Obviously, each organization and person has to customize solutions for their situation and goals. But there are some general principles in regards to the importance of priorities, communication, system dynamics, variation, and processes that will be constant. Engineers, doctors, and architects are generally expected to be licensed and / or recipients of a formal education before they can practice their craft. They, too, must improvise and problem-solve in situations that weren't covered in class - but they have a body of knowledge upon which they can rely when doing so.
The field of management is perhaps not as mature a science as meteorology, physics, or engineering. But some fabulous minds have delved into the topic and come out with insights that could change how you do business.
It seems a crime that so few practitioners of management have heard of the leading thinkers like Peter Drucker, W. Edwards Deming, Russell Ackoff, Edgar Schein, and Peter Senge. Their writing is not always easy, but it generally seems easier to understand their insights than to manage without them.
Next time you are debating about whether to work overtime or do something personal, compromise: read a book by one of these great thinkers.
Showing posts with label senge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senge. Show all posts
Monday, January 29, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Context for Providing These Myths
In rereading the postings so far, we can see that it might be easy for readers to simply think this is just another management bashing venue, painting a more serious and somewhat pedantic face over the types of vignettes and behaviors characterized in the very mocking “Dilbert” cartoons. But that is not our intention at all. We need to take a moment to set straight the context for our site’s entries.
Our intention is to expose some very deep-seated beliefs that appear to be both commonplace among senior managers and somehow so deeply ingrained into their subconscious that they remain invisible and, therefore, unchallengeable and unexamined. It’s almost a truism that the beliefs people hold very much define and fix their attitudes, decisions, and actions, and this is no different for managers. (Beliefs affect even people’s perceptions, i. e., their interpretation of direct inputs to their sensory devices: eyes and ears). Look behind what managers do and you can begin to discern what they actually believe, not necessarily what they say they believe. But, in what contexts are those beliefs ever actually examined or challenged in the workplace?
If people want to change how they perceive, speak and act, they have to change what they believe. Unfortunately, what senior managers actually believe is not always clearly discernible, and even when most employees correctly infer what their managers consciously or subconsciously believe, it is almost never discussable. Listen to Peter Senge discussing the idea of “mental models”:
“. . . new insights fail to get put into practice because they conflict with deeply held internal images of how the world works, images that limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting. That is why the discipline of managing mental models—surfacing, testing, and improving our internal pictures of how the world works—promises to be a major breakthrough for building learning organizations.”
Our intention is to make visible the kinds of deep-seated beliefs that very often operate in the business world, particularly high in the executive councils, because those beliefs and the corresponding attitudes they engender tremendously affect people’s perception of the company, their attitudes about both the workplace and their bosses, and the degree to which they choose to participate in and work to improve organizational functioning. If managers want to begin to harness the tremendous intellectual and emotional energy that resides in their employees, they need to examine how their current beliefs or “mental models” de-power employees and limit the employees’ opportunities and desire to contribute. Conversely, seriously examining their uncovered beliefs in light of the myths we offer here may shed additional light on real opportunities to unleash the full potential of their employees and improve their workplaces.
Our intention is to expose some very deep-seated beliefs that appear to be both commonplace among senior managers and somehow so deeply ingrained into their subconscious that they remain invisible and, therefore, unchallengeable and unexamined. It’s almost a truism that the beliefs people hold very much define and fix their attitudes, decisions, and actions, and this is no different for managers. (Beliefs affect even people’s perceptions, i. e., their interpretation of direct inputs to their sensory devices: eyes and ears). Look behind what managers do and you can begin to discern what they actually believe, not necessarily what they say they believe. But, in what contexts are those beliefs ever actually examined or challenged in the workplace?
If people want to change how they perceive, speak and act, they have to change what they believe. Unfortunately, what senior managers actually believe is not always clearly discernible, and even when most employees correctly infer what their managers consciously or subconsciously believe, it is almost never discussable. Listen to Peter Senge discussing the idea of “mental models”:
“. . . new insights fail to get put into practice because they conflict with deeply held internal images of how the world works, images that limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting. That is why the discipline of managing mental models—surfacing, testing, and improving our internal pictures of how the world works—promises to be a major breakthrough for building learning organizations.”
Our intention is to make visible the kinds of deep-seated beliefs that very often operate in the business world, particularly high in the executive councils, because those beliefs and the corresponding attitudes they engender tremendously affect people’s perception of the company, their attitudes about both the workplace and their bosses, and the degree to which they choose to participate in and work to improve organizational functioning. If managers want to begin to harness the tremendous intellectual and emotional energy that resides in their employees, they need to examine how their current beliefs or “mental models” de-power employees and limit the employees’ opportunities and desire to contribute. Conversely, seriously examining their uncovered beliefs in light of the myths we offer here may shed additional light on real opportunities to unleash the full potential of their employees and improve their workplaces.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The Myth of the Management “Team”
A corollary to the myth that people are endowed with specific attributes, knowledge, skills and experience simply by virtue of the position or title they hold is another myth, the myth of the management “team,” described quite well in Peter Senge’s 1990 book, The Fifth Discipline.
Mr. Senge talks about this august group of senior executives who battle collectively to define the organization’s pathway, knock down internal and external obstacles, and provide the wherewithal for the organization to compete and survive in the marketplace. But in describing how this “team” functions in reality, he makes the point that the way they function tends to minimize any chance for collective or individual learning. Listen to what he has to say:
“All too often, teams in business tend to spend time fighting for turf, avoiding anything that will make them look bad personally, and pretending that everyone is behind the team’s collective strategy—maintaining the appearance of a cohesive team. To keep up the image, they seek to squelch disagreement; people with serious reservations avoid stating them publicly; and joint decisions are watered-down compromises reflecting what everyone can live with, or else reflecting one person’s view foisted on the group. If there is disagreement, it’s usually expressed in a manner that lays blame, polarizes opinion, and fails to reveal the underlying differences in assumptions and experience in a way that the team as a whole could learn.”
