The subject of Ends vs Means, or Process vs Results is vital to
organizations. I believe all organizations are formed with a purpose in
mind, a result which they are trying to achieve, what the 5D calls shared
vision (it could be profit, charity, expanding knowledge in a field,
controlling others, religious worship, companionship, or just plain fun).
What I have learned from the 5D Field Book is that the process used to
achieve the end HAS TO BE DESIGNED so that everybody in the organization
behaves in a purposeful manner ( meaning: a manner that supports the
purpose of the organization).
Someone mentioned (sorry I can't recall the name, I don't have the
previous digests with me, I'm on the road) that he had seen too many teams
self destruct due to personality conflicts, hidden agendas, etc. This is
very common. Imagine the following scenario:
Quote:
A four person team has been assigned the task of creating a human resource
development training program for their organization. It becomes clear from
the outset that each member has a distinctly different point of view. Even
before they get into the assignment, one team member want definitions --
he wants to know precisely what is meant by the terms "human resources"
and "development", and what the long term purpose of the training is.
Another person believes it is more critical to know what has been done in
the past -- she wants more data to set the context for considering next
steps. She asks what has worked in the past and what the measurable
results have been.
The third member of the group is most focused on assessing and promoting
the comfort level of each team member, including himself. He wants to feel
that the group is harmonized before they discuss the task. He is concerned
with the individual relevance of the proposed program and the personal
implications for the people which will participate in it.
Finally, the fourth member of the team simply wants to move forward. She
can't understand why the team doesn't just begin with something innovative
and untested. It is evident to her that human resources requires a
sustained development, so she thinks, "Why all the discussion? Let's put
out some ideas and take some action."
As each member works to resolve his or her own needs, conflict builds
within the group. None of the members can understand why the others are
not "hearing " them. The frustration gradually builds until it reaches a
point at which the group may not be able to address the task effectively.
What is happening here is that each team member has a different
"personality dynamic". Awareness and understanding of the different
dynamics is an essential ingredient in qualitative team functioning. Each
personality dynamic has a different way of approaching change, of
learning, of communicating, of problem-solving. The implications of
recognizing these distinctions for the development of learning communities
is profound.
This team was fortunate to have people who could bring different
perspectives to the issue at hand, but without a framework (process?) for
understanding and integrating their distinct gifts so as to achieve a
common goal (purpose, end result) the group became mired in a frustrating
and unproductive process.
End quote.
I extracted the above from "Human Dynamics: A Foundation for the Learning
Organization," by Sandra Seagal and David Horne, in The Systems Thinker,
Vol 5, No. 4, May 1994, Pegasus Communications, Cambridge, MA (Reprint
Number 05401). (The text in parenthesis is mine).
So what do you think? Have you been in meetings like this? If I were the
fourth member and the team leader, I'd think that the first member is
trying to stall and doesn't want to do any work, that the second one wants
to gather so much data that we'll end up with paralysis by analysis, and
the third one thinks we are in a country club or a family reunion. Imagine
what would happen if I were to be "open and honest" (an espoused value in
my organization) and I were to tell the other three members of the team
what I thought about them!
It was only after reading the 5D FB that I realized that when I come to
these quick conclusions about people I am "climbing to the top of the
Ladder of Inference", and that I must control myself by "suspending
assumptions". The 5D FB also led me to Human Dynamics (I forget in what
page Peter Senge describes it), which taught me that people learn
differently and have different needs that must be satisfied if they are to
be an integral part of a LO.
Conclusion of all this? We get together to achieve an end, but if we want
to be effective and learn from our experiences, we better think about the
process we are going to use. And the process better address the why, the
what, and the how if we want people to behave purposefully.
Any comments on this?
Roy Lyford-Pike
VP - Engineering and Development
SCM Chemicals
Baltimore, MD
71075.2421@compuserve.com
--"Roy L. Pike" <71075.2421@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>