Srinath Srinivasa wrote:
> Motivations for forming organizations are interesting; however, I have
> some further questions. Why do some people strive to "create"
> organizations while some strive to be "part of" organizations? Other than
> reasons like one being more shy than the other, are there any fundamental
> motivational differences? Is the thought processes of these two kinds of
> people different?
Srinath--
I'm going to take the advantage of responding to your inquiry by tying it
into At de Lange's thought (What is manipulation? LO15931).
The fundamental difference between the two motivations may be found in the
two definitions At assigned to the word "manipulation." In the positive
sense, we serve as artisans to "handle with skill" the "being-becoming" of
an organization. In the negative sense, we tamper with actions or results
to control the outcome. This may be a clumsy attempt at synthesizing
three threads (human resources, manipulating, creating orgs).
While attending an HR meeting, yesterday, focused on 1997 legislative
issues (federal and state), I experienced a real sense of cognitive
dissonance. Organizationally, we expend huge sums of energy managing
"human resources" in order to limit costs (direct and indirect costs).
Collective labor (in it's many forms, not just unions) expends great sums
of energy attempting to increase compensation and benefits. This is the
arena of managed conflict, and is found in all organizations in varying
degrees. It's supported and maintained on both sides by government,
politicians, institutions--indeed we are so deep in collusion with one
another to mistreat, malign and control one another in the name of common
sense, risk management and organizational necessity. This is probably a
fine example of the Abilene Paradox on a large scale.
People create or go to organizations for whatever they need or value most
(money, prestige, relationships). The organizational culture will
determine the kind of manipulation, the meaning of human resources, the
level of control or personal autonomy. The organizational culture will
also determine the kind of person who is attracted to the organization
(and retained).
Leaders can certainly change the culture--if they can influence the
organization. Some do this through intimidation, coercion and violence.
Some do it through modeling decent, principled and humane behavior. Guess
which type of leader tries to be part of the organization she or he leads,
and which type tries to make the organization?
regards--and apologies for what may be a case of fuzzy thinking here!
Doc
-- "The way out is via the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?" -ConfuciusRichard C. "Doc" Holloway Your partner for workforce development Visit me at http://www.thresholds.com/community/learnshops/index.html Or e-mail me at <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com> Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2361 Phone: 01 360 786 0925 Olympia, WA 98507 USA Fax: 01 360 709 4361
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>