Traditional Wisdom... LO8924

jpomo@gate.net ("jpomo@gate.net")
Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:20:31 +0000

Replying to LO8906 --

Ben Compton wrote about a new model -

> 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.

Ben's model has a lot of good points, but it is not a new one. It is very
similar to the advice of our book and is also close to the ideas behind
Self Managed Teams. The assumption is that all people are capable of being
superstars if only they were given the resources to do so and my
experience supports that totally. I forgot who on this list said that
there are no bad people only people who are asked to do the wrong thing,
but I also believe that to be true.

The fact is that bosses do not understand their job as being supporters of
the people who must do the work. They have been misled by an authoritarian
based society and they act out what they have seen being done at home, in
school, in church, in the media, by peers and by older bosses at work.
Somehow, we must break this chain and move to helping everyone to be as
good as they can be -- and that is far better than most of us can imagine,
IMO more than 300% per person in terms of productivity as compared to
poorly motivated people whose bosses don't understand the problem.

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

These are minor points, but the devil is in the details. Thus I must say
that a positive attitude has been shown to be the most important thing to
bring to work, more so than smarts and industriousness. Also it might be
very dangerous to throw out attendance unless results can be accurately
measured and compensation is based only on them.

> 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.

You are right about it being wrong and it is also bad for the bottom line,
for employees, for investors and for customers. If bosses live by the
Golden Rule, all of these would be corrected.

Regards, Joan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Pomo The Finest Tools for Managing People
Simonton Associates Based on the book
jpomo@gate.net "How to Unleash the Power of People"

-- 

"jpomo@gate.net" <jpomo@gate.net>

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