Emergence LO10500

Robert Bacal (dbt359@freenet.mb.ca)
Tue, 15 Oct 1996 11:26:40 -0500 (CDT)

Replying to LO10473 --

On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, jpomo@gate.net wrote:

> Objection to the word "control" comes from thinking that the word implies
> only one tactic, that of a top-down command and control approach. Those
> who use this approach to control have been deluded into thinking that
> ordering an outcome is tantamount to achieving it.

I agree, but I think one of the problems is the use of the term "control"
rather than influence. Since control, for many people suggests, top-down,
as you have stated, why struggle to change the meaning of the word? Why
not use the word that is more accurate--influence?

IMHO, suggesting to people that they can CONTROL others is more likely to
enforce the mistaken idea that one CAN do it. It sounds like you are not
seperating the notion of control tactics, and control outcomes.

> But reality lies elsewhere. Giving verbal orders to humans has always been
> one of the most destructive and counter-productive actions any boss can
> take to achieve a given outcome.

That's a method (verbal orders). Control refers not to methods, but to a
relationship between the controller and the controlled. That is the
underlying issue. One can attempt to control another with weapons,
coercion, rewards, praise, modelling, or to take your position, by
exemplifying high standards and values. It is all doomed to fail, because
the ultimate purpose is to control behaviour, something that is simply not
possible.

> The existence of this belief in the viability of orders was so rampant in
> the US Navy that the head of the Navy actually created a school in the mid

Again, you are talking about methods, not the relationship of control.

> In response to my saying -
> "But the point is that control implies authority and that
> determines responsibility and accountability."
>
> Robert Bacal stated -
>
> "The notion of passive, empty vessel staff that is implicit in Joan's
> control concept seems to me to be one that learning organizations, quality
> improvement organizations, and empowered organizations need to fight
> against, with vigour."
>
> Implicit, NO! I believe most strongly in the goodness and capability of
> people, but I have found that the only ones who can maintain their
> motivations and beliefs and not respond to poor leadership in a negative
> way are those who are strong and independent, take charge of their own
> life and not in any way conformists.

Here is the fundamental confusion: That strong independent people can be
consistently controlled. If this is a semantic confusion, perhaps you
could provide a formal definition of what you mean by CONTROL.

> My experience indicates that although
> we were all born independent, society forces over 90% of us into some or
> complete conformance.

Since you quote a figure, I would be interested in knowing how that figure
was derived (research? counting?), and on what populations that has been
based upon. Clearly that would be an issue. If you are basing this on the
military or the church that's one thing. If you are basing it on, let's
say academics, that's another.

> One only need view top-down companies to determine
> how many have succumbed to this "influence".

How many have succumbed, and what, exactly does that mean?

> On the other side, I am also
> aware of a few places wherein the majority were returned to their at
> birth, strong and independent state and were able for many years to
> maintain their motivations and standards in spite of having a command and
> control oriented boss. In fact, they reveled in this ability.

A faulty psychological assumption. You might want to look at some
developmental psychology to understand that infants are not strong and
independent, they are totally dependent on their caretakers. Second, they
are the ultimate self-centred creatures. Infants (newborns) spend the
first portion of their lives realizing what is them, and what is not them.
Is this dependent, ego-centric state what you wish to return to?

> > Finally, since bosses have the authority over juniors of relieving,
> firing, reducing pay or denying a raise, suspending, ordering actions, et
> al, I submit that the word influence is by definition incorrect. If
> control is objectionable, what then would fit? Paycheck control always
> makes "My way or the highway" a possiblity which juniors can dismiss only
> at some cost to themselves.

AGain, a confusion of means. Bosses have CONTROL over certain means, as
you point out, but NOT over the behaviour of employees. It is the fallacy
that bosses can control behaviour that gives rise to the top-down
structures you comment upon. If bosses realize their limitations
incontrolling other's behaviour, they might be less likely to create
structures that they know are not going to work.

The myth of control is probably the single most destructive notion, in
terms of creating learning orgs., empowering staff and creating team
structures.

Robert Bacal - CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
Internet Address - dbt359@freenet.mb.ca
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. (204) 888-9290
Join us at our Resource Centre at: http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359

-- 

Robert Bacal <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>

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