Joan, I take issue with your use of "control" as applied to cars
having much to do with "control" applied to people. I understand
that those with a vested interest can and will use any language to
their advantage - but that doesn't create much of an argument to me
for not using what seems like more useful language to those who are
actually trying to accomplish something new.
I take "control" to mean pretty much what you indicated - some
direct, traceable, linear cause & effect. It's not a term that
allows for complexity, independent action of others, nor emergence.
It applies perfectly to a car - even though there are other factors
involved such as environment writ large. The driver is in control in
that clearly no one else is. It is not relevant to control that the
top speed is not determined by the driver - that is already in the
nature of what is being controlled. (We are talking about driving
cars, not building them.)
If we focus on responsibility and blame, as you seem to have done,
then we need to exercise extreme caution at how we use the terms.
It is frequently unclear who is "responsible" for an accident except
that it must be the drivers rather than the passengers - assuming
they weren't interfering.
> The same is true for managers of people.
Compare the reliability of outcomes produced, the predictability of
outcomes produced, with that of driving a car and tell me we are
dealing with a phenomena of similar kind.
If managers are so "in control", then why can't they produce the
results they promise, let alone the results they want?
And then you say:
> They do control to a great extent
> But the point is that control implies authority and that
> determines responsibility and accountability.
This points at exactly the type difference. There is no issue of
"authority" over a car. There is a mechanical connection between
driver and car. Lackin any such connection between manager and
employees, we need some linguistic concept such as "authority".
I submit that responsibility and accountability have NOTHING to do
with authority - nor control. They have to do with personal, social
and attitudes and agreements.
If some are attempting to escape responsibility or accountability by
claiming they "only have influence" then they shouldn't be managers.
They deserve to be laughed out and probably fired. Or maybe a better
approach would be for an organisation to develop its own social
norms, an operational language around these core operations, and
develop managers into understanding a system where this would be
irrational behaviour.
If it isn't obvious, I'm not interested in attempting to mediate in
an organisational environment that is inherently lacking in design
and operational principles and attempting to resolve issues as though
the inherited social norms are givens within the corporation as
without. I am interested in creating environments, cultures,
structures, etc which give people an ability to coordinate their
personal expressions for productive ends.
-- Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe "I don't give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." attributed to Chief Justice Brandies
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>