Excitedly replying to LO28167.
in which Don commented on my earlier statement
>> [And I am aware of the fact that the 7 E's form a unity
>> and that grabbing one in isolation is a near heresy (:-)),
>> but i'll risk the censure]
with
> As I think the smiley recognizes, it's no heresy --
> it's the first step in the "Steigerung" process
[snip]
> Also, as I think you'll find out, "grabbing one in isolation"
> is a near impossibility!
and then proceeded to show how a bunch of them could be identified in
the remainder of that post.
Thank you Don; yes, the smiley had to be inserted in that sentence as
I discovered when I had completed writing the post and read it
carefully again. But I did not recognise nearly all of the E's that
you pointed out. Practice does make better!!
You commented further on the Golden Rule (GR) when you mentioned what
GBS had to say ("Do not do unto others as you would that they should
do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."), on which you then
continued with,
> Expanding "tastes" to include "needs", "desires", "dreams",
> etc., it seems to me that there's a bit of variability in the GR
> constant, at least on the surface.
and continuing to reformulate the GR as
> "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them".
> To follow this version, you need to be aware of the
> differences between you and them (otherness and sureness),
> of the consequences of your actions (liveness, fruitfulness,
> wholeness), of the limitations of what you can do (spareness),
> and be able (spareness again) and willing (openness) to take
> the needed action.
I love this! Thank you.
To understand why, let us return to what I have called the Normative
Directive - the statement that gives purpose to any manager in any
organisation. To recap, the idea of "worth" is introduced as being the
hypothetical average one would find if all people who interact with
the system of which the 'manager' is the head could be asked to rate
their perception of how the system matches their needs and
expectations on a scale of 1 to 10.
The main objective for the manager, stated as an open ended directive,
is to increase the worth the system for the people in its environment.
This is of course done with reference to the Whole environment
covering all three main interfaces - inputs, resources and outputs -
and, at each interface, also with reference to the three classes of
factors that people use when evaluating an interaction or
relationship with an organisation (Tangible, intangible and cost
factors.)
In practice, in trying to discover which factors have to be tweaked in
order to improve worth, a manager (and his team) could speculate what
are the important factors at each interface, and even for different
categories of people at each interface, and how these should be
modified.
By doing so, they would be working according the the conventional GR -
placing themselves in the position of people in the environment and
then trying to guess what their expectations, their needs and their
priorities are and, in doing so, obviously using their own equivalents
as reference. >From these results, specific and measurable objectives
are set for the system. (A process performed for the organisation as a
whole as well as for each sub-system within it.)
In the implementation of Normative management (NM) this method is good
enough for the initial workshop - it is at least a start that raises
the awareness of what people 'outside' the system expect from it,
across a whole spectrum of factors. But it is not good enough; once
the NM methodology is being bedded in within the working environment,
the manager (and his team) have to obtain first hand experience of
what really are the expectation, needs and priorities of the people in
the environment by speaking to them personally.
In other words, to place GBS's rendition of the GR into practice, with
all the 7E implications that you mentioned. Which of course explains
why I so much appreciate bringing it to my attention!
In effect, the original GR implied a homogenous culture, with no
unwarranted complications in this respect of different tastes and
requirements, while GBS with his typical jaundiced outlook saw the
practical problems.
Note that the adjustment to outside requirements is not slavish - the
faculty of communication can always be employed by the manager to
modify the expectations of the system held by people in the
environment and, if successful, can raise the worth of the system
without having to change the system itself.
> BTW, you might have an entirely different idea of how
> the 7Es apply (or if they do); if so, I'd love to hear about it.
I do not think can can improve on the way Don had stated it following
GBS's version of the GR. The moment the manager begins to pursue the
real needs of the environment - with some scope of influencing these
through effective communication - those comments apply in full.
What I now find an exciting revelation is that, as you wrote w.r.t the
the GBS version, the implications and near compelling consequences of
changing to an NM environment is that At's 7E's are essential for
success. That the requirement to "Do unto others as they would have
you do unto them" establishes a cultural climate in which employment
of the 7E's become an imperative, not merely an option.
When I wrote that first over-exuberant post saying that an
organisation - including the LO - must have purpose, and then
specifically the Normative Directive, I somehow believed, from my
insights into the kind of organisation that should result, that it
would provide fertile ground for the establishment of an LO (using
At's 7E's as necessary, if not sufficient as well). That there would
be synergy.
Don, with what you wrote it becomes more than mere synergy - =
co-operation so that the whole becomes more than the parts - but
symbiosis or a co-operation that is essental for survival.
Essential for the success of NM at least.
Thanks Don!.
With best wishes and kind regards
daan
Daan Joubert
Smileying broadly! Learning!!
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.