| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1208.1 | a little history | ODIXIE::CARNELL | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Mon Oct 01 1990 12:49 | 135 |
| Co-dependency in society: history and characteristics
Quotes from BREAKING FREE OF THE CO-DEPENDENCY TRAP by Barry
and Janae Weinhold.
The Co-Dependent Culture
Dominator vs. Partnership Models
Most people in the addictions field are looking at
co-dependency as an individual problem or family problem.
Some are beginning to examine it as a "systems" problem. A
few are beginning to look at it as a problem of our whole
society.
The Partnership Society
When Eisler delved into prehistory, she found numerous
legends and archeological records that described an earlier
form of civilization in which the culture was organized quite
differently from what we know today. According to these
records, there were large areas in Europe and the near East
which enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity. The
social, technological and cultural development of the
existent society followed a steady move upward. This
civilization, which she identifies as a PARTNERSHIP society,
was based on unity, cooperation and mutual need. The society
valued the life-giving and nurturing qualities that we might
consider to be "feminine."
The archeological evidence also reveals that this early
social structure was based on equality. Power, risk-taking
and rewards were shared without regard to gender. This
cooperative approach helped create unity and harmonious
relationships among people and between people and the planet.
Eisler contends that at a point in prehistory, perhaps around
3500 B.C., this 30-40,000 year era began to wane and the
qualities of the feminine were gradually replaced with more
masculine values that structured a completely different kind
of civilization that she identifies as a dominator society.
The Dominator Society
Dominator societies, according to Eisler, exalt the qualities
that we stereotypically associate with masculinity and value
life-TAKING and destructive activities, such as conquest and
warfare. This social structure, which is based on
inequality, generally ranks one part of society over the
other. Even though the cultural values are what we today
think of as 'hard' or more 'masculine,' dominator societies
can be either matriarchal or patriarchal. The higher ranked
group holds the power, takes the risks and reaps the rewards,
leaving the lower ranked group to powerlessness and, often,
poverty. Rather than linking people cooperatively, they rank
people competitively, creating a hierarchy that is ultimately
supported by force or the threat of force. This creates an
atmosphere of distrust and separation.
In studying Eisler's model of social structures, it becomes
clear that the dominator model creates a co-dependent
society, and the partnership model creates an interdependent
society in which people work cooperatively to support each
other. Extending her model this way, a comparison of the two
might look like this:
The Co-dependent Society creates hierarchies that are
ultimately backed by force or the threat of force.
The Interdependent Society creates heterarchies in which
people are linked together by common need.
In the Co-dependent Society, the higher ranked group in the
hierarchy holds the power of the decision making while the
lower ranked group is powerless.
In the Interdependent Society, the heterarchical group
shares equally the decision making.
In the Co-dependent Society, the higher ranked group assumes
responsibility, risk-taking, the means of production and
reaps the rewards, while the lower ranked group provides the
support and labor and reaps minimal rewards.
In the Interdependent Society, the heterarchical group
shares equally in the risk-taking, responsibility,
capital investment, means of production, rewards, labor
and support.
The Co-dependent Society uses comparative 'you OR me'
thinking.
The Interdependent Society uses cooperative 'you AND me'
thinking.
In the Co-dependent Society, a co-dependent form of
relationship between the two holds the system together.
In the Interdependent Society, an interdependent form of
relationship within one large group holds the system
together.
The Co-dependent Society values life-taking and destructive
activities such as war and exploitation.
The Interdependent Society values life-generating and
nurturing qualities such as compassion and nonviolence.
The Co-dependent Society utilizes rigid sex roles.
The Interdependent Society utilizes fluid sex roles.
The Co-dependent Society treats diversity judgmentally.
The Interdependent Society treats diversity
NONjudgmentally.
The Co-dependent Society uses fear to create separation.
The Interdependent Society uses hope to create unity.
