Tom J. Clifford wrote:
> People in most organizations derive their security from the policies,
> procedures, hierarchy, chain-of-command, whatever you may call it; all of
> these mechanisms are based upon lack of trust (some may say they are for
> organization, but the idea of organization is fundamentally based on the
> assumption that most people will not do what is right for an organization
> unless directed to do so).
People have some basic drives, and one of these is a need for security.
The majority of people derives much security from structures, because they
prefer what i would call a rational/task solution to the problem of
insecurity: based on facts, structures, principle. They mostly trust their
senses. This is, in my view, a consequence of the way the majority of
people perceive reality and change.
A minority feels "safe" in a world of ideas, concepts, relations, emotions
etcetera. This i would label emotional/facilatative way to solve the
problem of insecurity. This minority trusts mostly their own feelings and
intuition.
When these two type of people debate, and i some times hear them talking
in this way, they are talking in different tongues, languages; altough
they use the same words. Common peoples divided by a common language.
There is no one best way and also no way to convince each other about our
best way. Besides, we'll need both views to stay in business.
> Most quality efforts seem directed at these mechanisms and not the
> underlying foundations of trust and relationship;
This, i think, derives from the observation that the majority of people
base problem solving on thinking and using their senses AND because our
world is biased towards material objects. You can deny thoughts and
feelings (even without using both hands), but it will be hard to deny the
existance of this computer screen (or paper). So hardware first, then
software.
> Senge does focus on
> personal development, developing people, and focusing on what is
> ultimately important. But without trusting relationships, many efforts
> are frustrated and people drift back into the culture of mistrust,
> competition, etc.
Yes and no. Because, with trusting relationships, people will not become
frustrated and stay in a culture of trust. So keep trusting people.
However, do not try to convince them what to trust and what not to. All
people have a choice, are free to choose in what they trust (says i, not a
current opinion). And when you'll try to convince others of your ideas
most people will resist you and will seem not to trust you. I my opinion,
this is generated by, simple a reaction on, the "mental force" you
exercise; action equals minus reaction. Also, everybody resists thoughts
control.
> It seems to me the tough part will be developing this culture of trust and
> relationship, where everyone is considered important, and there is no
> dichotomy of roles and compensation. Incentive is important to human
> effort; socialism has taugh us that much.
There already is a culture of trust, but not in the way you define it:
there were, are and will be dichotomies and differences. There is no other
way in this universe, because the tension between differences keeps
everything in motion. (A motion, mind you, that is directed towards
reducing tension. However, like the atmospheric system: when high and low
pressures zone try to reduce the tension, as expressed in bars or Pascals,
storms, hurricanes, gales and tornados may result).
> What might it take; a more egalitarian workplace where there is no
> management/worker schism, or a more entrepreneurial system where most of
> us will be our own business ?
That will depend on your preference. Most people will prefer clear
structures, tasks, short term goals and immediate feedback. Some will
settle for the long shot, visions, empowered teams and opportunities. And,
my assumption, as things become ever more complex, we'll need both in a
kind of, what shall i call it, partiture, aperiodic cristal lattice,
choreography, thats it: choreography: music, people and dance.
> Trust implies both character and competence; if either is lacking, the
> relationship suffers.
There, you say it: character. All characters are different, and we're
invited to learn to dance within our own character (accepting our gifts
and limitations) while respecting the characters (and toes) of others.
> We all need to keep up with skills in today's
> marketplace. Are we headed for a world where the organization as we know
> it will disappear,
The organization as we knew them have already disappeared, however the
building (and mental models) still remain. Use them as the decors for the
dance.
> to be replaced by mostly freelancers?
I used to work with one of the biggest organisations in the world, proud
on trying to become a learning organization, on creating an
enterpreneurial spirit; and was fired as i worked in that enterpreneurial
spirit, because my boss also thought that these two concepts can not exist
at the same time and together (he told me: "you can not behave like an
enterpreneur and work in a big organization. No, that is not conflicting
with corporate policy, this is the correct interpretation of that
policy"). They can, i think, maybe not in a contractual view (facts and
structures), but certainly in a convenantal (?) view (relations and
emotions). For me, still searching for the formulation, i'd say, we
generate conflicts as i have trouble accepting others (sharing
information, reaching decisions and acting with others) when i assume
we're conflicting characters (ideas, data, feelings and actions) based on
the fact that we're all different; or, to put it differently: differences
don't imply conflict, just tensions.
When tensions take too long to balance, (sometimes quite naturally) to
resolve, to disapear, they will increase (see some systems thinking
models). This we might label as a conflictual situation (or
hyper-critical) and, as a high tension situation, releasing tension will
generate storms, tornados, tusami's, avalances and the like.
> The
> freely-trusting organization seems like such an impossible concept, given
> the current culture. Does anyone have any experience, thoughts?
I have developed a truely marvelous conceptual model, but this message is
to short to contain it.
Take care,
Jan Lelie
- Look after your Self, and be firm in your goal. (Dhammapada) -
--Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM janlelie@pop.pi.net (J.C. Lelie) @date@ @time@ CREATECH/LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development - + (31) 70 3243475 Fax: idem or + (31) 40 2443225
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>