thanks for challenging my earlier statement, Ed. I shouldn't have been so
brief in my response--and I am not proposing "process-management" in lieu
of "people-management." What I was thinking about in my poor response was
that, as organizations move towards process-centered teams or work groups,
away from task-centered teams or work groups, that there is a tendency for
managers to focus more on processes than tasks. Those managers who
formerly focused on technical control over tasks can become
trainers/mentors to support these process-oriented project groups. I
don't see any reason why process-centered groups shouldn't or wouldn't be
a learning organization. I do agree, though, that managing processes is
as problematic as managing people.
I think that the fact that knowledge workers can market themselves is the
key difference here. This fact allows (or forces) them to fit in as
components, whether they are in a living (open) or mechanical system. I
think that living organizations enjoy a more dissipative structure,
allowing them to adapt more readily to different categories of employees
(long-term and temporary). However, they must be able to fit into ongoing
projects or processes. This does require some flexibility on part of the
organization and the new worker, and contributes to project leaders
focusing more on managing the process than the worker.
Knowledge workers (as they lose their marketability) may find themselves
on the short-end of the employment stick if they haven't acquired the
interpersonal skills that organizations should expect. The five
disciplines identified by Senge are, I think, basic skills that all
organizations should come to expect of their members (especially mature
and higher-compensated members). It would be gratifying to see more
demand for these skills (and perhaps more community colleges and
universities would begin offering courses in them!). What we do know is
that people without the most basic of these interpersonal skills don't
last too long in an organization unless they can compensate by having
knowledge skills that are valuable enough to the organization so that they
can afford to overlook the other.
Knowledge workers should manage themselves--and their relationships.
Managers should set boundaries, expectations and ensure that the workgroup
or organization is on track with its' purpose and meeting organizational
needs. They do need to "manage" relationships, structure and systems--not
in a controlling or manipulating sense--but in the sense of nurturing,
intervening (when needed), growing, supporting and directing. I think that
one of the great challenges will be for work groups (of knowledge workers)
to quickly integrate a new worker into the group.
Human resource systems should adapt to this relatively well. In my
jaundiced view, personnel management has always been a logistics function
anyway--at least in the views of those senior managers for whom they
provide support. The "human" aspect of personnel management has been to
provide people managers with new tools to manage turn-over, risk
(litigation) and to better influence people to do what the manager wants
them to do (personnel policies). Labor movements have increased the HR
function to include benefits management and labor relations. The most
important HR manager continues to be the person with organizational
responsibility for hiring, firing and influencing people and processes.
As I'm writing this response to you, I'm finishing up on a new LearnShop
I'm doing for a couple of organizations. It seems very timely, and
perhaps is the best way to conclude this response:
-----
Influencing Processes and People--the art of herding cats
No matter how many ways you may find to herd the cats in your organization
(the people, processes and desired outcomes over which you are attempting
to establish control), you will probably find yourself in a never-ending
and unsatisfying role. Why is it so difficult to establish control^Wto
get all of the people and processes working precisely the way you want
them to? The answer is that the people you are seeking to "manage" think
and act for themselves and their actions influence processes and outcomes.
People retain some self-autonomy, even in the most rigid of organizations.
They interact with their environment through a continual exchange of
activity and language. As they interact, they generate new processes,
relationships, structures and patterns of behavior. As people redefine
the relationships among themselves and the processes by which services
and/or components are produced, managers find themselves losing control.
Managers must look for a broad understanding of these relationships and
process, involving suppliers, customers, and employees in defining how
their roles serve and fit into the business overall. Successful cat
herders don't look to control. Instead, they focus more on setting
boundaries, coaching and nurturing people and in creating context by
continuously reminding people about the organizational vision or purpose.
-----
walk in peace,
Doc
-- "Understanding is the fruit of looking deeply... This present moment contains the past and the future. The secret of transformation... lies in our handling of this very moment." -Thich Nhat HanhThresholds--developing critical skills for living organizations Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Olympia, WA ICQ# 10849650 Please visit our new website, still at <http://www.thresholds.com/> <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>