Throughout modern history, most societies have been
structured so that some groups are ranked above others, such
as men over women and management over labor. With one group
more powerful and in control of the resources, co-dependent
relationships can be easily created and maintained. [But] If
people begin to change their co-dependent patterns, it will
bring changes to the LARGER social structure.
I as author of this VAXnotes reply would ask everyone to
think about which type of society structure within Digital
would truly benefit all of us more, ensuring our future
prosperity, employees and company alike. And would suggest
that it is those business organizations now changing to
Partnership interdependent organizations (Toyota, Kodak) that
are proving to be MORE EFFECTIVE in today's world.
|
| 1208.2 | some characteristics | ODIXIE::CARNELL | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Mon Oct 01 1990 12:50 | 133 |
| Characteristics of Co-dependency
Quotes from BREAKING FREE OF THE CO-DEPENDENCY TRAP by Barry
and Janae Weinhold.
When you look closely at the main characteristics of a
co-dependent person, you begin to see an unmistakable pattern
of behavior that is more characteristic of an infant than of
a fully functioning adult. Below is a list of of the common
characteristics of co-dependency.
If you are co-dependent you tend to:
* be unable to distinguish your own thoughts and feelings
from those of others (you think for and feel responsible for
other people)
* seek the approval and attention of others in order to feel
good
* feel anxious or guilty when others "have a problem"
* do things to please others even when you don't want to
* not know what you want or need
* rely on others to define your wants or needs
* believe that others know what is best for you better than
you do
* throw temper tantrums or collapse when things don't work
out the way you expect them to
* focus all your energy on other people and on their
happiness
* try to prove to others that you are good enough to be loved
* not believe you can take care of yourself
* believe that everyone else is trustworthy. You idealize
others and are disappointed when others don't live up to your
expectations.
* whine or pout to get what you want
* feel unappreciated and unseen by others
* blame yourself when things go wrong
* think you are not good enough
* fear rejection by others
* live your life as if you are a victim of circumstances
* feel afraid of making mistakes
* wish others would like or love you more
* try not to make demands on others
* be afraid to express your true feelings for fear that
people with reject you
* let others hurt you without trying to protect yourself
* not trust yourself and your decisions
* find it hard to be alone with yourself
* pretend that bad things aren't happening to you, even when
they are
* keep busy so you don't have to think about things
* not need anything from anyone
* experience people and life as black and white -- either all
good or all bad
* lie to protect and cover up for people you love
* feel very scared, hurt and angry but try not to let it show
* find it difficult to be close to others
* find it difficult to have fun and to be spontaneous
* feel anxious most of the time and don't know why
* feel compelled to work, eat, drink or have sex even when
you don't seem to get much enjoyment from the activity
* worry that other people will leave you
* feel trapped in relationships
* feel you have to coerce, manipulate, beg or bribe others to
get what you want
* feel controlled by the feelings of others
* be afraid of your own anger
* feel helpless and powerless to change yourself or your
situation
* feel like someone else needs to change in order for you to
feel better
Co-dependency in a relationship occurs when two people, each
seeking from the other what they feel they don't have, come
together to form one complete person. Each feels that he or
she cannot function well without the help of the other
person. This prevents personal growth and development.
Eventually one of the two grows tired of the unholy alliance
and tries to change things. Lacking information on the cause
of co-dependency or the tools and support necessary to break
the pattern, he or she normally will fail and fall back into
a co-dependent relationship once again.
In the opinion of the author of this VAXnotes reply, all of
us, including myself, have been raised in today's society to
be co-dependents, with co-dependency reinforced by its
organizations in which we work, with all of us meeting at
least some of the characteristics listed above. As indicated
at the end of the previous reply, we can change our society
and our organization if each us, with information on the
causes of co-dependency, begin to change our patterns, and
thereby influence change elsewhere by our attitudes.
|
| 1208.3 | | GOOBER::ROSS | And baby makes four | Mon Oct 01 1990 14:26 | 6 |
| Another "Buzzwords R' Us" entry.
