Roy Winkler wrote
> The rule goes thusly: Any person of inferior status (read that:
>reporting position on the organizational chart) has ideas of lesser value
>than those of superior status or position in the organization. In
>addition, the person of inferior status shall enjoy less overt access to
>anyone of superior status.
IMHO the enterprise that operates within this model (paradigm?) is bound
to waste the intellect of their people. The model used in my 22 years of
military experience was that an idea has its merit and value independent
of its source.
I think the story from MCI is instructive. A technician in Texas
suggested that a particular technology should be followed. When his
superior disagreed the technician e-mailed the CEO. S/he was flown to
headquarters and an R&D project instituted. McGowan's (then CEO) message
to the superior congratulated her/him on having such a perceptive
technician.
Both the recognition of the idea but the leadership of McGowan's response
are indicative of sensitive attention to people.
>The military model.... At each level of
>the military hierarchy, there is person who is vested with authority.
>This authority is virtually absolute and carries with it the capacity to
>punish subordinates.
> .... To communicate downwards is natural.
>To communicate upwards may bring retribution.
Not so. The authority is legally circumscribed. Moreover, to punish
upward communication is to violate most basic leadership principals. Even
the least effective military leaders know that unit effectiveness is based
on mutual respect for the concerns and knowledge of everyone in the unit -
up - down - all around.
Military units are divided into small units, and these are assembled into
larger units, we do call that a hierarchial arrangement. But the smaller
units are internally efficient and in themselves learning communities. On
a submarine the smaller units have chief petty officers and officers who
are members of their own learning communities. Thus the larger enterprise
is welded together into an effective whole. Each person, from commanding
officer to newest seaman, has his/her responsibility and his/her
authority. In different roles a person may have responsibilities and
authorities that span more than one particular group. For instance the
Diving Officer (a chief petty officer) is responsible for many shipboard
operations.
My comments are made because I sense, in this and other communications in
the forum, a denigration of military organizations. In my experience, 22
years in the military, 8 years consulting to government organizations, and
10 years consulting to business and industry, military people practice
leadership at a level not known in government and industry. Most business
leaders seem to play at a high school or college level, a Marine Captain
is a major league player. I have just noted that Harvard is conducting a
5 day leadership course this spring. I hope they enlist the services of
some mediocre military leader - s/he will probably raise the level of
awareness of the subtleties of the art.
-- William J. Hobler, Jr. bhobler@cpcug.org::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><:: Collaborating and learning for mutual growth. The job is not done until we are all humbled by what each of us accomplished together. ::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::::><::