K. Kemper (
entre@aztec.asu.edu) wrote:
"We need to get programs where managers talk to labor so that instead of
a schism, there winds up being instead, only a team with a leader responsible
directly to the board of directors"
"Socialists feel that the laborers..."
"...respond to lower level employee's points of view."
"Any rank privileges only alienate people."
I would suggest we look at the language we use. By using terms and referring to
people as "labor," "lower level," and "them" actually
helps CREATE the schism he refers to, and enables the concept and feeling of
rank. We need people to understand that each and every one of
us in an organization have different tasks, and it's the combining of these
tasks to produce a product or service that makes the
organization successful. Some people have more responsibility than others, take
more risks than others, and should consequently be
compensated more. But it takes an entire team effort for an organization to be
successful.
This may really fly in the face of those who feel they've "worked their way up
the ladder," or want the "power" that is inherent in various
management positions (actually, managers REALLY don't have any true power...once
we realize this, we begin leading rather than managing.
But that's another discussion...anyone want to take this one on?).
Many times it only takes looking at and changing our language to start changing
organizational cultures and working relationships. So we
should stop referring to PEOPLE as "labor" vs. "management," and start calling
them team mates, associates, peers, or whatever.
By the way...I'm not promoting socialism (I'm not looking to call people
"commrade")...I'm promoting working relationships between people
that will help the organization excel.
I'd love to hear others thoughts.
George Ferguson
georgeferguson@hmri.com