Pretty soon we'll be hearing that Digital's management structure is
responsible for high cholesterol.
|
| 1208.4 | "Neuroses R' Us"? | ESCROW::KILGORE | Wild Bill | Mon Oct 01 1990 14:51 | 3 |
|
...or at least high blood pressure.
|
| 1208.5 | That archeology is highly suspect | TLE::MINAR::BISHOP | | Mon Oct 01 1990 15:53 | 16 |
| The myth of a more "feminine" or more peaceful past is very old
(Robert Graves was responsible for its popularity in the pre-WWII
era, but is not its inventor), but it is ungrounded in fact.
The people of prehistoric Europe left no records and not much
in the way of physical remains. We can guess at their culture
where the physical evidence allows (i.e., they had the techniques
of pottery, and used it to make large jars, so we can assume they
had something to store in them).
Other attempts to describe the culture depend on legends and stories
written down much later (and by people of a different culture--it's
somewhat as though our only knowledge of Medieval English culture was
sword-and-sorcery movies).
-John Bishop
|
| 1208.6 | beware of generalizing from specific cases | SALMON::BRISCOE | | Mon Oct 01 1990 16:08 | 12 |
| This conference belongs in Psychology.
By the way co-dependency in it's most common usage describes inter-
personal relations. It is highly suspect to extend that usage to
intra-personal contexts. Although the common usage of co-dependency
does has a negative connotation (as in dysfunctional co-dependency) the
plenum of possible co-dependent relationships includes all possible
inter-presonal bondings, many of which are quite functional and
rewarding.
Have Fun!
|
| 1208.7 | | KEYS::MOELLER | DEC-rewarding successful risk takers | Mon Oct 01 1990 17:32 | 8 |
| So the management matrix of a large company is not exactly Mental
Health Land.
What a revelation.
I'm stunned.
karl
|
| 1208.8 | | MU::PORTER | Nature Abhors a Vacuum Cleaner | Tue Oct 02 1990 00:15 | 12 |
| >By the way co-dependency in it's most common usage describes inter-
>personal relations. It is highly suspect to extend that usage to
>intra-personal contexts.
Oh I don't know.
"Intra-personal" means "occurring within the person".
I suspect some parts of me aid and abet other parts
of me in whatever they're up to today, so it seems
that it's a perfectly proper context.
|
| 1208.9 | | LESLIE::LESLIE | leslie%leslie.enet@decwrl.dec.com | Tue Oct 02 1990 03:13 | 5 |
|
RE: .0 et al, Let's work on the real problems eh?
/andy/
|
| 1208.11 | Why did this wonderful society die out? | WINGIT::TURNQUIST | Greg Turnquist | Tue Oct 02 1990 20:40 | 19 |
| RE: .0,.1,.2
If this wonderful "partnership" society is so great, why is the world
made up of mostly "Dominant" societies?
Also, I don't know much about Kodak, but I can't see Toyota as a
"partnership" culture, based on the definitions presented. Despite
all the "quality circles" and other supposedly "Heterarchical" aspects
of japanese companies, they are as dominant a culture as any I have
seen or read about.
Based on the excerpts posted here, IMHO I don't think this model has
any relation to the real world. Or human nature, for that matter.
Greg
|
| 1208.13 | Think about the ideas. | POETIC::LEEDBERG | Justice and License | Wed Oct 03 1990 15:47 | 23 |
|
The problems here in DEC seem to be everywhere, we need a
new/different way to look at problems. The old ways have
not brought about satifactory change.
Who cares is the pre-history story is based on fact or
fiction? It is a new or at least different way to phrase
some of the major problem we (DEC) have to deal with.
Mangement seems to not be listening to the worker-bees,
nor does management seem to understand how to communicate
to us. There needs to be a platform to start from and I
think that the concept of "partnership" (management and
individual contributors - amoung and between) might be
a good place to start.
This is how I choose my immediate managment and co-workers
when I change jobs. I look for a group that works together
for at least 2 levels up and down. And this is how I try
to function with other groups.
