Replying to LO28352 --
John Zavacki, replying to LO28290, writes:
>management is the arrangement of things in time and space. efficient
>management wastes neither time nor space. it takes more energy to waste.
>hard work has plenty to do with waste. efficient leadership neither works
>hard nor wastes.
I think John and I are in sync here. Allow me to build on his comments
above. But first let me say that, in my view, the fundamental task of
management is to concentrate and channel organizational energy along
productive lines. As John points out, we often do that as a result of
arranging things in time and space. Be that as it may, I'm going to
proceed down a line that deals with energy.
"it takes more energy to waste" Quite true. Working involves expending
energy. All such expenditures are some mix of productive and wasted
energy. If the proportions are not managed, specifically, if the wasted
portion is not reduced to a minimum, then to achieve the result requires
more total energy expenditure than would otherwise be the case. Or, as
John says, "it takes more energy to waste."
"hard work has plenty to do with waste." Again, quite true. To work
harder, that is, to expend more energy, will again result in increased
waste if the wasted portion is not reduced. Consequently, although we can
indeed accomplish more by working harder, we also waste more. Or, as John
says, "hard work has plenty to do with waste."
This is the LO list, which has at least some connection to systems
thinking, particularly system dynamics, so many on this list should be
familiar with the concepts of stocks and flows.
Energy is a stock. Each of us has some maximum level of energy that we
can achieve. Few of us every achieve it; most of us have actual energy
levels that are somewhat less than the maximum of which we are capable.
Whatever we expend, we expend from our stock of current energy. So, let
energy expended be represented as Ee and let energy available (our current
stock of energy) be represented as Ea. "Working harder" is a state in
which Ee is approximately equal to Ea (Ee ~ Ea).
Clearly, no one can work at full tilt for very long. Bursts and spurts
are known to us all but we all know that no one can run full out for
extended periods of time. Enter the concept of "working smarter."
As just noted, Ee represents energy expended. That expenditure is always
some mix of productive and wasted energy. So, let productive expenditures
be represented by Ep and let wasted expenditures be represented by Ew.
>From this, it can be seen that "working smarter" is a state that exists
when the productive portion of energy expended (Ep) is approximately equal
to the energy expended (Ee). We can express this state at Ep ~ Ee.
Here's a trap, so beware. It is very tempting and very easy to assert
that Ee = Ep + Ew. Going a step farther, one can say that Ep = Ee - Ew.
>From there, it can be argued that increasing the amount of energy expended
(Ee) will in fact increase Ep (and so it will). What is not clear from
the expression is that increasing Ee will also increase Ew so that not all
the increase in Ee will show up as an increase in Ep. Why? Because Ep
and Ew are functions of the way in which the work is performed (and this
includes the procedures, methods, tools and so on).
The mathematical manipulation of the equation above has the unfortunate
effect of disconnecting some things that are inextricably intertwined,
namely, the wasted and the productive portions of a given energy
expenditure. To alter the relationship between Ee and Ep and between Ee
and Ew, you have to change the way the work gets done, not simply call for
the exertion of more energy. All that does, as John says and as I agree,
is increase waste.
As for "efficient management," Alan Cotterell, in LO28327, asserts it is
an "oxymoron." I don't see how that can be the case but I'm open to
whatever Alan can provide in the way of elaboration. From my perspective,
managing, like any other activity, involves expending energy. Those
expenditures can be productive or unproductive. The productive
expenditures are characterized by both effectiveness (i.e., they
contribute to the intended result) and efficiency (i.e., they make
economical use of the sources of energy). I can produce a given result
and do so in ways that incur great waste, in which case I am effective but
inefficient. I can also produce a given result and do so in ways that
keep waste at an absolute minimum, in which case I am effective and
efficient.
I'm afraid this is starting to get tedious along about now (or got tedious
earlier) so I'll cut it short. Suffice it to say that I am not opposed to
"working harder" when necessary but I recognize that it increases waste.
So, when out to improve productivity, I am not about to rely on a strategy
of working harder unless it is also accompanied by interventions focused
on "working smarter."
Most important, the real leverage in productivity improvements lie in
"working smarter."
Now how do we get organizations and their leaders to "learn" that?
'Nuff said...
Regards,
Fred Nickols
740.397.2363
nickols@safe-t.net
"Assistance at a Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm
--Fred Nickols <nickols@safe-t.net>
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.