Comments on: If Training is Lipstick on a Pig, At Least Make Sure They Aren't Hogs http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2008/04/02/if-training-is-lipstick-on-a-pig-at-least-make-sure-they-are-hogs/ Because the killer app is us. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:16:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Al Gorman http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2008/04/02/if-training-is-lipstick-on-a-pig-at-least-make-sure-they-are-hogs/#comment-29318 Al Gorman Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:25:51 +0000 http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/?p=392#comment-29318 I generally agree with Michelle's assertions regarding dysfunctional systems and their relationship with dysfunctional behaviours. I would qualify however that this relationship occurs among those who are affected by and employ the system in the execution of their work. It is also appropriate to say that dysfunctional behaviours are a precursor to a dysfunctional system. Somewhere in the executive ranks of an organization are a set of behaviours that are reflected in the system. It would be correct to say that these behaviours are transposed into the system and that the system in turn influences behaviours; functional or dysfunctional, (whatever that may be). A reasonable definition for a system might be a set of predictable, replicable, and improving behaviours that result in a standard output and that said output is predictable and replicable and improving in respect of quantity, quality, and the resources and time required to generate it. From this premise there are a considerable number of variables that upset the predictability and consistency of the output - equipment breaks, people don't show up for work, the cost of raw materials increases or decreases, supply and demand fundamentals change affecting the sales price, etc. Some of these affect the strategic direction of the company. In some cases the significance then shifts to the ability of the individual to employ his or her discretionary judgment to compensate for the unforseen variables. No system will ever be perfect. Build too much redundancy into the system and it is inefficient. Set the system boundaries too tight and unforseen circumstances will paralyze the ability of the employee to utilize discretion in the execution of his work. Set the boundaries too loosely and quality might suffer. The significance of Requisite is the full liberation of every employee to exercise her full discretion in the execution of her work. The human propensity and desire for control and power are deterrents to the achievement of this. When we think of systems in the pejorative sense we conjure up images of control, predictability and replication. People simply are not liberated within that context. Systems should enable employees in the efficient execution of their work and not disable them. The latter is often true. Work is only defined in the context of execution and preferably its unencumbered execution. In order to have work executed it needs to be assigned and requires resources for its achievement. The role of managers is to effectively assign and resource work to their subordinates and to measure, analyze and improve the capability of those subordinates in generating their assigned outputs. In doing so the employee is increasingly liberated to deliver the outputs for the purpose and within the context specified by her manager. This requires trust between the employee and his manager. Implicit in most managerial systems and management behaviours are the assumptions that employees cannot be trusted and that left to their own devices they would cripple their employers with idle behaviours, theft, truancy and other dysfunctional behaviours. The irony is in designing and employing systems that by their very nature attempt to discourage these behaviours they attract more of them and unintended consequences and systems such as collective agreements and trade unionism that further support the systematic erosion of trust and the ability of employees to apply their full potential capability. I generally agree with Michelle’s assertions regarding dysfunctional systems and their relationship with dysfunctional behaviours. I would qualify however that this relationship occurs among those who are affected by and employ the system in the execution of their work. It is also appropriate to say that dysfunctional behaviours are a precursor to a dysfunctional system. Somewhere in the executive ranks of an organization are a set of behaviours that are reflected in the system. It would be correct to say that these behaviours are transposed into the system and that the system in turn influences behaviours; functional or dysfunctional, (whatever that may be). A reasonable definition for a system might be a set of predictable, replicable, and improving behaviours that result in a standard output and that said output is predictable and replicable and improving in respect of quantity, quality, and the resources and time required to generate it. From this premise there are a considerable number of variables that upset the predictability and consistency of the output – equipment breaks, people don’t show up for work, the cost of raw materials increases or decreases, supply and demand fundamentals change affecting the sales price, etc. Some of these affect the strategic direction of the company. In some cases the significance then shifts to the ability of the individual to employ his or her discretionary judgment to compensate for the unforseen variables. No system will ever be perfect. Build too much redundancy into the system and it is inefficient. Set the system boundaries too tight and unforseen circumstances will paralyze the ability of the employee to utilize discretion in the execution of his work. Set the boundaries too loosely and quality might suffer.

The significance of Requisite is the full liberation of every employee to exercise her full discretion in the execution of her work. The human propensity and desire for control and power are deterrents to the achievement of this. When we think of systems in the pejorative sense we conjure up images of control, predictability and replication. People simply are not liberated within that context. Systems should enable employees in the efficient execution of their work and not disable them. The latter is often true.

Work is only defined in the context of execution and preferably its unencumbered execution. In order to have work executed it needs to be assigned and requires resources for its achievement. The role of managers is to effectively assign and resource work to their subordinates and to measure, analyze and improve the capability of those subordinates in generating their assigned outputs. In doing so the employee is increasingly liberated to deliver the outputs for the purpose and within the context specified by her manager. This requires trust between the employee and his manager.

Implicit in most managerial systems and management behaviours are the assumptions that employees cannot be trusted and that left to their own devices they would cripple their employers with idle behaviours, theft, truancy and other dysfunctional behaviours. The irony is in designing and employing systems that by their very nature attempt to discourage these behaviours they attract more of them and unintended consequences and systems such as collective agreements and trade unionism that further support the systematic erosion of trust and the ability of employees to apply their full potential capability.

]]>