> Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 10:53:25 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Tobin Quereau <quereau@austin.cc.tx.us>
> Replying to LO7106 --
>
> On Wed, 1 May 1996, Mariann Jelinek wrote:
>
> [snipped]
> > I'm much persuaded that educating everybody in the company about
> > the economic realities of current operations is imperative. "Open book
> > management" is a powerful antidote, perhaps, to the cynicism that
> > envisions eternal acrimony as a way to "win." Still, the very same
> > awareness on the part of all parties that a business must operate in a
> > competitive environment, and make its profit by being at least competitive
> > in its costs, is often missing both among workers and in the strategic
> > plans of managers. I often see strategies that set goals - but don't
> > appear to realistically assess their likelihood against what the
> > opposition is able to do, or what the data says the environment will
> > demand.
>
> As you raise this idea, Mariann, one of the things that has to happen, it
> seems to me, is that the boundaries of "me/we and not me/we" have to be
> expanded. Open book management is one possible way of doing that--showing
> everyone in the organization that "we are in this together". It can help
> to reduce suspicion and defensiveness (as long as everyone understands
> what "the books" are saying in similar ways). It may not be appropriate in
> many cases, however, precisely because of the competitive conditions that
> exist and the percieved need to keep that information private.
>
> The task at a larger level may be to shift the way things "are"--which
> brought about the antagonism and confrontive tactics that are being
> exhibited in some cases--in a direction which no longer divides in order
> to conquer. As in the cases that Barry Mallis has mentioned where
> organizations can become "communities" of shared values, when all parts of
> an organization feel a part of a larger whole, there will be incentive to
> seek the health not only of a small part--the heart or the muscles, for
> example--but of the corporation (the body) in its entirety.
>
<<< lots of very good stuff deleted here >>>
Since employees and workers may not be able to develop a
participative management approach (open books, or otherwise), this type of
change has to generally start at the top. An across the board and strong
message I normally get from conversations with many supervisors, managers,
students of business, is that what would happen if "they" take over! The
understanding of cooperation and collaboration is not there. Now, my
guess is that this lack of understanding is the result, in many
situations, of a lack of desire on the part of management to "share
power." This is intimidating for people who for centuries have believed
that the control of information is in ltself a source of power for
temselves. Of course, information technology such as the one we are using
right now to communicate changes a lot of that. Buut still, top and
middle levels of management have to willing to engage in participative
practices for them to succeed. After this condition is there, developing
employees skills and understanding is a much easier task...
-- Ivan,
--*************************************************************** R. IVAN BLANCO, Ph.D. Voice 305 899-3515 Assoc. Prof. & Director Fax 305 892-6412 International Business Programs Andreas School of Business _________E-Mail Addresses________ Barry University Bitnet: Blanco%bu4090@Barryu Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695 Internet: Blanco@bu4090.barry.edu <<<<< ---------------- >>>>> "Si un hombre fuera necesario para sostener el Estado, este Estado no deberia existir." "If one man were necessary to sustain a Nation, this Nation should not exist." Simon Bolivar ===============================================================
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>