Intro -- Karl B. Lloyd LO722

Karl B Lloyd (lloyd+@pitt.edu)
Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:22:35 -0400 (EDT)

Hello!

I am new to the list (past few days). I have found the discussions to
be excellent. I am a doctoral student in MIS at the Katz Grad.
School of Business. I am at the end of coursework and getting ready for
final exams and dissertation work. In the past I have taught at several
colleges, worked in Business in labor and managerial positions, and
consulted to small businesses.

Obviously one of my interests is organizational learning and learning
in general.

A main question I have is "Are there organizations that are actively (not
just talking about it) working towards a learning org via making
investments in ALL employees through the combining of more equitable
reward systems, opportuntities for learning maximized, and the type of
change management discussed in the last few digests (31-39). And, where
can I get info. on such companies. In particular I would like to find out
if there are companies that tie part of ALL employee's rewards to overall
organizational performance measures. Please let me know.

It his long been a belief of mine (based on academic literature and
practice) that the best way to manage is to share accountability and
resposnibility in a way envisioned by Frederick Taylor but never realized
- labor and management sharing accountability, resposnsibility, and
rewards equally. I would submit that an organization following such a
policy would evolve to be an exemplar of the learning organization. It
would unite management and labor away from the "We - They" culture
prevelant here in the U.S. toward a more fair, productive,
learning-for-survival-and-reward-as-well-as-satisfaction- oriented,
change-responsive organization. The Japanese have been close to such a
form it seems. In the U.S., CEO's and High level management typically
receive rewards that far outweigh their value and accountability. In Japan
it is mostly the case that top execs make (at most) only 15 to 20 times
what the lowest paid worker receives. That is it would seem that they are
paid according to a more reasonable estimate of their value. I would
submit that Top executives are receiving millions while a lower paid
worker is making minimum wage and being told that he/she must accept cuts
in health or other benefits causes problems that perpetuate the "We -
They" mentality no matter what other efforts are tried. Also, even in the
most developed learning org, it happens that no matter how well one
performs, there may not be opportunties immeadiately available for
advancement or additional financial reward. Thus, linking part of every
person's reward package to org'l performance measures creates a culture
where every employee stays motivated to perform and improve
himself/herself and the organization and to be involved in major
decisions. If more decsions are made together then management and worker
learn together and take the knocks together. Now it seems that management
takes the risks and if it turns out poorly, they remain or acquire
employment elsewhere while the worker often pays the price (lost jobs).
Both groups must be responsible, trusting of each other, respectful of
each other, and united. What do others think about these ideas. I have
read very insightful ideas related to the areas of respect and trust in
the list so I am hoping some may find me not too much off- base. In
summary - a plan that phases in a restructuring of reward schemes that
calls for concessions from top mananmegemnet by having them agree to have
base pay reduced and more of their rewards tied to organizational
performance and, at the same time, worker pay is also tied to
organizational performance; would create an atmosphere where the "We-They"
mentality gives way to the "Us" mentality and a united organization
becomes a learning organization. I'll stop here. I have worked out many
other aspects of such a plan including how the other stakeholders
(investors, investor-managers, society, etc) fit in but, these are my
basic thoughts in this area.

* I have enjoyed the discussions on change related to 1. tolerance of
others' views and 2. respect. I also agree it is important to understand
why each particular individual is resisting change. I have found that
rhetoric alone, as some have mentioned, is important because it reveals
one's mindset. For example, in conducting systems analysis and design I
have found it very correct and useful to refer to CONCERNS rather than
PROBLEMS -especially when interviewing for the purpose of finding out what
the issues are and how to improve a system. No one likes to have problems.
But, most do not mind discussing a concern.

Overall, from my experience, as I read messages on the list, I find myself
saying YES, YES, YES - finally! - there are others that share some of my
views. It is refreshing and invigorating!

Many in academia I find will now admit that in many key areas we have not
been on-track or in-touch with the business world. In a reply to LO706,
Eric Bohlman insightfully discusses how we got off-track. Some say we have
"gotten caught with our pants down." I would say it has been more a case
of the emperor's new clothes.

Karl Lloyd LLOYD@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU
Katz Grad School of Business WEB:http://info.pitt.edu/~lloyd
Univ. of Pittsburgh
329 Mervis Hall
Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412-856-8571