Traditional Wisdom... LO8906

Ben Compton (BCOMPTON@novell.com)
Tue, 06 Aug 1996 08:49:48 -0600

Replying to LO8877 --

Mary, Cherry, and Joan have a great thread here.

> Mary Apodaca asked for feedback on the statement:

> "It is traditional wisdom in the business world that a coporation is only
> as good as the people it employs."

> And Joan Pomo replied:

> "I would not put such a statement in writing because it sounds like
> blaming the troops for management errors. "

> I think Joan has hit a big nail on the head here. I have a quote posted
> over my desk which says, "There are no bad people in companies - just good
> people being asked to do the wrong thing." (source unknown) I see a link
> with the philosophies of Peter Scholtes who opposes individual performance
> appraisal because it supports the (mis)concept that the company's problems
> or successes are attributable to the individual performance of individual
> employees. Focusing on the individuals ignores the existence of
> _systems_, which the likes of Deming, Scholtes, Senge et al define as the
> source of an organisation's performance.

Perhaps I could throw a little "untraditional wisdom" into this thread.

I've thought that perhaps management should be responsible for budgets,
head count, resource allocation (computers, desks, printers, etc.) --
things that can be "managed," -- and the employees should be solely
responsible for achieving business results. This would imply that the
managers and the employees define a set of "results" that would help the
company become more competitive and profitable, and then the managers
would allow the employees exclusive control over achieving those results.

The managers would be responsible for providing the employees with
resources, and when resources were not available -- due to any number of
reasons -- the desired results should be renegotiated.

Employee evaluation would be centered on the "results" and divided into
thirds:

1/3 for individual performance
1/3 for workgroup/team performance
1/3 for department/organization performance

Let other factors like attendance, attitude, and so forth fly out the
window. It is irrelevant, if results are being achieved.

Let the employees wrestle with the systemic problems, and let them find
new ways of working, of thinking, and of achieving. This would increase
their sense of connectedness with their work and their colleagues; it
would give them a strong sense of empowerment, and control; and it would
represent, more closely in my opinion, the relationship employees have to
the work they do: They're already held accountable for the results they
achieve, but they've not been given enough power to influence the systems
which often prevent them from achieving the desired results. This seems
wrong.

I've expressed this idea more than once at Novell, and every time I get
frowned at by the managers. They always ask: "Now what would our role be
again?" I've mentioned it to the employees in my department, and they say,
"You want us to do what? That's why we have managers. Managers tell us
what do to."

And so we continue with a model, that in my opinion, does not reflect the
realities of the workplace, and which, in the long run, limits a companies
ability to achieve desired results.

Any comments. . .

-- 

Ben Compton <BCOMPTON@novell.com>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>