Gary,
At the risk of seeming argumentive I have elected to use the embedded
response form. I hope it makes sense to you.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Lear" <
discuss@rds-net.com>
To: <
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 4:49 PM
[...]
> regarding employees having a relationship with their managers, I whole
> heartily agree that they should. But this relationship should be one of
> partner
> and coach, not overseer and judge.
[jr] Accordingly, should be funded by employee, not by employer.
> Western thought believes that managers
> should tell employees how to behave and what to do, and then judge them on
> how
> well they followed orders.
[jr] Such generalizations could be debated ad naseum.
> My belief is that you select people who fit with
> your organization culturally;
[jr] Please tell me how the organization and its culture appeared in the
first place. Seems to be some magical thinking going on here.
> insure that they understand their purpose and
> roles; that they have the knowledge and skills to carry out that purpose;
> and
> the support systems to accomplish it.
[jr] So does 'western management.'
> To me, this means that managers should have a different role. From the
> Principle of Non-Interference we learn that no one has the right to tell
> someone
> else how to live their life.
[jr] To me this means that managers are not needed.
> So the roles that I envision a manager having is
> that of helping employees to make emotional connections to the
> organization's
> overall Purpose, Values, and Goals, and to become a teacher and a coach by
> helping the employee develop their strengths.
[jr] But your concept says that all that was confirmed when they were hired.
> This is quite different from the
> roles that most managers tend to think that they should be doing.
[jr] How many do you claim to represent?
> Neither of these roles that I propose requires the manager to tell an
> employee
> how to do their job or to judge them on how well they did it. That should
> be
> done though pre-determined and agreed upon objective and measurable goals
[jr] pre-determined by who and agreed upon how? Does this include stretch
goals and BHAG's?
> that
> an employee can track for themselves as close to real-time as possible.
> There
> is no discrepancy about the attainment of these goals; either they
> achieved
> them, surpassed them, or fell short of them. And some of these goals
> might not
> even be solely individual, but rather team and organizational, as well.
> So this now leaves a manager free to help keep the employee excited about
> the
> Purpose of the organization and the Purpose of their own roles, as well as
> helping to keep them focused on the Values and the Goals needed to achieve
> that
> Purpose.
[jr] But wait, didn't we confirm, before hiring, that they had the
competence to keep themselves excited? Why do they need a manager to do
that with them?
> It also allows them to be free to help the employee perform at their
> best though coaching and teaching. Asking the employee questions and
> helping
> them to learn lessons on their own should be the main approach, following
> the
> Principle of Non-Interference. Only in those times when an employee has
> asked
> for explicit judgment or instructions should it be given.
[jr] How many teenagers have you raised?
>
> Now in regard to continuing to look back to performance from the distant
> past,
> either good or bad, to me is to waste too much energy when we should be
> focused
> on the future. Part of the Rule of Acceptance talks about this. "The
> past is
> the past, let it be." Yes, the past does have a hand in making us who we
> are.
> We learn lessons from the past, and we learn how to apply those lessons to
> the
> future. But to sit down on an annual basis and dredge up this past only
> creates
> unbalance and disharmony.
[jr] If that is what you envision being done then I suspect you are right.
But I envision celebrating (reinforcing) the learning of lessons from the
past and the applying them to the future. Further, I envision this being
done not just between manager and employee but also among employees.
>
> A much better approach would be to focus on the future and the goals you
> want to
> accomplish. Looking to the past is not going to help you set these goals
> nor
> obtain them.
[jr] Au contrare. As is well known a single event can be interpreted a
number of ways by various observers. David Snowden,
www.cynefin.com calls
this multi-ontology sense making. Before looking at goals for the future it
is prudent to affirm that the manager and employee have coherent views of
the present, thus the past.
> Yes, I do believe in having major meetings on an annual basis. We
> need this time to set new paths and create new connections to Purpose and
> Goals,
> and to create a NEW mindset about achieving them.
[jr] New? How can something be NEW except in relation to the past?
> The Medicine Wheel teaches us that all things happen in cycles. Spring,
> Summer,
> Fall, and Winter; and when the Spring comes again it is a time of renewal.
> It
> is a time to look forward, not backwards to the hard winter. It is a time
> to
> make plans for the future. It is a time of hope and excitement.
>
> Yes, let's celebrate at this time; but not about the things of the past,
> but
> about the hopes and dreams for the future. In regard to celebrating
> successes,
> those should be celebrated as they occur, not at some time in the future
> where
> the meaning gets lost.
[jr] Ahhhh, there it is. The reason for recurrent celebration is to ensure
the meaning doesn't get lost.
> Furthermore, celebration should not be limited to just
> the employee and the manager, but for the entire team. Everyone should
> join in
> to help someone celebrate an achievement, and everyone should be helping
> to
> encourage each other every day.
>
> One final thought from the Rule of Acceptance: "The Rule of Acceptance
> teaches
> us about the importance of listening and opening up our spirits by giving
> away
> the need to control or change other people, the need to control things, or
> the
> need to control situations. These things remove us from the harmony and
> balance
> of the Circle, and just make life difficult when it does not have to be."
[jr] Then perhaps you might try less controlling of 'western management'
>
> Modern management practices tries to have managers control their employees
> instead of work WITH them to help the organization accomplish great
> things.
[jr] How many do you represent?
> This is why so often we have management pitted against employees. This is
> why
> we seem to have a huge amount of unengaged and disengaged employees at
> work.
[jr] Or maybe what we see is employees pitted against management because
employees want a free ride and don't get it.
> Management is too focused on controlling their employees, holding up the
> past as
> a club, and trying to protect itself from its employees from lawsuits.
> Imagine
> just how much more could be accomplished if this "control" was laid aside
> and
> management actually worked WITH employees to make the organization great?
[jr] I don't have to imagine it. I have experienced it. And I have come to
believe that most managers try to right by the employees. I do see a
different behavior at the executive level, however.
> (c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any
> way
> other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
[jr] NOTE: The copyright notice immediately above applies only to lines
preceded by a '>' All the sentences preceeded by '[jr]' may be used by
anyone. The author has no need to control your usage of them.