| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
The new (postmodern) worldview is organic rather than mechanistic, is holistic rather than parts centered, is participatory rather than impersonal and manages much more via networks than through top down hierarchies. As Capra points out in his book, The Web of Life, all living systems are mainly coordinated by networks, not hierarchies. All this fits well with the new postmodern management philosophy that stress empowerment of employees on the local level, self managed teams, and organic systems. And as Wheatley points out the reality of such new thinking lies in the relationships that arise from them
If Wheatley is great on philosophy and of the importance of relationships, she is more than a bit light on the specific policies that in fact create a mechanistic or an organic set of social relationships within an organization. These policies are not at all mysterious. If you want to create a mechanistic (read bureaucratic) organization then as a matter of policy establish an employment relationship between the firm and employee based on the buyer-seller relationship. You will then hire people to do designated jobs complete with detailed job descriptions. And thus though autopoiesis (that Wheatley well describes but does not much apply)you almost will guarantee that your employees will become job defensive, especially in times of change which will be seen as threats to one's (job-based)identity because autopoiesis drives all life at all levels to remain self consistent including the integrity and consistency of one's identity. The employee is thus driven to job-defensiveness. The bureaucratic employee will also sub-optimize behavior around the job-part, rather than the whole organization. To be promoted, one must be promoted in job, motivating most bureaucrats to lobby constantly for more levels of management in the administrative hierarchy to create more rungs on the administrative promotion ladder. Then too turf battles between departments full of jobs routinely break out for lack of a holistic focus on the enterprise. (The word bureaucracy is the same as saying departmentocracy and is itself an indication of a fragmented focus.) But it is important to realize, as Wheatley does not seem to, that all such pathology is policy-driven more than attitude-driven. After all, the attitude of suboptimization itself arises from the policy to depend on hired labor paid to do particular jobs in a buyer-seller relationship. It is this parts-focused relationship that creates bureaucratic reality. It does so the world around quite apart from cultural differences.
You want out of this bureaucratic box? Then go organic and pay the person, not the job. Make the employee a "member of the firm" as if the firm were a sort of extended family. Let the income of all such members rise or fall together in sync with the firm's performance. The the employee is no longer an impersonal hireling, but an organic member of the whole. As such he or she is free to focus on the whole firm. Indeed they have every motivation to do so. Thus organic members tend spontaneously to develop a team spirit. They are free to participate as a team member cooperating for the better good of the whole, because, to do so is not threatening as it often is to the hired job-holder. William M. Wallace's book (Postmodern Management) which is also available on Amazon.com makes all this clear.
Still in the end Wheatley is worth reading and I for one read it several times. Thus I anxiously await her updated version which apparently will appear next month.