Choice is an illusion? LO4489

William J. Hobler, Jr. (bhobler@cpcug.org)
Fri, 29 Dec 1995 21:36:26 -0500

Replying to LO4463 --

John Paul Fullerton wrote in response to my comment about
encroaching on the ground of ministers or shaman.

>Frankly, if someone doesn't have info from the authority they
>seek to minister, I'd be leery of their efforts.

Precisely. But as a practitioners I choose to try to discern the models,
or world views, being used by the enterprise and the individual people in
the enterprise. Finding these there are always some adjustment to be
sought so that the operation of the world views assist in attaining goals.
I have often felt that the most important work is in the domain of the
human sprit as it shapes those views. And I have often felt close to what
is the purview of the Minister, Zen Master or Shaman. It is an exciting
and humbling place to be.

> When I think of the precepts in "The Fifth Discipline" that begin
>to be the things "that we want because we want them", it's not obvious
>how to or even whether to advocate those precepts to others who have
>greater accountability than I within reporting hierarchies.

If you believe in the value of moving the enterprise toward those precepts
isn't it a responsibility to advocate them? Perhaps beating the drum
slowly, always listening to the dialog, reflecting ... you know all the
techniques of mastery ( not mystery)

With respect to open dialog you wrote:
> and let the business processes be subject to the view of every dissident.

It is my experience that dissident opinions will be expressed. Suppressed
they will fester and be more distructive than if exposed to analysis and
either adoption or correction. Leaders who recognize this work to get
opinions on the table as quickly as possible and deal with them
constructively. Sometime constructively, for the enterprise, will be to
let the dissenter go. One of the responsibilities of leadership is to
remove barriers.

> How can I watch for the benefit and continuance of my employers
> and yet advocate free dialogs when dialogs is considered by
>some of its proponents to be subversive - literally?

I believe that it is to the benefit of employers to bring subversive talk
to dialog. What are the assumptions, logic and filters that form the
subversion? Is it really subversion? Doesn't not dealing with or subvert
the enterprise by draining off energy?

With respect to the worthiness of ones advocacy you wrote....
> I'm advocating things that I've never actually seen work; I don't know
>if they could be repeated if they are ever accomplished;

Sometimes it is scary as - well - as all get out. In another thread the
concept is that we operate in chaos. I don't agree with much of that but
I do know that many situations being faced by my clients today, have not
been faced - ever. For these there are no tried and true solutions. I
find that we must step off in new directions, we walk the plank.

One thing I have found a solid consistent lever for gaining solutions is
dialog. Facing the problem squarely and corroboratively solves problems.
On the operating floor and in executive suites people sharing individual
insights brings improvement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's better at sea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bhobler@cpcug.org Still a Submariner
William J. Hobler, Jr. Preferrably Bill
Real art is simple. Real artists make it look easy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ; ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~