I wonder what you mean by a structuralist - obviously all the CEO's
agreed that it was the structure that gave them access to control. What
do they mean?
I am interested in exploring this thread. It seems to me for us in North
America a fundamental question. Although I want to hear from John as to
what the CEO's were talking about, I am going to jump in with a story of
my own.
As a graduate student, I was a member of a class in 1993 titled "Creating
the Learning Organization". The instructor was a consultant, acting as a
professor in the department. His practice was built on interventions
framed in the language of the L-O.
As a class (25) we expected to be engaged in a process that would give us
an experience of creating the LO. What actually happened was something
else. In fact, the instructor controlled the agenda of each session.
The dissatisfaction grew in the class. The class members framed the
conflict in terms of issues of teacher vs student centred learning.
Because we were in 'teams' who were to do presentations, the *structure*
did permit some latitude in the content of the class. The first
presentation (thank God) showed the determination of the class members to
actually learn in action. The issue was posed that we should itemize in
groups, the implicit and explicit norms of the class. What resulted was
the conflicts within the class ( competing for access to the limited
learning potential)erupted. The instructor and class determined that
some resolution was necessary. So the agenda for the next week was that
another 'team' was to handle the resolution process. The instructor then
informed us he would be at class for only the last hour of the next
week. I was in the group that designed the resolution process.
The next week, an effective process resulted in the class identifying
that the issues were that there was no continuity in the class material,
and that both those who wanted content, and those wanting process were
agreed that the recommendation from the class was that we needed to have
continuity in order to learn.
The instructor came in to receive our recommendations. He went away, and
the following week told us what he was going to do. Part of our
recommendation was that four students were to work on a plan with him.
He chose to ignor this.
Now, I ask you, who of us, given our expectation of being graded by this
person, would now challenge such an action? And who in an organization
that claims to be a LO , would fundamentally question "the boss" if a
recommendation brought forward by the 'workers' was ignored.
Also, why would a 'boss' need to listen, and learn from the employees.
He/or she is after all the boss. They have the structure on their side.
So what I say, is, I know of a structure that created equivalence. This
structure is used in Holland. It fundamentally challenges "ego" needs,
and control needs, by constitutionally establishing control with the
workers.
How else is it possible to cease the perpetuation of cynicism,
resistance, and outright anarchy among those subjected to the will of
others. ? I am asking myself, what did we do in my class that gave away
our opportunity to engage in a new relationship to power? What was
necessary for us to have done differently? Did we not have the
individual leadership necessary? Did our fear, and inertia simply take
over? Did we think at all of the implications this would have on our
interest in learning?
I feel that we are so inscribed in the model of patriarchal power that it
is difficult for us to stay with our own desire to see change happen.
The leadership needs to be within each of us, and collectively. The fact
that the CEO's could be so matter-of-fact about ego, control and
structure is because they like the power. Why should they give it up?
Why, indeed?
Purhaps the best reason is because everyone works better when we are
working together, making decisions that make sense and facing changes
without having the answers. The whole point of the LO seems to me to be
to be open to change, and to the shared intelligence of everyone. I know
from my experience in this class that if we had been a corporation,
everyone would have been out only for themselves in the end, and that
boss would have had to fight for every ounce of compliance. Not a place
I want to be in.
What I am asking myself (as I explore questions for a dissertation) is
what path do we need to take to get out from under the weight of
socialization. What Meg Wheatley says in Leadership and the New Science
seems to me pivotal. However, how do we get to this place?
One method is to change the structures. That is what the Sociocratic
Model offers. Information about this can be obtained from John Buck in
Virginia; phone 703-620-1335 or fax 703-620-3337. Or it can be received
from Gerard Endenburg who has developed the model over the past thirty
years. His address is :
Gerard Endenburg
Sociocratisch Centrum
Ijsclubstraat 13
3061 GR Rotterdam
Holland
Internatiional code: telephone: 011-31-10-452-32-89
fax: 011-31-10-452-82-64
Another method is to do personal work. That is what Richard Hallstein's
work, Memoirs of a Recovering Autocrat offers.
I'd love to hear from others what they believe can be done to address
this issue.
Hilda Tiessen
e-mail htiessen@tortoise.oise.on.ca