_peggy
|
| 1208.14 | Of course it matters whether it's true | TLE::MINAR::BISHOP | | Wed Oct 03 1990 17:09 | 25 |
| We care about the truth of the prehistory story because it makes
a difference: if I say I have a wonderful idea for organizing
a large group of people, and it has been tried before and works,
then you are going to be a lot more willing to try the idea than
if I say it's never been tried before.
If I tell you that the idea was tried by people far away in time,
and say it worked fine--but I have no proof that they tried it or
that it worked, then how much do you believe me? And how much do
you respect my mind if I buy that argument myself?
Consider what you might think if I said "The ancient people chose
their supreme executive leaders by lottery, and they did real well
living a life of peace and plenty until some nasty invaders came
along, so we should choose our management by lottery."
Now imagine that some on-looker objected that I had no proof of
this ancient practice, and I then said "But just look at the idea,
wouldn't it be nice to live in peace and plenty!"
.13's practice of looking at the actual behaviour of prospective
management is sensible, but not at all proof that a "non-co-dependant"
system is the way to go.
-John Bishop
|
| 1208.15 | Use it where it's intended | MUSKIE::BRISCOE | | Wed Oct 03 1990 19:20 | 23 |
| The utility of many model is determined by;
1) it's predictability
2) it's reproducability
co-dependency (part of family systems theory) is brand new. Bradshaw is
big on the idea. But, to date there is little (as in none) data to
substantiate the predictability or reproducability of this model.
Further more, the model is suspect in the case you describe because it
is a model of inter-personal relations versus group/organizational
dynamics. Applying co-dependency theory to cultural/organizational
situations is tantamount to applying numbers theory to theology -
highly suspect!
I personally believe that co-dependency theory has value in predicting
and intervening into dysfunctional inter-personal relations - as far as
the dynamics of the relational interactions perpetuating dysfunction is
concerned. I don't have much confidence in it's applicability in
predicting or intervening in Digital's organizational challenges.
TJB
|
| 1208.17 | attitude =/= behavior | SALMON::BRISCOE | | Fri Oct 05 1990 16:21 | 24 |
| Not really. A company's organization is an attempt to plan/control for
and respond to a number of internal and external stimulii (system's
theory) hopefully with the intent of fullfilling the goals/charter
of the organization.
In the case of DIGITAL those goals are to realize share-holder return
on investment. That's it - nothing more!
To some small extent, the interations between individuals will effect
the performance of the organization. But, for the most part other
(larger) forces control and direct performance. For the most part,
individual interactions (and even overall morale) do not significantly
effect organizational performance.
It would be "nice" if the converse were true - but Case study after
Case Study has demonstrated that corporate fiscal performance is not
significantly affected by workforce attitudes. (as I mentioned earlier
there is no true correlation between attitude [what you think about a
subject] and behavior [how you act/react].
Have Fun!
TJB
|
| 1208.18 | What do we do because we are doing something *else* wrong? | SVBEV::VECRUMBA | Do the right thing! | Mon Oct 08 1990 14:37 | 39 |
|
re: last several, & Bradshaw
We're missing the point, somewhat, about codependency here.
Bradshaw isn't one of the originators of the term, but he's been one
of the better ones at expressing what codependency is and how it comes
about. He did an excellent PBS series, with a great visual aid -- it
was a (hanging) mobile.
Codependency is what happens within a unit of people when something
goes wrong -- when someone has a problem -- and the other people modify
their behaviors to keep things in balance.
If you pull on the mobile in one place, the rest of it will move to
balance the force. The trap is that the people "keeping things in
balance" then feel a responsibility to *keep* keeping things in balance.
In reality, though, if they stopped, things would return to their
natural balance.
Somewhat simplified, but it gets the point across. What "codependency"
really questions is:
- What are the things we are doing wrong?
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - What are the things we are doing to *counteract* the things we |
| are doing wrong? |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
The first step of a fix is not to stop the former, but the *latter.*
And the more painful or unthinkable stopping the latter is, the more
necessary that very (in)action is required for restoring true balance.
