Re: Executive personalities
Dr. Ivan Blanco (BLANCO@BU4090.BARRY.EDU)
Tue, 24 Jan 1995 17:54:32 -0500 (EST)
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 22:19 PST
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (John Conover)
> Robert Levi writes:
> > John's comments on executive personalities (Re:Flapping your wings) was
> > enlightening and depressingly obvious. It reminds me of some thoughts I'd
> > like to share regarding a community that I lived in for three years that is
> > attempting to re-organize itself from a hierarchically-based decision-making
> > structure to consensus-based.
> Let me "table" something for discussion. I want to offer a potential
> advantage of LO that other paradigms (MBO, BPR, etc.,) can not
> address-and that is a "formal" basis (eg., one that can offer a
> rational, or logical, chain of reasoning on its superiority, as
> opposed to offering statistical merits-specifically, statistical
> methodologies can be regarded as offering only circumstantial evidence
> as to the superiority of a paradigm since the environment of the study
> is not single simplex, in case you are mathematically inclined.)
I would say that if TQM/CQI, BPR, etc., are applied using OL as a
foundation, then the organization will eventually become a highly effective
or competitive one!
[some of the stuff deleted]
> Now, if it is assumed that, at least at the executive level, a large
> portion of the activity is setting priorities, then the difficulties
> of operating in the executive environment become clear. (Note that in
> some sense, this would kind of explain why Congress operates the way
> it does-they are trying to do the impossible-eg., set priorities as to
> which organization will receive funding, etc., and since there is no
> rational methodology that will work, they must rely on other, less
> formal methodologies like politics, etc., to arrive at a consensus.)
> As a matter of fact, Congressional voting was one of the issues
> studied (using Arrow's techniques) later, and was found to support
> Arrow's conclusions. (For example, it is easier to defeat a Bill than
> to pass it-which is in conformance with Arrow's work.)
A serious problem could be that in politics, as in business and
other organizations, the presumption is that those at the top know more and
better than the rest of the members of their respective organizations. As
we speack we have a bunch of people in DC, making decisions for us all!
They are deciding what we need, what problems we want resolve first, etc.
It is the same in business organizations. In most cases we have top people
making incomplete decisions because their knowledge is incomplete too!
> So, if you have to rank priorities, (and it seems that this is the
> case, although for completeness, I would admit that this may be an
> epistemological issue,) the organization had better be capable of
> learning how to operate in an environment which may not be rational,
> stable, static, or in equilibrium, eg., everchanging and dynamic.
> Just a thought.
I see that an OL environment could help develop and sustain that
consensus-based environment mentioned here! The OL environment will help
members of the orgtanization learn first that they all want the same thing,
and second that they call all learn, contribute, etc.!
R. IVAN BLANCO, Ph.D. Voice 305 899-3515
Assoc. Prof. & Director Fax 305 892-6412
International Business Programs
Andreas School of Business _________E-Mail Addresses________
Barry University Bitnet: Blanco%bu4090@Barryu
Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695 Internet: Blanco@bu4090.barry.edu
<<<<< ---------------- >>>>>
"Las naciones marchan hacia el termino de su grandeza, con
el mismo paso que camina su educacion." "The nations march
toward their greatness at the same pace as their educational
systems evolve." Simon Bolivar