Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 11-29-1999 15:08
    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.

    Regards.
    Ron Makaruk
    Minneapolis, Minnesota
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Alice Macpherson <alicemac@KWANTLEN.BC.CA>
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
    Date: Sunday, November 28, 1999 5:56 PM
    Subject: Re: About respecting one another


    >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.
    >
    >best regards
    >
    >alice
    >
    >
    >*****************************************************************
    >* Alice Macpherson, TQ, ID phone: (604) 599-2426 vm 9954 *
    >* Kwantlen University College email: alicemac@kwantlen.bc.ca *
    >* 12666-72nd Ave, Surrey, BC, Canada, V3W 2M8 *
    >* "Life Long Learning includes Everyone, All the Time" *
    >*****************************************************************


  • 2.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 11-29-1999 17:12
    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


  • 3.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 11-29-1999 19:06
    On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Ron Makaruk 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.

    Uh, yes, I'd agree with that.

    Perhaps we could work on defining "normal" ... ;-)
    Some people do this all the time and it is normal for them and
    dysfunctional for those around them and their organization.

    Interesting thoughts.

    best regards

    alice

    *****************************************************************
    * Alice Macpherson, TQ, ID phone: (604) 599-2426 vm 9954 *
    * Kwantlen University College email: alicemac@kwantlen.bc.ca *
    * 12666-72nd Ave, Surrey, BC, Canada, V3W 2M8 *
    * "Life Long Learning includes Everyone, All the Time" *
    *****************************************************************


  • 4.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 11-29-1999 19:08
    Amen

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Alice Macpherson [mailto:alicemac@KWANTLEN.BC.CA]
    Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 6:06 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Subject: Re: Response to: About respecting one another


    On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Ron Makaruk 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.

    Uh, yes, I'd agree with that.

    Perhaps we could work on defining "normal" ... ;-)
    Some people do this all the time and it is normal for them and
    dysfunctional for those around them and their organization.

    Interesting thoughts.

    best regards

    alice

    *****************************************************************
    * Alice Macpherson, TQ, ID phone: (604) 599-2426 vm 9954 *
    * Kwantlen University College email: alicemac@kwantlen.bc.ca *
    * 12666-72nd Ave, Surrey, BC, Canada, V3W 2M8 *
    * "Life Long Learning includes Everyone, All the Time" *
    *****************************************************************


  • 5.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 11-30-1999 22:59
    To Fred Nickols and others in the discussion of dysfunctional systems:

    We use a lot of words to try to explain dysfunctional systems. I have
    read Senge and many others, and I have experienced many different
    systems. I have also spent quite a bit of my life developing systems
    using computers. I think I began studying psychology because of the
    behavior I saw when we tried to help people use the computer (this was
    years ago, but it's not much different now). My conclusion (unfinished
    childhood "issues") is the only one which makes sense to me. As long as
    particular childhoods are not in the spotlight, most people agree with
    this explanation. Since (using this hypothesis) all of us are products
    of such childhoods, managers/owners are no different, and no more or less
    "to blame" for dysfunction. In my opinion, we all share in the
    dysfunction, and we can all help set it on a better path. Being
    straight about ourselves could get things started in the right direction.
    All the protective coloring we've put on hasn't helped much--all the
    technical expertise just makes us sound like geeks -- we need to show our
    humanity, I think. Worth a try, anyway. We seem to have tried
    everything else.

    (Edryce is a female name. It's pronounced like the word "address" and
    changing the first syllable to "ed" - emphasis on the first syllable.)

    Edryce


  • 6.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 12-01-1999 03:53
    The connotations and denotations of the word dysfunction can raise hackles
    on many people. The impression is often given that people are either
    functional or dysfunctional. Yet, only 3% of the population is totally
    functional ... another 3% totally dysfunctional ... and the rest of us are
    to some degree dysfunctional. (See literature on obsessive/ compulsive
    behaviors. My personal opinion is that it is a bimodal curve with the
    totally functional 3% in the middle, the 3% normally considered totally
    dysfunctional on one end, and they opposites on the other end .... leaving
    91% of us split in each of the modes. Just IMHO. I'd love to see studies
    on it).

