Rick asks a great question:
>How about the question, "Given that we come together, why do we do so
>in *organizations* of the kind we have?"
My short answer is, I won't work in the organizations of the kind we have.
I worked in two very dysfunctional organizations: WordPerfect and Novell.
Both experiences were like being part of a bad marriage: Emotionally
expensive!
I have waited over six months before accepting a job. In every interview
I've been in I've asked questions about the management philosophy, history
of the structure of the organization, views about employees, etc. By
simply asking these questions I scared off many potential employers. I've
also thought about three different choices:
-- Work in a large organization
-- Work in a small organization
-- Start my own business
I've elected to work in a small organization, whose philosophy closely
matches my own. I'll be the seventh employee. That puts me in a position
to help create the type of organization I want to work in!
The reason I made this choice is because I've talked to many low-level
people in large organizations all around the globe. The experience I have
had is not as unique as one might hope. It seems to matter little whether
the company has won the Baldridge Award or not; people, in the bowels of
the organization, pretty much experience the same feelings that I did.
(The only three major exceptions are employees at Microsoft, HP, and
Intel; I've also met very few people with deep frustrations at Netscape,
but they haven't been in business long enough for me to feel comfortable
with including them in my list; my wife says Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is a
good example, but I've never talked to anyone who worked for them so I
don't know.)
Part of the problem with our existing organization is that management is
seen as experts, who can manipulate or control the work environment,
perhaps is dramatic ways, for the benefit of the company -- and,
occassionally for the benefit of employees. There is, I'm afraid, a
unspoken desire to shape people's behavior, often without their knowledge
or approval, toward goals selected by management. Sadly such manipulation
may be covert or overt; it depends on the culture of the organization.
I find this approach to management to be ineffective, problematic, and
riddled with moral dilemmas. I subscribe to Carl Roger's philosopy. He
writes:
"I have come to trust the capacity of persons to explore and understand
themselves and their troubles [and the organization's], and to resolve
those problems, in any close, continuing relationship where [management]
can provide the climate of real warmth and understand.
"I am going to venture to put the same kind of trust in a staff group,
endeavoring to build an atomosphere in which each is responsible for the
actions of the group as a while, and where the group has a responsibility
to each individual. Authority has been given to me, and I am going to give
it completely to the group."
-- Benjamin B. Compton bcompton@bbc_mail@juno.comLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>