Replying to LO27933
Dear Learners
In LO27933 At de Lange wrote about a school principal, Mr. K, who had
a particular style of management and also about the compulsory
"practical philosophy" courses at our Alma Mater - two topics that
brought back much memories, good and bad. My father was the founding
headmaster of a school in Durban who had much the same style of
management as Mr. K. and he may have planted seeds that took a long
time to germinate, but luckily did so.
The courses by Prof Stoker that At enjoyed so much largely passed me
by. At that youthful age in my life - in years and mind - when I had
to sit through his classes, much of what he said merely passed me by,
with just sufficient settling in memory to be regurgitated for the
purpose of the examination. As good an example of uncritical,
undigested rote learning as one could hope to find any where! (The
problem was that much the same attitude applied to my other studies as
well.)
At also wrote with reference to the normative definition of
management:
> The problem of Normative Management (NM) is thus not any
> more one of only WHAT are the norms to be adhered to, but
> also HOW to define and refine those norms. In other words, the
> essentiality liveness ("becoming-being") has to be taken into
> account. Furthermore, in the past of slow and simple changes
> an organisation could focus solely on itself in defining and
> refining its norms. But in the future of rapid and complex
> changes in both the system SU or environment, norms (or the
> lack of them) in both the system SY and its surroundings SU
> have to be taken into account. This points to the essentiality
> liveness ("identity-context").
At, when you write that - as I understand it - provision has to be
made for the dynamics of change, within the organisation itself
introducing new norms and modifying old ones ("becoming-being") and
with respect to its relationship with its environment
("indentity-context"). My rhetorical question would be, "What
yardstick, what guideline would serve both as indicator that change to
the norms is needed as well as to what direction that change should
take?"
The yardstick has to be a constant - a rule that can be applied under
all (normal?) circumstances and perhaps under all abnormal
circumstances too. The Golden Rule (GR) is such a constant - stated
twice in the New Testament; first as the second half of all the words
of the prophets " . . and love thy neighbour as thyself" and then
even more explicitly as "Do unto others . . "
Another such a constant rule might be "Under all circumstances look
out for number one. First and always."
Using such a 'constant' as the yardstick for all policies and
decisions - and for the norms and standards of the actions of an
individual or an organisation - will reveal when the situation has
changed to such a degree that the operating rules and guidelines, and
the policies, of the person or business, have to be modified to become
effective again. Effective in terms of the basic ground rule that is
being used.
This leaves ample room for the "becoming-being" and the
"identity-context" to receive attention and to mutate in response to
the dynamics of internal and external changes taking place all the
time - but always driven by the primary directive set by the ground
rule.
Later on At also wrote:
> Normative management in a vast and complex changing
> world without a clear knowledge of authentic learning is
> impossible. It is like trying to cross the high seas without
> knowing how to sail a ship.
I cannot argue with your first point, but the process of finding and
updating norms in such a sea without a rudder to steer by in a
specific direction towards a known destination may also be futile.
Andrew previously (LO 27911 ) asked how the normative definition would
fit with Kant's stricture that people should never be considered only
as means to and end, but always also as ends in themselves. This
implicit respect for the individual is cardinal to the Golden Rule -
in fact it would not surprise me to learn that Kant had the GR in the
back of his mind when he formulated his famous directive.
Perhaps my answer to him, in stead of rambling, should have attempted
to make exactly this point - if 'a manager' places him/herself
mentally in the environment of the system, in order to consider how
he/she would prefer the interaction with the system to proceed, as a
guideline for how to behave towards people in the environment, then
IMHO that is both an example of the GR in action and something that
displays full respect for other people, as ends in themselves, far
more than means.
As noted above, that is not the only possible ground rule for defining
and modifying norms; one alternative has been mentioned. But is is in
my opinion essential to have such a ground rule as a primary guideline
for one's thoughts and actions. As a rudder to steer one's development
and learning towards a known and fixed destination.
At, this is as far as I could come in the time available. You gave a
list of references that I intend to follow up on in due course and
then I will think about this and if I find useful comment I will post.
Thank you for the time you have spent on formulating comment on the
topic of a normative definition of management. You have given me much
to think on.
Kind regards all
Daan Joubert
Roodepoort
South Africa
--Daan Joubert <daanj@kingsley.co.za>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.