Selected Writing: Management

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=40 BGCOLOR="#000066" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#66CCFF" FACE="Arial" >Selected Writing:  Dynamics of Culture</FONT>    | <A HREF="index_home.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Philosophy"><U> H</U></A><A HREF="index_home.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Philosophy"><U>ome</U></A>  |  <A HREF="id19_writings_1.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Writings: Philosophy Psychology"><U> Writings Menu</U></A><A HREF="id19_writings_1.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Writings: Philosophy Psychology"><U>: Phil. & Psy.</U></A>  | <A HREF="id17_bio.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bio"><U> Bio</U></A>  |  <A HREF="id128_general_topics.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="General Topics"><U>Writings Menu:  General Topics</U></A>  |</div> <bR> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#000066" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> <B>OTHER ARTICLES</B></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id27_myth_metaphor.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selected Writings: Myth"><U><B><IMG SRC="10515150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></FONT><B><----</B><I><B>Myths, Metaphors and Mental Worlds:  </B></I></div> <div> <I><B>An Incorporative Model for Describing Ego Dynamics</B></I></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id28_karla_faye.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selected Writing: Karla Faye"><U><B><IMG SRC="10515150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></FONT><B><----</B><I><B>Texas' Stone of Stumbling:  On the Occasion of the Texas Execution of </B></I></div> <div> <I><B>Karla Faye Tucker</B></I></div> <div> <I><B>(February, 1998)   </B></I></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id47_m.htm#the_dynamics_of_culture__" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="Selected Writing: Management "><U><B><IMG SRC="10515150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></FONT><B><----</B><I><B>The Dynamics of Culture In Relation to</B></I></div> <div> <I><B>Management Philosophy and Methodology</B></I></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id18_writings.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="When A CatAngel"><U><B><IMG SRC="10515150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></FONT><B><----</B><I><B>When a Cat Is Really an Angel:</B></I><I><B>  </B></I><I><B>Target Data vs. Imagination</B></I><I><B> </B></I><I><B>in CRV </B></I></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id49_making_a_stray_cat_prolific.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selected Writing: Making a Stray Cat Pro"><U><B><IMG SRC="0be15150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></FONT><B><----</B><I><B>Making a Stray Cat Prolific:  Thesaural Imaging and Remote Viewing</B></I></div> <div> <A HREF="id80_cassirer.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Selected Writings: Cassirer/Buchanan"><U><B><IMG SRC="0bd18180.gif" border=0 width="24" height="24" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#66CCFF" FACE="Arial" ><I><B>Cassirer, on the Expressive Form of Mythopoeic Thought: A Foundation for Buchanan's Concept of Ambiance </B></I></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id50_influence_med__concept.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="New Med. Paradigm"><U><B><IMG SRC="0be15150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#66CCFF" FACE="Arial" ><I><B><----Influence of Conceptual Models on Today's Health Care: The Physician as Dr. Goodwrench</B></I></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id51_altizer.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Altizer"><U><B><IMG SRC="0be15150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#66CCFF" FACE="Arial" ><I><B><----Altizer's Christian Atheism:  Philosophy or Theology?</B></I></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id53_they_die_young.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="King Memorial"><U><B><IMG SRC="0be15150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#66CCFF" FACE="Arial" ><I><B><----They Die Young:  In Memorium to Dr. Martin Luther King</B></I></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id55_johnny.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Byline: Johnny"><U><B><IMG SRC="0be15150.gif" border=0 width="21" height="21" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#66CCFF" FACE="Arial" ><I><B><----Byline:  Johnny Can't Read</B></I></FONT></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=440 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="09880803.jpg"> <div>  <A NAME="the_dynamics_of_culture__"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>THE DYNAMICS OF CULTURE  </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>IN RELATION TO</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY AND METHODOLOGY </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>By</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Bill Stroud, Ph.D.</B></div> <div> <I><B>Copyright by Bill Stroud,  1998</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>Structural Models</B>.  Examining the institutions of one's culture is somewhat like looking in on a family reunion:  you find a strange resemblance running through all the different forms and figures.   For example, almost invariably the political structure of the state looks similar to the political structure which characterizes the families of the state's citizens; i.e., in cultures that have a patriarch ruling the home with supreme power and authority, you will find a monarch ruling the nation.  