Dear DP,
I think Malcolm Burson is pointing to something very common with many
initiatives for empowerment and autonous groups. Once these groups start
producing suggestions/ideas, middle level management finds itself unable
to control the situation, or at least finds itself unable to cope with
these proposals. Their reactions may go from ignoring group proposals
(therefore making apparent the irrelevance of talking about autonomy) to
increasing controls over 'these unruly lads' (therefore creating the
opposite effect to effective autonomy). They get into what I have called
the 'control dilemma', which is developed in Chapter 5 of Espejo et al.
The interest of this dilemma is that once people (including managers!!)
understand it, they can recognise alternative behaviours to the
commanding/overcontroling type and that might help to improve relations
and give a chance to the idea of respecting autonomy.
Regards
Raul
>From: "Malcolm Burson" <mburson@mint.net>
>
>> ... The very process TJ describes of "slipping around the
>> boundaries" in order to pursue what the participants saw as crucial to
>> their ongoing learning and success almost inevitably brought them into
>> conflict with those higher in the organization who found that the group
>> was "out of control" from their point of view. In one case, management
>> was ruthless in closing down the group as punishment for exceeding their
>> mandate; in others, the groups withered for lack of support.
>>
>> Isn't this just another example of what's likely to happen when the
>> commitment to self direction and empowerment confronts the reality of
>> management's control needs?
>>
>> Sorry to sound cynical.
>
>Dear MALCOLM and others following this thread,
>
>As you have indicated, organisational learning and organisational control
>should be studied together. One area where this seems to have happened is
>Organisational Cybernetics. Here is a reference:
>
>Espejo, R., Schuhmann, W., Schwaninger, M., and Bilello, U. (1996).
>Organizational Transformation and Learning: A Cybernetic Approach to
>Management, Wiley, Chichester.
>
>The central ideas seem to be the following:
>
>An organisation, in order to be viable, requires certain basic minimum
>elements and interactions within itself. [These elements and interactions
>have been specified in the so-called Viable System Model, VSM, first
>produced by Stafford Beer.]
>
># Some of these interactions might be viewed as contributing to 'managerial
>control'. Some other interactions might be viewed as contributing to
>'organisational learning'.
>
># There is a problem of balancing between the above two types of interaction
>for the continued survival and fitness of the organisation. Otherwise, the
>organisation might invest too much on its present or too much on its future,
>either way endangering its viability.
>
># Therefore, there is a need for another set of interactions which will
>continuously ensure that an effective balance is indeed maintained [or, in
>cybernetics terms, the 'residual variety' is absorbed].
>
>In the above book, there are some explicit suggestions about how these
>interactions might happen in practice. The book appears to improve the
>original VSM by adding further details and specifying the functions of some
>of the sub-systems with greater precision.
>
>I am sending a copy of this message to Prof. Raul Espejo (the first
author) of
>the above book for his kind information and valuable comments.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Prof. D. P. Dash
>Xavier Institute of Management
>Bhubaneswar 751013
>India
Prof. Razl Espejo
Lincoln School of Management
Lincoln
Phone: +44 1522 886175
Fax: +44 1522 886032
--Raul Espejo <respejo@lincoln.ac.uk>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>