I also agree in the "the beauty is the balance of all elements" point of
view. But where are the scales placed that determine the balance? Are
the various constituent pieces of one business arranged on either side of
the scale, trying to create a balance of positive and negative energies
within one organization? Or (my view) are the scales much larger and
there are some organizations to either the right or the left of the
center. Must my organization contain equal elements of positive and
negative in order to be balanced, and therefore beautiful? Or can I exist
in a positive organization that is offset on the other ends of the scales
by a negative organization?
I would argue that my company will be more successful if the majority of
the groups (departments, teams, work-groups, self-actualized
high-performance tribes, self-directed hordes, or whatever subdivision you
care to use) are positive instead of negative. As compared to having a
balance between positive and negative groups. An equal balance of
positive and negative energies in an organization does not provide
balance, it creates strife, and lots of it.
How abstract can this comparison get? For my company to be successful,
must some other company fail? Maybe, maybe not. In actuality, the vast
majority of companies fail. Their failure isn't always directly related to
the success of other companies. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.
There is danger in becoming too abstract in trying to apply the
characteristics of life and the natural world to the business world. The
two are different. Natural organisms are almost exclusively focused on
physical survival (the first plane in Maslo's Hierarchy of Needs). The
human organism in a business environment is very seldom focused on this
level. Many characterizations of the success of a business are made by
identifying the level on Maslo's pyramid that has been attained by a
business' culture.
On another note, regarding the comment that "customers . . . are too far
and remote to intervene directly." It is perhaps true that customers may
not directly intervene by being physically positioned within our company
and providing direction. In an enlightened company, however, the
employees should view themselves as representatives of the customers. The
highest level of achieving a customer focus is to be able to live in the
customers' shoes, see through the customer's eyes, speak the customer's
words, and live the customer's lives. Only by striving for this level of
customer focus can we truly understand the customer's needs and,
therefore, satisfy them. So, if a company's customers are too far and
remote to intervene in the company's business, it is because the company's
employees are not fulfilling their responsibilities as representatives of
the customer.
Well, I think I have pontificated enough for one message. Thanks for
taking the time to wade through my ramblings. I look forward to your
feedback.
Mark.
Mark S. Moore
Training Manager
Technical Education
AT&T Wireless Services
mark.moore@attws.com
>From: andreww@petronas.com.my[SMTP:andreww@petronas.com.my]
>
>I hope to synergise Art and Business Worlds as follow:
>
>Ray Evans Harrell wrote:
>>"We all not only sit around the circle and observe the center
>>telling each other what we see, but we also choose the seats
>>for a particular reason."
>
>Well structured within organisation on roles / positions,
>e.g. CEO, Marketing, Production etc.
>
>There are roles, there are actors, ... with the aim of producing
>intended Business results.
>
>>"When current business structures seek to eliminate all "negative"
>>influences, this seems to me a flaw. Sometimes it is like watching
>>corny horror flicks to be able to share moments with your teenager
>>and her friends, where the evil is banished in the end only to say
>>"but you need me to know what you are!" Even the red guy with
>>the big horns is necessary as is the horn of the unicorn.
>
>It was discussed / learnt earlier, the purpose is not to eliminate
>"negative" "villian" i.e. "the enemy is not out there!"
>
>>"Beauty is the balance of all of the elements in perfection in a
>>coherent universe. The world that you choose is the context that
>>"sets" all of the necessary elements for the drama to unfold.
>>Is the universe complete? This is the basis of almost all theater
>>works. Works where we can see how that happens before we have to
>>do it in our reality. Sometimes we even get to be the actors.
>>This is what I was taught from my context and what helps me be
>>compassionate about differences."
>
>Here it is a scene of a drama or art piece. How is it compared with
>Business world? The above describes two domains : one is a group
>of actors with roles-play, and another is Observer(s) or Designers
>or Directors. It is agreed that in the former domain there is
>no "villian" or "bad actors", just that "everyone has a role
>to play, to complete the "scene" or "story". Then there is this
>second domain : the Observer(s) or Designers wanting to see
>the Beauty, the Balance, the Completeness, the Whole.
>
>Who are the Observers, Designers or Directors in an Organisation?
>Some say it is the Customers, but they are too far and remote
>to intervene directly. Likely these are the Actors who have
>designated role-play in organisation. But WHEN and HOW is
>ACTOR also OBSERVER? or When do you detach self and involve self?
>
>What is your view?
>
>andreww@petronas.com.my (Andrew Wong Hee Sing)
--"Moore, Mark" <mark.moore@attws.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>