Margaret,
Sure...
In interactive organizations, there are fairly close customer ties, and
some practical awareness of the customer and their requirements is
maintained. Action planning enables the organization to meet specific
goals and objectives within the sub-systems, and matrix and ad hoc
structures deal with specific integration problems. People are viewed as
important, not expendable. Because they are viewed as important, the
training and experience that people have is considered to be valuable
input for making important decisions. Their leadership style tends to be
transactional; that is, leaders deal with individuals at their current
level of development in creating specific performance standards.
Problem-solving is held as important, and problems are dealt with as they
emerge. The time focus is on the present. In this organization, there
are also major competing values causing conflict and confusion concerning
the overall core values of the organization.
The difference between the interactive and the high performing is the
level of awareness of changes in the external environment. HP's
anticipate changes and maintain very close ties to the customer. People
are recognized as the essence of the organization's ability to respond to
its market. Rather than solving problems after they surface, HP's attempt
to anticipate situations that could lead to problems. The leadership
tends to be transformational. HP's are able to articulate and transmit to
all their organizational members and customers a set of clear and concise
core values which govern how all organizational members are expected to
operate.
I hope this helps...
At 08:17 AM 11/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 11/16/97 2:25:09 AM, Richard J. Scherberger wrote:
>
>>So, perhaps there are at least three different ways to view people:
>>expendable (as is found in reactive organizations); interactive (as found
>>in interactive organizations); or, essential (as found in high performing
>>organizations). (I think the term essential sounds alike like
>>essence...hmmm...coincidence?)
>
>Richard,
>
>I know what the term interactive means, but I don't understand the point
>you are trying to make in distinguishing it as a type of organization
>distinct from the others. Organizations that treat people as expendable
>or high performing organizations can be interactive. In fact, I don't
>know how there could be an organization that is NOT interactive. Could
>you please explain?
>
>Margaret McIntyre
>MargMcI@aol.com
Richard J. Scherberger, Jr.
Senior Partner
Executive Leadership Skills
601 Hickory Trail
Lansing, Kansas 66043
Voice:913-727-1137
Fax: 913-727-3129
--Richard Scherberger <rshrbrgr@lvnworth.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>