...snip...
> I also noted that it seemed highly likely for people in
> different parts of the organization to respond quite similarly to
> identical scenarios without needing the time to discuss them or gain
> consensus; the commonly shared values controlled the organization.
Peters / Waterman: "Simultaneous Loose / Tight" a common trait of
"excellent" organizations from their _In Search of Excellence_
Waterman expands on controls, and controlled innovation in his _The
Renewal Factor_.
3M's policies for spinning off additional divisions, and new business
apply.
>From Dr. Charles Garfield _Peak Performers_ there is "an overriding
mission", there are also "resluts in real-time" as two of his 7 attributes
of peak performers.
Recent work by Deci, or the book we read together: _Punished by Rewards_
illustrate the difference between directive, autonomy eroding control, and
supportive, autonomy enhancing "control".
There are doubtless more subtle, and more inclusive works out there
discussing the difference between control based on scope: "do this kind of
things, producing these kinds of results", and control pased on recipe:
"do exactly this, exactly this way."
There are perhaps two points here:
1) Organizations confused about what their values are, don't do very well.
2) People are looking for some level of congruence between the organization's
values and their own. (This has been career advice from many directions.)
There is perhaps another, larger point:
1) What _values_ vs. businesses, tactics, technologies, populations, or
locations, are in fact sustaining for an organization?
I am reminded of two quotes attributed to the (still current?) chairman of
Sony:
"I am the soul of the corporation."
and
"I am responsible for long-term direction . . . 300 years."
I am also reminded of Alfred Sloan's book "My Years at General Motors".
>From the structures put in place, and even the discussion of how those
structures were chosen, it is clear that these were _means_ to an _end_.
In the end these processes were responses to situations, to allow certain
_values_ to be manifest. Over time, people rose in response to the
_processes_ not the _values_ and we have the GM of today. (Just MHO.)
How can the chairman of Sony deal with a 300 year future? At best he can
describe how to decide what "goodness" looks like (can't even describe
what goodness looks like, as that too can be overtaken, and will be
overtaken), and hope to instill that kind of deciding in a way it will
propagate itself.
I think, perhaps, that the more powerful approach to organization is to
think of it as generative. Put in place approaches that will allow it to
generate . . . whatever. Then the entire organization is inventing its
future(s), vs. some subset "defining" "the future".
I'm curious about HP. From the inside, what is the reason for the founders
coming back as they did, and how was their return perceived?
--James Bullock <jbullock@pipeline.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>