Sparked by Maslow's questions (see below) I note that we assume quite deliberately that democracy is the ideal state for human society. Yet, those proponents of democracy in social life are not arguing for democracy in the workplace. Why?
Of course, there is a host of "business" reasons brought to bear. This implies, then, that one cannot effectively run a business democratically. How, then, can one run an effective country in such a way?
Such a question seems to bring out reaction, not to question democratic orietnatino for societ, but to redefine democracy in business. Servant leadership concepts, employee engagement programs, self-managing communities of practices and an extended variety of approaches are raised as "evidence" of the democratisation of organisations. It's an illusion that serves mostly to obscure the fact that business remains undemocratic, despite vociferous arguments that democracy is "not perfect but the best" system that can be in the larger scheme of things.
Perhaps there is no irony, after all, in observing that the loudest proponents for democracy are manifestly undemocratic. Then one looks at the underlying motivations--never mind what the system is called--what is it for?
The United States within the Americas comes to mind. So does China. Food for thought.
Assumptions Under Guise
I am reading Maslow on Management and am struck by how deeply Maslow's musing (it is essentially a set of reflections) resonate.
Much of what seems to be of great permanence in our world view, and therefore much of what one assumes to have been based in a proven understanding, is neither permanent nor proven.
Observations on the behaviour of victims of abuse, disenfranchised populations, etc. move from abstract to more concrete when named as children who fear there parents, the lot of women in some societies, employees whose best hope is for obedience to a benevolent dictator. McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y are taught as if these are management styles. Yet, actually, they describe a set of assumptions about "those who would be managed". Management style is quite a different thing (albeit pretty well grounded in assumptions about "those would be managed").
Enjoying the reading...but sometimes wonder, in the tension between being energized by the resonance of ideas and the sheer weariness of recognizing the lived truth in my own experience, is there room to make a living? Is there really any interest in a healthy, vibrant, productive work place of people who rise to their capability?
Drucker's work seems to assume an equitable distribution of capacities and control in a healthy frame that simply does not exist in organisations. Organisational life is not the hot house of health and well-being. Surprise.
Chris Argyris speaks to the reality in identifying Model I and Model II organiations: those that espouse a sest of values and those that, conversely, actually live those espoused values. His work also resonates. But, I have yet to encounter an organisation that truly lives its values. Gary Hamel's observation that senior managers are risk averse, fearing loss of control and loss of credibility looms large. And in my observation over too many years, risk aversion is not the purview of senior managers alone. Fear, overt and covert, is probably the primary force within organisations.
There is probably a only a limited cadre of middle managers who, protected by their bosses, are free to really work on substantive challenges in organisational improvement. Psychologically, these folk are liberated (within sometimes unrealized bounds) and are happily engaged. This, too, is an assumption without proof or permanence. But I have experienced it, so know it to be both true and possible. It is not the only truth, or possibility. And this is probably why my partner and I keep plugging away at the essential questions of being and knowing.
Can we extrapolate the experience of these lucky--no doubt deserving--managers? Can their experience be more generally spread for the benefit of business, people and society?
On a mission to change the world...
Much of what seems to be of great permanence in our world view, and therefore much of what one assumes to have been based in a proven understanding, is neither permanent nor proven.
Observations on the behaviour of victims of abuse, disenfranchised populations, etc. move from abstract to more concrete when named as children who fear there parents, the lot of women in some societies, employees whose best hope is for obedience to a benevolent dictator. McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y are taught as if these are management styles. Yet, actually, they describe a set of assumptions about "those who would be managed". Management style is quite a different thing (albeit pretty well grounded in assumptions about "those would be managed").
Enjoying the reading...but sometimes wonder, in the tension between being energized by the resonance of ideas and the sheer weariness of recognizing the lived truth in my own experience, is there room to make a living? Is there really any interest in a healthy, vibrant, productive work place of people who rise to their capability?
Drucker's work seems to assume an equitable distribution of capacities and control in a healthy frame that simply does not exist in organisations. Organisational life is not the hot house of health and well-being. Surprise.
Chris Argyris speaks to the reality in identifying Model I and Model II organiations: those that espouse a sest of values and those that, conversely, actually live those espoused values. His work also resonates. But, I have yet to encounter an organisation that truly lives its values. Gary Hamel's observation that senior managers are risk averse, fearing loss of control and loss of credibility looms large. And in my observation over too many years, risk aversion is not the purview of senior managers alone. Fear, overt and covert, is probably the primary force within organisations.
There is probably a only a limited cadre of middle managers who, protected by their bosses, are free to really work on substantive challenges in organisational improvement. Psychologically, these folk are liberated (within sometimes unrealized bounds) and are happily engaged. This, too, is an assumption without proof or permanence. But I have experienced it, so know it to be both true and possible. It is not the only truth, or possibility. And this is probably why my partner and I keep plugging away at the essential questions of being and knowing.
Can we extrapolate the experience of these lucky--no doubt deserving--managers? Can their experience be more generally spread for the benefit of business, people and society?
On a mission to change the world...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