Likewise, the dynamics within the body politic are apt to be parallel:  patriotism is simply an expression of fidelity to the nation-family somewhat like each member of the family feels a bond to his own clan ("blood is thicker than water").</div> <bR> <div> This extension of models has relevance far beyond the home.  It permeates the form and function of business and industry.   When the "father knows best" dynamic rules the home in a culture, autocratic management likely will rule in the corporation.  Consequently, obedience to the "boss" becomes the major dynamic of motivation ("father knows best"), and respect for the "chain of command" becomes the test of one's fidelity.  This relationship can best be illustrated by a scenario showing a common dynamic even among diverse social structures.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Domestic Dynamics</B>.  At the turn of the century, the typical American family operated from a social structure quite different from the family of today.  In the early decades of the twentieth century, it was typical for Dad to tell Mom to have dinner on the table at 6 p.m.  And it was typical for Dad to find  the table set and dinner ready according to his direction.   As a rule, Mom didn't work except to support Dad and young son, John.</div> <bR> <div> And in comes young John.  </div> <bR> <div> Dad says to young John, "Son, wash up, it's time to eat."  And young John says, "Yes, Sir."  And as young John is on his way to the table, Dad says further, "Son, your hair is too long.  Get a haircut tomorrow."  Now if young John even slightly appears to show disagreement over the hair issue, Dad will tell him forthrightly:  "Son, as long as you put your feet under my table, you'll do as I tell you.  Now when you get big enough not to have to put your feet under my table, you can do what you please.  Understand?"</div> <bR> <div> And young John says, "Yes, Sir."  And that settles that!</div> <bR> <div> But this patriarchal form and function doesn't end here at the home.  When Dad goes to his office, he is Big Daddy there also.  As President, he is head of the corporation.  And if any employee dares question his Big Daddy's direction on how to do a job, he is told that as long as he puts his feet under the corporate table, he will do what he is told--or he can go by and pick up his paycheck.  Autocratic management, therefore, becomes a natural extension of the social structure of the time.</div> <bR> <div> Today the social structure of the American home is somewhat different.  Dad comes home and Mom is not there.  She is in New York attending a seminar for furthering her career.  Dad puts a pre-fab dinner in the oven and gets ready to eat it in front of the TV.  And in walks young John--who has hair down to his yingyang.</div> <bR> <div> Dad says, "Son, that hair is a little long, isn't it?"  And young John says, "Yes, Sir.  But it's clean.  I mean, what seems to be the problem?  Didn't some of the founding fathers have long hair--and even beards?  Now if it's causing a problem, I don't mind discussing it.  But it seems to me, Dad, that if it's not hurting anyone, it ought to be my business how I wear my hair."</div> <bR> <div> And Dad looks like something just paralyzed him from the neck up.  He is facing a new move toward less autocratic structuring of the dynamics of family life.  In common parlance:  a generation gap.  But again we should note that this new move toward less autocracy is not restricted to the home.  Today the schools of management are telling us something very similar:  We need to get rid of bosses.  We don't need commanders.  We need leaders and team coordinators.  The new buzz words are "Empowerment", "participatory management", and "Teamwork".  A new structural wave, although small, seems to be rippling through every facet of our lives.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Conflict of Heritage</B>.  In every culture, social influences largely determine the attitudes and perspectives a nation's institutions.  America's great experiment with democracy, however, has caused an extraordinary tension in the development of a corporate management philosophy.  Self-rule and pragmatic values of task accomplishments have been the hallmark of Americanism.  Consequently, a patria-chal structure of management has always faced some resistance from the American labor force.  On the other hand, the tradition of a male dominated society has caused labor to feel some obligation to a stance of obedience.  Following this dynamic, the organizational man feels obligated to act as a respectful child and show deference to his corporate father.  (The Manager Father must also show deference to Great Grandfather, Corporate President.)  As a result, today labor feels obliged to acknowledge respect for management's wisdom and council, but it refuses to relegate to management the divine right of kings. </div> <bR> <div> Management is now shifting with the social changes.   Today, the dynamic of obedience is being viewed not only as a human debasement, it is being viewed as a hindrance to production as well.  In the growing absence of labor's fear of management's position power, management is realizing that motivation is curtailed when labor is treated as a hired "hand" and directed like a mindless child.  </div> <bR> <div> However, the picture is not so positive in all respects.  Labor often exercises the same dynamic of power and, as a distinct corporate entity, tries to force management to obey its demands.  Both often get committed to winning the power battle, and as a result the actual accomplishments of tasks and objectives of the corporation become secondary.</div> <bR> <div> <B>The Balance of Participation and Executive Prerogative.</B>  The exercise of position power and the ambivalence toward management prerogatives are not the only dynamics creating tension between labor and management in American industry.  With the privilege of private property, a time-honored value of American capitalism, comes the right of executive privilege.  