    I would suspect to credit ALL of our dysfunctional behaviors to our
    childhoods is simplistic ... we are learning all the time ... some good
    habits and some bad. :) Our childhood's pre-bias us, but don't 100%
    limit us.

    Conna


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Edryce Reynolds [SMTP:edryce@JUNO.COM]
    Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 7:59 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
    Subject: Re: Response to: About respecting one another

    To Fred Nickols and others in the discussion of dysfunctional systems:

    We use a lot of words to try to explain dysfunctional systems. I have
    read Senge and many others, and I have experienced many different
    systems. I have also spent quite a bit of my life developing systems
    using computers. I think I began studying psychology because of the
    behavior I saw when we tried to help people use the computer (this was
    years ago, but it's not much different now). My conclusion (unfinished
    childhood "issues") is the only one which makes sense to me. As long as
    particular childhoods are not in the spotlight, most people agree with
    this explanation. Since (using this hypothesis) all of us are products
    of such childhoods, managers/owners are no different, and no more or less
    "to blame" for dysfunction. In my opinion, we all share in the
    dysfunction, and we can all help set it on a better path. Being
    straight about ourselves could get things started in the right direction.
    All the protective coloring we've put on hasn't helped much--all the
    technical expertise just makes us sound like geeks -- we need to show our
    humanity, I think. Worth a try, anyway. We seem to have tried
    everything else.

    (Edryce is a female name. It's pronounced like the word "address" and
    changing the first syllable to "ed" - emphasis on the first syllable.)

    Edryce


  • 7.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 12-01-1999 10:27
    On 1 Dec 99, at 0:53, Conna Condon wrote:

    > The connotations and denotations of the word dysfunction can raise hackles
    > on many people. The impression is often given that people are either
    > functional or dysfunctional. Yet, only 3% of the population is totally
    > functional ... another 3% totally dysfunctional ... and the rest of us are
    > to some degree dysfunctional. (See literature on obsessive/ compulsive
    > behaviors. My personal opinion is that it is a bimodal curve with the
    > totally functional 3% in the middle, the 3% normally considered totally
    > dysfunctional on one end, and they opposites on the other end .... leaving
    > 91% of us split in each of the modes. Just IMHO. I'd love to see studies
    > on it).

    Just a quibbly point. How is that bimodal? You've got this set up
    oddly, I think. 3% in each tail, the majority in the middle. Normal
    curve, yes?


    Bookmark the search for anything page - websites, email addresses, books,newsgroups, lists.
    http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/search.htm


  • 8.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 12-01-1999 17:01
    Just a quibbly point. How is that bimodal? You've got this set up
    oddly, I think. 3% in each tail, the majority in the middle. Normal
    curve, yes?


    3% totally dysfunctional
    45.5% normal tending to one extreme of dysfunction
    3% totally functional
    45.5% normal tending to other extreme of dysfunction
    3% totally dysfunctional

    One person may be totally dysfunctional due to being totally
    out of control .... while another is totally dysfunctional from an
    obsession/compulsion requiring total control. That's either end
    of an extreme. Totally functional recognizes appropriately when
    to control and when to let go. Few of us always get that right.


  • 9.  Response to: About respecting one another

    Posted 12-01-1999 18:17
    On 1 Dec 99, at 14:00, Conna Condon wrote:

    > Just a quibbly point. How is that bimodal? You've got this set up
    > oddly, I think. 3% in each tail, the majority in the middle. Normal
    > curve, yes?
    >
    >
    > 3% totally dysfunctional
    > 45.5% normal tending to one extreme of dysfunction
    > 3% totally functional
    > 45.5% normal tending to other extreme of dysfunction
    > 3% totally dysfunctional

    If you were to graph this what would be your x access? (what
    dimenstion or trait?)


    Bookmark the search for anything page - websites, email addresses, books,newsgroups, lists.
    http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/search.htm