Not a particularly pleasant concept for those seeking to solve problems
without inflicting "more" apparent pain, but one that does deserve some
serious reflection and thought.
/Petes
|
| 1208.19 | dysfunctional addictive/co-dependency behaviors | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Fri Oct 12 1990 20:23 | 32 |
|
Here is a excerpt (plus memo, which "could easily" have been written by
a Digital employee), which was included in THE ADDICTIVE ORGANIZATION
by Anne Wilson Schaef and Diane Fassel.
"As a friend of ours at a Fortune 500 company states in an internal
memo, we are confused about something, and it is not clear what it is.
In an in-house memo she wrote:
"'What is a productive organization? We have been inundated in the last
few years with books, articles, case studies, and news stories that
describe the attributes of excellence and successful organizations. As
a country of business people we have studied our competitors. At
various times with various voices we have touted high tech, robotic,
and electronic solutions. From Europe we have accepted a need for
cooperation and collaboration with our employees by starting
quality-of-work-life and employee-involvement efforts in major
companies like GM, AT&T, and Ford. [and Digital] Unions like the UAW,
the Communications Workers of America, and the Steel Workers became
leaders in the changes. Yet many of these very hopeful programs have
lost their initial charge. We have looked to the East and started
Quality Circle, Just In Time delivery programs, Total Quality Control,
Statistical Process Control, and Company-Wide Quality Control.
" 'Yet, through all of our writing and research, we still seem to be
missing something. We are attracted to these demonstrations of
excellence; we recognize that there is something that we do not have,
yet the majority of executives and managers in the United States are
unable to implement significant permanent change incorporating these
ideas. What is it that we are attracted to? What is it that eludes us
when we try to implement these changes?' "
|
| 1208.20 | rules in an "addictive system" | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Sat Oct 13 1990 12:51 | 26 |
| Another excerpt from THE ADDICTIVE ORGANIZATION by Anne Wilson
Schaef and Diane Fassel.
On page 49 we mentioned Robert Subby's nine "rules" of the
dysfunctional addictive family system. We often find these
rules operating in the organization as well:
1. it is not okay to talk about problems;
2. feelings should not be expressed openly;
3. communication is best if indirect, with one person acting
as the messenger between two others;
4. be strong, good, right, and perfect;
5. make us proud;
6. don't be selfish;
7. do as I say and not as I do;
8. it is not okay to play or be playful;
9. don't rock the boat.
|
| 1208.21 | long note but worth reading for understanding | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Sat Oct 13 1990 12:53 | 243 |
| Another excerpt from THE ADDICTIVE ORGANIZATION by Anne Wilson
Schaef and Diane Fassel.
COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
Because communication is so basic and so central to
organizational functioning, it is very sensitive to any type
of dysfunction. In many organizations, people admit they
have communication problems. We would dispute that.
Communications are usually terrible in a dysfunctional
organization, but they are also more likely the symptom of a
larger, more pervasive problem. Let us look at some of the
typical ways communication functions in the addictive
organization.
Communication in the addictive organization is frequently
INDIRECT. This indirectness takes many forms. People who
feel they have conflicts with one another refuse to state
their conflicts openly to the person concerned. They are
also unwilling to discuss these conflicts in a group
setting. Instead, they avoid the significant parties, carry
tales to others, and spend inordinate amounts of time
justifying their position. They discuss the conflict with
persons who can lend a sympathetic ear and who are often
powerless to do anything other than listen. (We realize
here that it is tempting to say that this is just how people
function. It is NOT how people function; it is the way
people have learned to function in an addictive system).
Indirectness does not exist only in relation to conflict.
Communication in these settings is usually VAGUE, CONFUSED,
and INEFFECTIVE. Communication in an addictive organization
is often characterized by abundant production of paper
memos. We once watched a maintenance man who needed to be
reimbursed seven dollars for delivering some materials spend
one hour going to eight different persons to sigh the
voucher so he could get his money. Complex procedures often
mask in inability to communicate.