Put candidly, someone or some group put its money at risk to create a corporate enterprise, and in doing so actually bought the right of executive privilege for making ultimate decisions.  If we accept this privilege as legitimate, we can not justify demanding that someone at the top (whether he be a singular person or a group of stockholders) relinquish his privilege of establishing whatever management policies he desires.  A business owner may run his business like a tyrant if he likes; that is nobody's business but his own.  <I>A participatory management philosophy is not a privilege which management owes the participants of the enterprise being managed; it is a methodology, not a right.  </I> </div> <bR> <div> On the other hand, an enlightened management soon realizes that the best management dynamics for carrying out its production plans will not be the exercise of its rights of position power.  Obedience is seldom sufficient for the task at hand.  In the first place, since people don't like to be coerced into doing anything, power tactics simply tempt them to sabotage projects as a confirmation of their dignity.  In the second place, being autocratic, a manager sacrifices the benefits of the multiple perspectives of those around him.  With obedience as the primary dynamic of motivation, a manager never gets corrected.  And a manager who thinks he is always right will, most of the time, become a manager who is a fool.  But again, he has the right to be a fool if he owns the company.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Motivation in a New Key</B>.  <I>Successful corporate management is essentially the art of achieving production by eliciting the combined positive efforts of a work force. </I> It is the art of leadership, not the exercise of power.  Consequently, management should not be defined as merely "getting the job done through other people."  (This description could well be a definition of slavery.)  The focus of management should be more on managing projects and less on managing people.  In fact, being a good manager is like being a good parent; you are supposed to be working yourself out of that job.  If a manager is doing as much managing of people today as he did a year ago, he is failing as a manager.  <I>Management, therefore, needs to be a lateral dynamic, not a vertical one; i.e., industry needs cooperative teams and a maximum of self-management.  </I></div> <bR> <div> <B>Tell-tale Signs</B>.  A culture's symbols often betray its heritage.  America's corporate symbols certainly show the underlying dynamics of motivation which underlie many of its policies.   In the following graphic expression of the typical organization chart, one should note that the executive position is at the top, with all other pos-tions subsidiary to it.  (Box A being level with Box B symbolizes equality of position power within the reporting  system.)  </div> <bR> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="488" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 145 ><NOBR><div> <IMG SRC="0fcc68c0.jpg" border=0 width="454" height="140" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> Actually, the same relationships of reporting dynamics could have been graphed with the executive position at the bottom.  (See below.)  With this reversed symbolic form, one could communicate the dynamic between "top" management and other levels of employees to be one of relative responsibility.  Being on the bottom ("bottom" management?), the executive would be portrayed as having the entire weight of the organization on his shoulders.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="488" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 141 ><NOBR><div> <IMG SRC="0fec5880.jpg" border=0 width="453" height="136" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div>  </div> <div> A symbolic expression of a management structure of leadership would be as follows:</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="543" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 252 ><NOBR><div> <IMG SRC="1000df70.jpg" border=0 width="525" height="247" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <bR> <div> With the executive out front, a more creative dynamic is emphasized.  In this structure, people aren't pushed.  Neither are they simply supported.  They are led.  And this leadership is not merely the dynamic of example.  A real leader has the power to elicit cooperation.  He becomes a catalyst for creating a positive and optimistic attitude toward task accomplishments.  To use a neologism, a good manager is a synergizer.  As a result--and with time--he will even develop authority--which is more than power and position.  <I>Authority comes from respect.  It is something which must be earned, and it has a dignity which promotions alone cannot attain.</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>Contemporary Challenge</B>.  To establish such leadership ability is not an easy task.  It is much more difficult than the operations of the older autocratic style of management which demands merely obedience.  Also, the older and easier obedience orientation, however, brings only a modicum of success.  Today's challenge to American industry is for teamwork and synergism of effort.  This challenge is being thrust upon the American scene as the spin-off of our contemporary culture.  Its irony is interesting:  Position power is fast creating management impotence as the real work is getting done, not from some instilled fear or labor's performance anxiety.  Success if coming from a personal commitment to excellence. To this new breed of employee, work is becoming more than toil guided by the dynamic of obedience.  It is becoming more like art, activity which takes on a form through which man comes to realize who he is through what he accomplishes.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>