Rol Fessenden wrote:
---big snip---
>Another way to think about this is that Deming assumes that if
>_management_ does not change the system, then employee performance cannot
>change. My model assumes that if _employees_ do not change the system,
>then employee performance cannot change. Frankly, there are a lot more
>employees than managers, so where would you want to place your bets?
---snip---
>So, if I can summarize, a) system and people are too tightly linked to
>make the distinctions Deming draws, b) only people can improve systems, c)
>there are more people than management, so let's let people make the
>improvements, d) consistent performance gaps are learning opportunities,
>whether they are within the control limits or not. And I really disagree
>with you that people performing within the system have zero responsibility
>for further performance improvement.
---snip---
>Rol Fessenden
A distinction should be drawn between "the system" - the way things are
done in an organisation; and "the culture" - the values of the
organisation. Many organisations have a bureaucratic or hierarchical
culture, where ideas about improving "the system" apparently only appear
in the brains of senior management.
I would argue that the values of a Learning Organisation include valuing
ideas from all staff. I would also argue against moral relativism, and
state categorically that there is a fundamental principle which defines a
true Learning Organistion - the Golden Rule.
--Richard Hills <staffdev@ozemail.com.au>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>