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