Hello Keith, and all
I did get a bit carried away when I wrote about truth, but I recall that
when I was first hired, my manager was a noted "heretic" in the sense that
he pushed hard to get the computing system designers to step back and take
the "big picture" viewpoint.
This approach was-at the time, not politically correct, and bucked a lot
of traditional ways of doing things, (and he paid a price for it) but what
I've found so striking since then was the 18 or 20 of us that were in his
work group over time have scattered all across the company and virtually
all of us have our hands into some of the high impact kinds of projects
where fundamental changes are being defined.
This has added fuel to my belief that you have to make a stand where ever
you are-even if the politics are against you. You can do it quietly and
be polite-no point in creating enemies you don't need to-but striving for
the greater good needs to be our driver or we're not in the game. There
is a lot to be said for "out lasting" the nay sayers. Taking the long
view yourself and doing what you can do-establishes that you aren't
completely insane-when the results of this kind of thinking bring back
results. The old parable of the mustard seed - being the smallest of herb
seeds growing into a tree of sorts (the largest of herbs) is a good
metaphor to think about.
I'm a small voice in a big company, but my little voice is being joined by
others who recognize the value of big picture thinking, personal mastery,
shared vision and better, cleaner mental models. I have my former manager
(Tom Butine) to thank for the good example of taking the heat to establish
a baseline the rest of us in his group have jumped off of-in creating a
stronger future.
On 11 Jul 1996, Keith Cowan wrote:
> Michael Erickson <sysengr@atc.boeing.com> makes a passionate
> plea for honesty and standing up for the truth:
>
> >As a corporate cartoonist-who got my position because I
> >successfully "told the truth" about a situation-I have to speak
> >up about this "honesty vs what people want to hear" issue.
> >snip snip
> >a certain manager saw his role as the one who had to "ARTICULATE
> >FORCEFULLY" the visions, ideas and concepts his people
> >generated or discovered.
> >
> Michael, I am pleased that your approach is working. There are a couple of
> key observations pasted in above: your approach seems to use humour to get
> the point across - this can be very effective and is not a threat.
>
> The company recognizes a crisis - this expands tolerance to drama in
> action.
I have a few who in my company who think my approach is also heresy
("we're not a cartoony company") I found this morning that there is one
individual who thinks my cartoon people look like "rejects from
appalachia", but his employees (who I produce training material for) think
they are wonderful. I use humor, but I also touch the emotions of the
viewer. I can't always talk with facts and data, so I use metaphor or
analogy. Sometimes it's tolerated, sometimes not.
> My point is that whatever works in a situation is useful but cannot be
> copied in another without accounting for subtle differences. If your
> management has concluded they must empower people to survive, your chances
> for honesty are better than if "they" are still convinced that they must
> find the answers, for example.
>
> Thanks for a refreshing story...Keith
Thanks for your response.
later...
Michael Erickson
sysengr@atc.boeing.com
--Michael Erickson <sysengr@atc.boeing.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>