Replying to LO28412 --
Hello Lynn and Alan,
Reading your contributions, it occurred to me that the paradoxical
paradigm is in the 'friendly fire'. Fire is our friend, but it can burn
you. - did you notice that fire hides itself 'frie'ndly? - Should we call
it 'friendly' fire or friendly fire? As it is used in military situations,
it means that people are killed by other people that belong to the same
group. Is this 'friendly' fire or 'friendly fire'. And what if you happen
to belong to the other group, to the group that tries to kill the people
from the other group. Do they call the fire 'friendly'? The American and
Australian (and the English and the other) armies are in Afganistan to
fire at people. So is the issue at hand: why fire at people?
When people work in a "self-managed" team, it seems to implie that the
group is managed into a "self-managed" environment. So any "self-managed"
team has the problem of deciding when to switch from the "managed"-mode to
the "self-managed"-mode. In your contribution in read that the
'upper"-management is reponsible for managing the transition processes in
the "self-managed" team. And off course the 'upper--management team that
created the self-managed situation: is it self-managed too? And in the
end, there will be a reorganisation and people will be fired. Can we ask a
'self-managed' team to lay off a few of its members for the benefit of the
whole? Why fire people?
The irony of the 'friendly-fire' is that the armies are in Afganistan
because of the actions of some other "self-managed" teams that might or
might not have been managed from self-managed groups in Afganistan. They
seem to rebel against the processes of globalized management, imperialism,
domination by the US and the western world, whatever. It is still not
clear to me. Why fire at friendly people?
It seems to be that we derive our 'self-image' from others. I do not know
who i am until i've experienced how others react towards me. Thereby i
enact my reality. This is done more easily in a small group, starting at
family level and working through the neighborhood. In the end, we end up
in this large world of groups within groups. Are we managed or
self-managed? As you derive your being from being part of a group, does
that imply that your being is also derived from being against something or
somebody else? What is the issue here? The Good Guys against The Bad Guys?
Is the issue self-management or is the issue that the ends sanctify the
means? - I couldn't follow this jump myself - What if happens when the
notion "the end sanctifies the means" is incorporated into self-managed
teams? Does the team still have a choice? When we decide that we do not
want to be part of some means, can we check out? Can we leave? May a team
Do you still know who you are when you are working in a managed
self-managed environment? Are terrorists the puppets on a string that
dance to the tunes of their unhappy masters? Or are the 'self-managed'
teams the puppets that still obey the orders of their unhappy leaders -
and, even worse, who have been lured into beleiving that they can manage
themselves? And how to treat the problem of the consequences, the
responsibilities? Is a "self-managed" team that has been managed in a
"self-managed" situation responsible for the consequences of their
actions? Or is it still with the upper management? And what about the
other teams or organisation? How should they react when attacked? Is the
other self-managed team the responsible party or is their self-managed
management? What if they're only teaching us a lesson? And what if they
are in Afganistan? Aren't we all still in Afganistan? and under fire? How
do we show grace under fire?
Lynn Sikorski wrote:
> As a Canadian, I read those words with special attention. We have just
> lost 4 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan to 'friendly fire' as a possible
> result of that decentralized decision making.
> It has made me Think of the potentially disastrous consequences, in any
> organization-- military or otherwise, with this type of action potential
> available to the employees. If the ability and authority to make critical
> decisions on behalf of the organization rests with the individual
> employee, in these times more than any other, it is imperative that
> employees be well trained in specific knowledge, skills and abilities --
> and socialized to the organization's values, beliefs, and assumptions --
> and furthermore that an effective accountability system exist. Talk about
> a paradigm shift -- organizations can no longer fill a position with a
> live body and hope that they'll pick up what they need to know on-the-job.
> As I type this, it seems so obvious... But how do you ensure (or at least
> feel confident) that your employees have the competence and the alignment
> with the organization's MVV to make those decisions.
With kind regards - met vriendelijke groeten,
LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development mind@work est. 1998 - Group Resolution Process Support Tel.: (+31) (0)70 3243475 or GSM (car): (+31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl firstname.lastname@example.org
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.