Dave, the situation You are relating has certainly been my experience in
many organizations and institutions.... it has been the operating reality,
and often what people mean when they suggest to others, especially
academics, to get into "the real world"...... Yet, I have found in my
personal and professional life that taking the perspective of the primacy
of "Wholeness" leads to a life which for me, easily exceeds in
fulfillment, whatever satisfactions success as a "dog" has yielded. I
think that it is important to go deeply into this.
As I have indicated in LO1777 ( where I goofed and switched Subject lines
with another posting ) and earlier contributions to this thread, I see
Wholeness as the dynamic balance between the complementarities of the
Unity and the unique Individual.
In the world of politics, this complementarity can be seen as the dynamic
tension between the Rights of the Individual [and its manifestation in
Libertarian positions of the Right] versus the Social Justice positions
[and its manifestation in the powers of the State, and Socialism] in the
Western democracies.... The electorate tends to shift back and forth
between these polarities keeping a long-term balance in place.
Whereas from a more global perspective, there is the dynamic tension
between Western countries where there exists at least the ideal of
democratic governments with actual participation by citizens, versus the
more paternalistic governmental forms manifesting sometimes as benevolent
or malevolent dictatorships, sometimes as "Eastern democracies" in which
are run by strong leaders and their family networks, protected by the
military. Other countries have been set adrift somewhere in between these
polarities, experiencing painful transitions back and forth between them.
In some large organizations, this dynamic is played out at the CEO level
between the polarity of a strong leader requiring the unity of the
organization to fall in behind her/him, and a consensus leader who
mediates amongst a group of mostly strong leaders at the divisional level,
from whence another strong leader will eventually emerge. When the strong
leader is in place, eventually replacement candidates band together to
replace the position with a consensus leader. Eventually, a strong
divisional leader will become frustrated and move to become the sole
strong leader. This dynamic plays itself over and over again, keeping
organizational politics alive. It can also be seen at other levels of the
organization.
The free enterprize position clearly represents the Individual First
perspective with all the good innovation and activities which provide
material progress, while some observers say that this leads to excesses
which compromise all individuals, such as lawlessness, lack of respect for
others and terrible environmental legacy for our grandchildren. Others
say that it leads to a "dog eat dog" situation as a misplaced Darwinian
ideal. Yet, a strong state socialism can be seen to have the converse
positions applied to it. I wonder whether there is not a better way which
acknowledges both polarities in this complementarity by respecting the
wholeness of their interplay, a way which would work for organizations and
for societies??
What can be done structurally in organizations to encourage an alignment
between individuals and the strategic objectives of the organization which
respects the autonomy and choice of the individuals, while acknowledge the
wholeness of the organization??
What are the forces, constraints, laws, measurement practices which
structure the situation such that so much "dog eat dog" occurs in
organizations? Are there structural constraints to systems which would
strongly encourage the wholeness I have mentioned?? Were the founders
of.the American constitution actually systems thinkers who almost got it
right??
-- Dr. Doug Seeley InterDynamics Pty. Ltd. (Australia) in Geneva, Switzerland e-mail: Compuserve 100433.133 and Fax: +41 22 756 3957 "Choice and Chance are One."