Re: Should we be concerend about commitment to the actual process or
to the outcomes?
Rol makes the statement that "all we really care about is the outcome,
assuming it is adequately defined and prescribed." I would agree with
most of the comments which followed this, but found myself returning
to this statement nevertheless.
For me, "outcome-only" sounds too much like "the end justifies the
means," and there is some need for caution here. My own experience
has been that it is not simply the process that people may resist, but
in fact they may be resisting the "defined and prescribed" outcome as
well (in some instances, more so). Or perhaps it's the outcomes that
remain undefined and unprescribed that are the culprits. Seems when
we identify a desired outcome, we often forget that other outcomes may
also emerge, e.g., a mandated process may result in the desired
financial outcomes, or quality outcomes, or whatever, but may (will?)
also result in a despairing work group, increased learned
helplessness, etc. Massive downsizings have the desired outcomes of
reducing costs and creating leaner organizations, but also have the
outcome of increased fear. Standardized processes may have the
outcome of standardized quality, but also may constrict creativity and
problem-solving capacity.
Seems to me concern needs to be equally distributed to process and to
the outcomes, and more specifically to the assumptions and values
embedded within our choices for these. Commitment will always be
threatened if the designated outcomes are not valued by others, if the
processes are not compatible with one's development or meaning schemes, or if
the potential for alternative outcomes weighs more heavily than the
designated ones. I think Rol is right, though, that "proclaimed"
commitment to the process--or the outcomes--is not always meaningful.
--Terri Deems tdeems@unlgrad1.unl.edu
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>