and prevented from learning. The
Core Mission and Values of an institution, unless comprised solely of the
mission and values of the denizens, is just so much window dressing. True,
institutional M and V can be a palliative and even rallying point but only
for corporate zombies. The effect may last for months but it is not an
organic form of growth.

No doubt Petronius also had a bumper sticker on his chariot that read
something like
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Office) 480-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax) 480-488-4616
"The secret of success is changing the way you think.-- Jack Welch, CEO,
General Electric

> Have you ever met a person who did not like to learn?
Yes, I meet people all the time who are not interested in learning.
Learning implies change. And change is normally resisted because of what
you suggest, that the freedom and personality of the individual is submerged
and suffocated by their organizations. People embrace change when they feel
that have some control over its outcome, and understand and have an
opportunity to buy into the change. Learning implies a level of autonomy
that many organizations do not want their people to have because it disturbs
the stability of the organization. A stable organization is a dying
organization in my estimation. Either change or die. And in order to
change, people have to believe they have the authority to change. An
organization or management committed to its own self-perpetualtion will not
grant that level of freedom to their people. It requires courage and trust
to release the organization to change.

> It is when the individual is submerged in organizations and institutions
> that they are suffocated by power games and prevented from learning. The
> Core Mission and Values of an institution, unless comprised solely of the
> mission and values of the denizens, is just so much window dressing.
True,
> institutional M and V can be a palliative and even rallying point but only
> for corporate zombies. The effect may last for months but it is not an
> organic form of growth.

The scenario you describe is one where perpetuating the institution and its
power based, in spite of the espoused Mission and Values of the
organization, is the situation I criticize. In this instance, M&V are
irrelevant. But at what cost? Fear and repression of criticism because it
is a threat to the system will increase performance only as long as you have
employees willing to be subjugated.

Also you suggest that M&V are comodities that are sold to employees that
work for a period of time, then fade. I'm suggesting that the on-going
development of M&V is how to build a sustainable culture that is flexible
and adaptable to changing circumstances. Using M&V to merely perpetuate the
institution is a death sentence on the institution.

Ed Brenegar