Senge continues by referencing Chris Argyris’s book, Overcoming Organizational Defenses, about the fact that, while executive team’s can function quite well in managing more mundane issues, their cohesiveness and performance break down under encounters with real problems or crises:
“Argyris argues that most managers find collective inquiry inherently threatening. School trains us never to admit that we do not know the answer, and most corporations reinforce that lesson by rewarding the people we excel in advocating their views, not inquiring into complex issues. (When was the last time someone was rewarded in your organization for raising difficult questions about the company’s current policies rather than solving urgent problems?)"
Senge continues:
“Even if we feel uncertain or ignorant, we learn to protect ourselves from the pain of appearing uncertain or ignorant. That very process blocks out any new understandings which might threaten us. The consequence is what Argyris calls ‘skilled incompetence’—teams full of people who are incredibly proficient at keeping themselves from learning.”
Perhaps we should focus more time and energy on examining the quality of the questions being asked inside our organizations rather than just focusing on the quality of the “answers.” When was the last time your management asked you to focus on the nature of the questions being asked inside your organization?
Mr. Senge talks about this august group of senior executives who battle collectively to define the organization’s pathway, knock down internal and external obstacles, and provide the wherewithal for the organization to compete and survive in the marketplace. But in describing how this “team” functions in reality, he makes the point that the way they function tends to minimize any chance for collective or individual learning. Listen to what he has to say:
“All too often, teams in business tend to spend time fighting for turf, avoiding anything that will make them look bad personally, and pretending that everyone is behind the team’s collective strategy—maintaining the appearance of a cohesive team. To keep up the image, they seek to squelch disagreement; people with serious reservations avoid stating them publicly; and joint decisions are watered-down compromises reflecting what everyone can live with, or else reflecting one person’s view foisted on the group. If there is disagreement, it’s usually expressed in a manner that lays blame, polarizes opinion, and fails to reveal the underlying differences in assumptions and experience in a way that the team as a whole could learn.”
Senge continues by referencing Chris Argyris’s book, Overcoming Organizational Defenses, about the fact that, while executive team’s can function quite well in managing more mundane issues, their cohesiveness and performance break down under encounters with real problems or crises:
“Argyris argues that most managers find collective inquiry inherently threatening. School trains us never to admit that we do not know the answer, and most corporations reinforce that lesson by rewarding the people we excel in advocating their views, not inquiring into complex issues. (When was the last time someone was rewarded in your organization for raising difficult questions about the company’s current policies rather than solving urgent problems?)"
Senge continues:
“Even if we feel uncertain or ignorant, we learn to protect ourselves from the pain of appearing uncertain or ignorant. That very process blocks out any new understandings which might threaten us. The consequence is what Argyris calls ‘skilled incompetence’—teams full of people who are incredibly proficient at keeping themselves from learning.”
Perhaps we should focus more time and energy on examining the quality of the questions being asked inside our organizations rather than just focusing on the quality of the “answers.” When was the last time your management asked you to focus on the nature of the questions being asked inside your organization?
Friday, December 29, 2006
Myth of Cause and Effect
There are a number of variations to this myth of cause and effect. And it is easily the most pervasive. In its simplest form, it is simply the myth that whoever is standing closest to the problem is obviously responsible for it. An example of this would be management believing that the manufacturing person unable to keep sufficient inventory of odd-sized bolts is obviously responsible for the problem when production is halted rather than the designer who included an obsolete bolt spec in his design. Deming was particularly frustrated with this common management disease.
But the myth is more pervasive than this. As it turns out, cause and effect is typically defined in advance by the system, by context. Peter Senge used to ask who the leader on a ship was. Common answers included the captain who gave orders, the navigator who gave directions, the activity director who set the tone, etc. Senge pointed out that the ship designer is rarely mentioned as the leader even though the designer defines what activities can take place, how sharply the ship can turn, its maximum speed, etc. Once the ship is designed, all other parties are simply tweaking variables within some predetermined range. They are causing various effects, to be sure, but those effects are all within a normal, predetermined range. Getting "effects" outside of that range requires a change to the system, something an employee rarely has the responsibility or knowledge to do.
Management concerned with cause and effect is basically working to maintain the status quo. Transformative leadership changes the context, changes what is possible. Cause and effect is a given once a particular system is defined. Perhaps the biggest myth is to believe that the individual employees within that system can transcend its limits.
- Ron
But the myth is more pervasive than this. As it turns out, cause and effect is typically defined in advance by the system, by context. Peter Senge used to ask who the leader on a ship was. Common answers included the captain who gave orders, the navigator who gave directions, the activity director who set the tone, etc. Senge pointed out that the ship designer is rarely mentioned as the leader even though the designer defines what activities can take place, how sharply the ship can turn, its maximum speed, etc. Once the ship is designed, all other parties are simply tweaking variables within some predetermined range. They are causing various effects, to be sure, but those effects are all within a normal, predetermined range. Getting "effects" outside of that range requires a change to the system, something an employee rarely has the responsibility or knowledge to do.
Management concerned with cause and effect is basically working to maintain the status quo. Transformative leadership changes the context, changes what is possible. Cause and effect is a given once a particular system is defined. Perhaps the biggest myth is to believe that the individual employees within that system can transcend its limits.
- Ron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
