CONTROL AND SUPPORT
I just read and article about the need for a manufacturing policy in America and the concern was that if we create a national policy, we will cross that line where government/politics begin to control manufacturing (more than the indirect influence we now have). The issue is around the fact that Japan, Korea, and now China have a governmental policy of directly supporting their manufacturing base and helping it become more competitive in the world markets. For many, this presents an unfair advantage (not sure by whose standards the fairness is measured by) in the domination of production. What I saw was a deeper issue of the struggle between “control of” and “support of” in this world.
Lets bring it closer to home. In my work with corporations, I was always trying to get them to see the disaster of “top down control” in terms of creating restrictions on people and not letting them find creative ways to accomplish the longer term goals of corporate excellence. Their response to me was always a, “you can not trust them” or “you have to be on top of things” to get results. The epitome of control. It led to massive game playing and subterfuge of numbers. To support the workers in, what I called a “bottom up” approach to managing, meant to put into place the infrastructure to help all workers, from the shop floor on up, to be successful. This meant training, information, new standards, better tools, more cross function alignment, and much more. This placed the role of management as a direction setter, and then a facilitator of the competence of the organization to achieve that. Much like what Japan, Korea, and now China is doing.
I think we can not see this approach because when we look at these countries, we want to see “communism” and “civil rights” and other ideologies instead. I see it as a shift in the world from control to support/control balance. USSR was the best example of how total control is a disaster. So far, as much as I can see, there has never been a nation that does total support. The leaders have too much ego in the game……so far.
I see this works on all levels. In my personal work as a manager of a department, I set direction ( I hope it was clear) and then I supported my team with whatever they needed. Some needed direct coaching, some needed options, and some needed nothing more than my blessing. Support takes many forms. And I think we worked very well. (Some of those people read this and are free to disagree)
And I also see this working on a personal level. In all my relationships with the women in my life, I have been clear on direction (in terms of a way that I saw as a good/better way to live), and beyond that I was simply supportive. I gave what I could to help them determine what way they wanted to express this direction. I also did not do it for them. I was always there, until maybe the relationship ended and sometimes even when it did. But, to be clear, I was not supportive of a way that did not fit in the wide direction I set out. Ok, you probably need an example here. If a woman I was in relationship with, decided to become a political activist, I could not support that and did not.
So this is the balance I see the world struggling toward. An overall direction that creates a common good, and then support to achieve that. This is the role of leaders. To make life bigger than the individual and then to support helping that individual be successful in living that way. It is also how I support myself. It is how I find peace in my living. Tlane 2/1/12
Tom,
I would be interested in knowing how you define political activism and to understand why you, if I understood this correctly, would oppose it across the board. (I know that is not the subject of this blog but your aroused my curiosity)
I have always been bewildered by the fact that “leaders” so rarely see the rich results of bottom up management.
Hi Sarah, an understandable question, even if a side bar. I am not “opposed” to political activism on either side, I just do not support it. A big difference, at least in my view. From my view, and embedded in all my writing, is that awareness is key to human progression, not any ideology or politic. So, that is the point of my comment. Hope that clarifies and thanks for the question. tom
Thanks, Tom. Interesting that I would make the leap from “do not support” to “oppose”. You are right, there is a big difference. I find it interesting, and sometimes disappointing, to observe how I filter words….and attach meaning.
I do not think you are alone in that filtering and assuming a different meaning. It is why I prefer a dialogue versus debate and why writing serves this better, since it slows the interaction. tom
Support is a fascinating dynamic. A few years ago as a participant in a year long discussion group, I was asked to talk to one of the professors who enjoyed sprinkling the “F” word into discussions. The facilitator asked if I would talk to him and get him to stop. Control! Rather than supporting her on her request, I indicated I would be happy to facilitate a dialogue with all members about words which held a “special” charge for us and what might be behind that. It was a powerful discussion in which individuals went away with some new insights about themselves as well as the “F” bomber!
On the relationship thing and support…much there as my experience is when two people come together for awhile or a long time, it really is amazing. And, it is the similar direction they both lean toward. Much there!
Great comment Jane. I see also that sometimes people will want their version of support that may not work for you. Like the person asking Jane to “make him stop”! This is where common direction really helps and if that direction is broader understanding, then Jane chose wisely. The dance of control/support is very complex at times. tom