Mr. Nickols
Cheer-up things will get worse. I don't believe I did miss the mark in my
statement that it is management's responsibility to develop and enforce
constructive cultural standards. If anything the "mark" I was trying to
point to did not stick. So in the interests of clarification .... You are
correct in saying that "it is unbelievably easy to attribute workplace war
zones to poor management". I do believe this is true. But it is just a
simple truth and not the whole truth. Finding "a truth" is passive (it
changes nothing but it is a pre-requisite to setting an "anchor" from which
to derive clarity or focus for discovering further truths) so the first step
in developing the ability to respond is in the identification of specific
truths. (Further sweeps into "Global" concepts and inferences.)
So why is it "a truth" and something that management should necessarily be
held accountable for? If you were to consider this from a systems
perspective it is management's responsibility to lead, govern and set the
standards for specified tasks and objectives (nothing new here). What is
implied but not stated is that the weight of organizational cultural
accountability needs stand with management in order for it to be embedded
within the actions of their employees. The qualities these standards imbue
into the day to day operations have a proportionate impact on the ability of
the stakeholders to function in the best of all circumstances to achieve the
desired rational outcomes.
In developing constructive qualities, the perspective that individuals
choose to adopt bears on the system's nature and its ability to sustain a
healthy organizational and cultural eco-system. A manager who gives
consideration to his / her human resources and the responsibility he/she has
in relation to their human and systemic worth (real and potential) sets the
tone for long-term health and well-being of the system. It is on this level
of "systems thinking" that the mutual responsibility and the resulting
impact of the choices takes on the most significance.
Perspectives are derived from attitudes and generalized intuitive
assessments. Attitudes are formed from preconceived values and
interpretations of historical experiences. We use them continually when
assessing ourselves and others. But what is often missed in intuitive
assessments is that what you see is not always what is. Our ability to
transfer our fears and anxieties into the intuitively interpreted motives of
others is often exacerbated by our lack of real skills in Socratic inquiry
and self-testing. The consequences are even more pronounced when both
parties are deficient in this area or use the same assessment approaches.
In the face of deficient skills a good counter is placing more effort into
mutual consideration.
In regard to wars. Although their are some common elements of war in
selective business processes the purpose of business is not war. Good
governing is a part of good business. The weight of bias' on the values of
business needs to be based on nurturing practices. The bias in the values
of war are based on self-protection, preservation and or conquest. When
wars occur in business the issues of consequences are historically justified
in the hard-dying industrial-era premise of the survival of the fittest as
opposed to poor strategic planning, poor practices, myopic-sightedness and
quick fixes. Here the application of appropriate methods and the measures
become equated to "acceptable losses". This too is "the nature" of things
when these multi-dimensional perspectives become centered upon "mis-directed
passions" as opposed to "systems guardianship".
Responsibility is a two-way street but it is precisely because of the nature
of systemic management that a manager should be expected to have the
knowledge and skills to function as guardians of the principles of system
ecology. Here, the common ground lies in honestly assessing one's own
responsibility as mutual management / employee stakeholders and then
assessing it relationally to one's commitments. The ability of each to
respond requires an honest assessment, ownership of boundaries, noting their
inherent requirements and gathering the required resources to support the
actions through a sustained effort. Being responsible might also require
finding a job with another organization if the current culture is
dysfunctional.
I hope this helps to make my original statement clear.
I apologize if I stepped in on a conversation that had been going on for a
while. I have been a viewer rather than a contributor and could not help
myself in responding to Alice. I'll settle back again to my viewer position
...... until the next time I impulsively step in.
Regards
Ron Makaruk
Minneapolis
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Nickols <
nickols@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Response to: About respecting one another
>Ron Makaruk, responding to Alice Macpherson who was in turn responding to
>Edryce Reynolds, wrote...
>
>>Excuse me Alice. Although you are correct in that frustration is an
element
>>of the issue, how we respond is subject to our "normal" nature. It
becomes
>>dysfunctional and irresponsible only when one or the other party looses
site
>>of the boundaries of their positions and objectives and turn instead to
>>massaging mis-aligned egos through inappropriate power-based tactics.
>>Workplace war zones develop because of poor management and the inability
to
>>develop or enforce constructive cultural standards.
>
>Alice had written...
>
>> >On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Edryce Reynolds wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, we all have unresolved issues left over from childhood....that
>> >> could explain why we have not treated one another with respect. When
we
>> >> move into that frustrated part of ourselves, that place where we have
>> >> pushed our hurts from the past, we do not react "normally." Could
this
>> >> also explain why the workplace so often becomes a war zone?
>> >
>> >In a word ... Yes.
>> >
>> >I think that it is a worthy aspect to work on for change.
>
>
>Excuse me, Ron (to borrow your phrase), but I believe you are so wide of
>the mark as to have put the spectators in jeopardy. (No, don't take that
>personally, I'm just feeling feisty.)
>
>It is unbelievably easy to attribute workplace war zones to poor
>management and the inability to develop or enforce constructive cultural
>standards. It is an altogether different matter to do something about
>those vague, amorphous causal factors that are so easily identified via
>nothing more than a mere act of labeling. Wars, whether in the workplace
>or elsewhere, are not initiated or fought by countries, groups or
>organizations; they are fought by people. (I say that as a career military
>man who spent 20 years in the service of his country.) Similarly, as many
>noted management and organizational theorists have noted (sorry for the
>redundant use of terms), organizations don't do anything, people do. (My
>two favorites in this regard are Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch.)
>
>Frankly, I thought Edryce Reynolds had put (his/her) finger on something
>very important; namely, that the workplace is a playground for adults and
>that we are all "acting out" on this playground. Much of what happens,
>then, is a consequence of this "acting out." That, of course, doesn't at
>all fit with any view of the workplace as a rational and rationalized place
>where controls work as planned, plans work as intended, and the only
>intentions that matter are those of the powers that be.
>
>Finally, for what it's worth, I thought that what Edryce said and what you
>said are startlingly similar. In fact, I could easily incorporate both
>sets of comments in a summary and link the two using this time-worn phrase:
>"In other words..."
>--
>
>
>
>Fred Nickols
>The Distance Consulting Company
>"Assistance at A Distance"
>http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
>
nickols@worldnet.att.net
>(609) 490-0095