Replying to LO28134
Goeiendag René
Thank you for responding to my post with the gardener as the example.
You are absolutely correct with the points that you made.
On my comment:
> > "There is of course no doubt as to which of the three examples
> > one would like to have applied to oneself."
you responded:
> I agree with that, there is no doubt as to which of
> the three examples I would like to have applied to
> myself. But that is not an invariant. It depends on
> the context; and it is - I believe - not always the same
> choice for different people. It depends on what
> level one is operating giving the task.
Back in the 70's I tried to complement the 'Managerial Grid' (MG) of
Blake and Mouton with a "Subordinate Grid" (SG). Where the MG was a
two-dimensional model of the attitudes of superiors to subordinates in
terms of people orientation and task orientation, the SG tried to
model the attitudes of 'subordinates' towards their peers, their work
and their superiors in terms of two 'needs' - the desire for security
and the drive to achieve; two factors very much in the mind of the
subordinate, similar to the people-task dilemma in the mind of the
manager. I used the job as storeman to characterise the high security
attitude, a job that is usually very tightly procedure bound, with
little or no scope for independent decision making (This would equate
in an industrial setting with the Type 1 labourer in my examples).
A high achiever would atrophy - or revolt - under conditions of Type 1
and even Type 2.
So, you are correct - it is very much situation or perhaps also
personality dependent. But I do think most members of this list would
make the same choice and opt for Type 3.
You continued with:
> Daan suggests, at least as I read it, that in the factory floor
> level, the directive approach, there is no learning for the labourer.
> Well maybe in the specific context of his example he is
> right, but in general I would say that giving very detailed
> instructions can be a very good way to make sure that a
> person (in this case the labourer) experiences something
> that could lead to real authentic learning.
In writing the previous post, I neglected to think of the broader
context of the examples. They were written as three 'snapshots' to
illustrate a point - and in that sense, yes, the sub text and
reference to the 'factory floor' does convey a sense of stultification
and frustration. However, if tasks were broken down to the level of
detail promoted in Taylor's(?) "Scientific Management" at the turn of
the previous century, and kept there as the preferred system, the
monotony must have been deafening.
Yet, if the factory floor approaches the Japanese QC concept, I think
the ongoing learning experience could be substantial. One would have
to begin with detailed instructions to get the assembly line moving,
but over time the workers could contribute more and more to their own
management and task sceduling and even operations as they learn how to
do so. The system is then different to enable learning.
Your third point was:
> What I strongly miss in the discussion of
> Daan's scenarios is the acknowledgement that
> the involved learning is a two way street street.
> The manager should learn regarding the labourer,
> he should be willing to be taught by the labourer
> regarding his capacities and his ideas about the
> task. Managing is 'maatwerk', (tailored) to the
> specific person in a specific situation.
> You can only teach when you are willing to be taught at the same time.
Again, I did not think of this at the time of writing the referred to
post, but your comments has spurred a new thought - what was depicted
as three independent snapshots should perhaps be viewed as steps in an
evolution (i.e.as stills from a movie showing a learning exercise!),
that involves both sides of the situation, as you rightly commented.
There is no way - within the context of the examples - where a mostly
illiterate rural labourer could be promoted overnight into the Type 3
situation, where he has to cope with all the planning and organisation
and communication with the outside world related to a relatively large
project. It would require a period of time, beginning with Type 1
quite detailed instructions and progressing gradually through Type 2
until Type 3 can be achieved - a learning process that will probably
extend beyond mere gardening to include becoming literate, say.
I would be very happy to report that such progression was typical of
South African farms over the past 50 years, but unfortunately that
would not be true. I think very few farmers and their gardeners - as a
pair - ever advanced beyond Type 2, if that. I think the stereotypes
would have been too strongly embedded - perhaps on both sides of the
relationship.
In that sense, however, South African farm history may well be on a
par with much of the business world in general.
The relevant question is what it would take to make the jump from Type
1 to Type 2, and later to Type 3, purely in terms of new knowledge and
skills. And how much that change would rely on changing the objectives
- what I would like to term, in view of previous discussions, working
towards a more comprehensive 'purpose' for the gardener. This would
entail quite a change in the gardener's perception of his function and
role. (And which would be the chicken and which the egg?)
And at the same time, as you noted, there would have to be a change in
the farmer, mostly in terms of a substantial relaxation of authority
and delegation of responsibility. Two people, each as teacher and also
learning from the other. (And in the case of the example, the
difficult and awkward matter of modifying stereotypes.)
The final question has to be how much is done in our modern
organisations to culture and support a similar evolution of function
and purpose, at all levels in the organisation, closely entwined with
a similar devolution of authority and responsibility much lower down
in the organisation - something that is essential if the whole effort
is to succeed.
And if the answer is, "Too little", than at least one has a specific
problem to investigate in an attempt to find the reasons why.
Apologies that this turned into such a long post.
Kind regards and best wishes, René and all
daan
Daan Joubert
Not really a good farmer either, I think!
Roodepoort
South Africa
--Daan Joubert <daanj@kingsley.co.za>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.