As Concierge of the Motel Special Ed, I have often wondered how some guests can sleep at night under certain circumstances. For instance, when an employee tells someone or is told that under no circumstances are they to commit to services or supports for a student, no matter what the evidence is that justifies the need. A justification within the walls of Special Ed makes it a moral, ethical and legal responsibility to commit to this need. How do they go against their personal and professional beliefs and ethics?
The answer perhaps lies within the social concept formulated by Chester Barnard. One should read the complete critique, but I have chosen a segment that addresses a potential answer to what I have long wondered. I did not know the word abnegation before now. I guess the moral imperative of the executive is stronger than the moral imperative of one's self or the student, and that these employee's purpose is for the organization, not the student. It also means they have met the last condition of being satisfied and manipulated.
From
THE RELEVANCE OF CHESTER BARNARD
FOR TODAY’S MANAGER
Jay P. Chandran, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Richard DeVos Graduate School of Management
Northwood University
"This is in line with Barnard’s moral imperative for executives, although Bartlett and Ghoshal treat the subject more impersonally—they see purpose as an organizational rather than an individual responsibility. Barnard asserts that the most important single contribution required of the executive is loyalty, or domination by the “organization personality” (Functions, p. 220). This assertion is based on Barnard’s concept of executive responsibility, which transcends hierarchy and embraces managers from the lowest echelons within the organization all the way to the Chief Executive. Only by embodying such loyalty can the executives bring about in their subordinates the condition of “self-abnegation” (Functions, p. 84), or the subordination of one’s personal outcomes to those of the organization. This condition brings about in individuals the “willingness to serve” which in turn results in cooperation. These interrelationships, when sustained over long periods of time, can be considered a manifestation of purpose, or as proof of its existence. They also indicate that the conditions of efficiency and effectiveness have been met. As shown in Figure 1, this can only be accomplished by a manager who takes a balanced approach, and treats his or her subordinates as subjects to be satisfied as well as objects to be manipulated. McClelland & Burnham (1995) would define such a manager as an Institutional manager."
http://www.telelavoro.rassegna.it/fad/socorg03/l4/barnard.pdf
(anything in this post that is similar to side commentaries about Trained Staff and Special Ed Language (semantics save money) is purely coincidental.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
How To Sleep At Night
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
It is true that the individual employee must subordinate his or her personal outcomes to the organizational outcomes for an organization to function on purpose.
This is not to be confused with an employee who sees a wrong and tries to right it. It does not preclude the employee from acting inline with personal morals; or, prevent one from voicing disagreement with decisions made for the sake of the organization. It does mean that the employee, having disagreed in good faith, can accept decisions made by consensus, which might go against the judgment of that particular employee. In other words, Barnard speaks of balance between personal and organizational outcomes, meaning the result does not cause instability in the organization, which if it did not exist would have no need of the individual. Rather it moves the organization in line with its purpose. It means that employees can come to an agreement that benefits the organization. It means an employee does not demand an agreement that benefits her or him personally or satisfies some personal conviction. When all is said and done all employees will feel a sense of accomplishment that collectively they have remained true to the organization's purpose.
This does that mean that an employee does not exercise his or her moral compunction to express concerns for a particular decision the organization might make. The shuttle disaster that claimed the lives of its astronauts because of a defective o-ring answers that question. It is true the disagreeing engineers accepted the consensus decision to launch that day and performed their duties in full agreement with the purpose of the organization. However, before they reached that balance disagreeing employees vigorously expressed their disagreements to what ultimately became the decision to launch. Some of them took quite contrary positions to the prevailing attitude, which placed them in uncomfortable positions with their superiors. They put themselves at odds with those above them by remaining true to their personal convictions. However, at the end of the day they acted in full agreement and harmony to affect the ill-fated launch, and should feel no personal guilt. Although organizations make mistakes, they are vital to our way of life. As long as each member acts in good faith for the benefit of the organization, it will remain true to its purpose.
While I recognize that upon an ill-fated result, those who exercised their moral compunction prior to the result should feel no personal guilt, I think that a few would. What I am interested in is a situation where the “result” is a repeated event over time, as I reread Barnard’s reference to the interrelationship between executive and employee over a sustained period of time.
I recognize that the shuttle disaster is an extremely dynamic event, but I will follow along the analogy. If another shuttle launch was scheduled to go off in a month, are we to assume that the members would again voice their disagreement, but for the benefit of the organization, in the end they would act in full agreement and harmony? This time, even the employee whose only responsibility is to push the lift off button should have doubts about fulfilling his/her responsibility.
Again recognizing the dynamic of a shuttle disaster as extreme, but for the sake of the argument, lift offs and crashes are frequent, and there is a level of comfort because this seems to be the status quo. However, the employees do not live in an information vacuum. They start getting well founded pressure from the outside by the families of the shuttle victims and they see and hear reports from outside investigators that indicate what is wrong with the organizations procedures.
As these pressures mount, some employees choose to leave the organization. Some are told to leave. Some isolate themselves to the greatest extent they can and “just do their job”. Some choose to carry the banner for the organization to promote the purpose. I am interested in what dynamic it takes for an employee to carry the banner for the organization in the face of these increasing pressures that are well founded.
"THE COOPERATIVE SYSTEM: EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
Barnard is widely credited with having originated the “Systems” approach to the
study of organizations. He recognized that in order for the organization to survive in the
external environment and to succeed in the long run, it was necessary to sustain
cooperation from employees by satisfying the condition of efficiency. As Barnard
defined it, efficiency was the satisfaction of individual motives. He stated that the
cooperative system must create a “surplus of satisfaction” to be efficient (Functions, p.
58). While effectiveness, the ultimate objective of cooperative action, is important, it is
equally important to satisfy individual motives as well. In Barnard’s own words:
“Although effectiveness of cooperative effort relates to
accomplishment of an objective of the system and is determined with a
view to the system’s requirements, efficiency relates to the satisfaction of
individual motives.” (Functions, p. 56)
4
And:
“The survival of cooperation, therefore, depends upon two
interrelated and interdependent classes of processes: (a) those which relate
to the system of cooperation as a whole in relation to the environment; and
(b) those which relate to the creation or distribution of satisfaction among
individuals. The instability and failures of cooperation arise from defects
in each of these classes of processes separately, and from defects in their
combination. The functions of the executive are those of securing the
effective adaptation of these processes.” (Functions, p. 60, 61)
I am curious in defining the functions of the executive.
Post a Comment