Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL

Chapter 1.3
Control and Management
Subject and object of control
Let’s imagine now that a certain part within an organism possess the ability to influence all other
elements of a system and control their behaviour to a much greater extent than the influences from
the ‘periphery’ of this privileged part or body. It may happen in the course of natural evolution
(cerebralization process) or be consciously installed in organizational design.
This part of an organism, or organ, may considerably determine the behaviour of the system as a
whole. In this way, a more or less self-controlling system becomes more or less controllable. The
conditional expression for such relations between the influential organ and the organism under its
influence is the ‘subject’ and ‘object’ of control. For mechanical systems, the subject is always
separated from the object. For human organizations, the subject is usually part of the object. For
natural organisms, subject and object actually coincide. With human organizations in mind we will
call the subject of control the supervisor or director.
The director may possess his/her own personal resources for expanding the zone of stereotypic or
rational behaviour for the organization. He or she may have relevant experience, specific
knowledge, and access to information, skills, and so on. As a result – at best – these resources
augment the resources of the organization: zones of determined (assertive) behaviour become
broader, and the zone of emotional behaviour narrows. Thus, the survivability of the organization
increases and the risks connected with a forced random search are minimal. That is the purpose of
the director role.
However, the director can also destroy the operation of the organization by imposing use of his or
her wrong mental map or irrelevant experience, or substituting common sense or rationality with a
critical lack of thought. At worst, the director may provoke emotional behaviour in situation where
emotional behaviour is not justifiable at all. Some organizations are only able to operate when their
directors are on holidays or business trips.
It is possible to determine the level of competence of a director, such that it corresponds to a ‘zero
outcome’ – where benefit outweighs damage (see Picture 6). This ‘zero competence’ does not
mean that there is not any competence; the director is sufficiently competent not to cause harm (as
a balance of his/here efforts), but not competent enough to create benefit to the organization. This
level depends on the kind of organization and complexity of tasks to be addressed by the director.
That is why an absolutely competent and successful director in one role may turn out to be a poor
34