>Scott asks for data on alignment and its positive affect on
>organisational performance. I'm sure that lots can be found when the
>starting preference is accepted. I'm also sure that lots of contrary
>instances will be ignored given the stated starting preference.
>
>I suggest that alignment on anything explicit is not necessary and
>that it's pursuit is often harmful.
It is this assumption that I want to test. I believe that alignment is
situational, not required to be 100%, and is moderated by things
especially like the labor/mgmt relationship you referred to.
It is actually these types of contrary instances that I will later
explore. I develop an instrument that describes the current alignment
status. I find, for example, a set of relationships that create zero or
little alignment yet lead to improved performance at the higher levels of
the system. This is an indication that there is something not understood
going on, and more ind-depth investigation is needed.
Harrison states that alignment w/o attunement is harmful (create burnout,
loss of sense of self). Attunement for the organization attends to
questions such as how well do I manage alignment, with whom, attending to
the human factor of the relationships (mutual support, shared sense of
responsibility).
Thank you for your story. It reinforced some of my findings, introduced
factors that I need to consider. Especially useful was the basic
challenge to my core assumption. It is this kind of feedback (utility,
not judgement) on views that I find immense value in on this list.
--scypher@perform.vt.edu (Scott R. Cypher)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>