Re: Science or Moral Values

[PHILHOOVER@aol.com]

In a recent post I wrote, ""My point is I never once sat down and thought 
about changing my view or theory of how to treat people.  I took my attention 
off the people to improve the organization.  Amazing, the people changed for 
the better.  That was a
"by product" of my fundamental change to a process focus."

Jim Rankin responded, "What I found in a similar situation was not that 
"people changed for the better" but my own paradigms had changed. The people 
were the same, by changing the way I regarded them I only saw what was there 
all the time.... Good people constrained by bad systems. Think about it, 
people changing is never a "by product".

Then Alan wrote, "Gosh, Phil - oh, how I agree with you!!
My only minor 'build' on what you say would be to substitute "managing 
processes" with "managing systems" instead.
Would you feel comfortable with this distinction?"

I have no real difference with either of these responses for I know what the 
writers mean, and they are sincere.

To Jim's statement, "People changing is never a by product" I would respond 
that in my theory and language, "People changing is not the focus; it 
certainly might be one of the results."  I put that in the same category of 
Dr. Deming's point, "Drive out fear."  I never sat down and asked, "How can I 
drive out fear?" or "What should we do to ensure that our employees are not 
in an environment of fear?"  What happened in organizations I led was that 
when I focused on the process, not the people, fear subsided, information 
flowed more freely, and people asked for help more often.

To Alan who wants to substitute "managing systems" for "managing processes".  
It seems to me that in Alan's context, "systems" can be too big a universe 
for precise corrective actions.  Even here in the DEN we have had dialogue 
about how big the system is, and where do we draw the line around a system.  
I'm thinking of the world of aircraft maintenance, particularly component 
repair.  If an organization is not repairing the percentage of a broken part 
(component like a radio or radar) they were designed to repair, what is 
wrong?  Reasons could include, lack of a test bench, the lack of a trained 
person, or the lack of spare parts.  I would take it down to the "process" of 
repairing that component at that activity, not start with the System of 
Component Repair in the United States Navy.

Phil Monroe
DEMCOM Consulting Group