WRITTEN memos are frequently used in addictive organizations
to avoid face-to-face confrontation on touchy issues.
Sometimes memos are the main mode of communication in larger
companies, leading to feelings of isolation. Since addicts
cannot be trusted to communicate clearly or remember what is
communicated, memos have become a necessity and functional.
TRIANGULATION is a characteristic process of addictive
communication. If Joe wants to get a message to Sue, he
does not speak to Sue, call Sue, or send her a direct memo.
He asks Mary to tell her. Except for routine messages, Joe
uses triangulation because he does not want to come into
direct contact with Sue. He does not want to face her
disappointment, refusal, or QUESTIONS. Joe is aware that he
has feelings when he faces Sue directly. Rather than deal
with those feelings, he avoids them and gets someone else to
do his work. The "someone else" becomes a good co-dependent
the minute he or she agrees to relieve Joe of the task he
needs to do himself, and Joe becomes dependent on
cooperation, translation, and so on. We realize that in
large corporations, communications cannot always be direct
[unless everyone were connected via an electronic computer
network ?]. This is not what we are discussing here. We
are talking about those instances in which direct
communication is indicated and would be more efficient and
helpful.
There is a lot of GOSSIP in addictive organizations.
Sometimes there is gossip because there is very little
communication in any direction. When there is no functional
direct communication, one hears about change from those who
know the gossip. The purpose of gossip is to excite and
titillate, as well as to establish a seat of power. It
usually produces paralysis, because sources cannot be
revealed, and real information is always obfuscated. Gossip
helps to avoid real, direct, and effective communication.
It relieves tension while providing a feeling of intimacy.
In the end it is ephemeral.
SECRETS operate in much the same way as gossip, except that
secrets usually come from reliable sources. There are many
secrets in addictive organizations. Secrets are usually
"for their own good." Decisions about money, salary, and
personnel are often secret. Secrets are information being
managed that is not open to all. Our friend from the utility
company was frequently let in on company secrets. She
always felt privileged to receive the secrets; it engendered
a sense of power in her. She believe that "knowledge was
power," even though she could do nothing with or about the
information she received. There is a saying in Al-Anon that
families are only as sick as the secrets they keep -- so too
in organizations. Secrets are divisive and powerful.
Keeping them is difficult, fosters dishonesty, endangers
trust, and creates "in" groups and tension. Organizations
moving toward health try to keep fewer secrets and ideally
work toward none at all.
Another form of communication in addictive organizations is
what Chris Argyris calls "SKILLED INCOMPETENCE." This
refers to the phenomenon of executives [and managers] who
are skilled communicators, highly committed and respected by
each other, using communication skills (much like
disinformation ?) to cover up real problems.
These executives [and managers] meet repeatedly to
brainstorm and develop strategy [but not the masses doing
the work]. Yet when they meet, they always seem to go in
circles. They make endless lists of agenda items on flip
charts and put check marks next to the important items, and
in the end, everyone leaves feeling exhausted having
accomplished little. Argyris says that these executives
were skilled, but their skills were being used to avoid
upset and conflict in meetings; consequently, they did not
say what they mean, nor were they open to test the
assumptions about the group's ability to deal with or
utilize conflict. Their very communications skills
inhibited a resolution of the important issues in the
meeting.
The avoidance of conflict and of difficult issues can be
institutionalized and lead to a corporate environment that
cannot tolerate "straight talk," honesty, or directness. In
the addictive organization, there is little or no straight
talk. The culture of the addictive organization is one of
confusion and chaos. The first step is to design an
obviously ambiguous statement that the receiver recognizes
as ambiguous but does NOT question. The second step is to
ignore any inconsistencies in the message. Next is to make
the ambiguity and inconsistencies undiscussable and,
finally, to make the undiscussability, UNDISCUSSABLE.
Argyris believes that such chaos is part of a defensive
route that has become systemic. As routines become norms,
more and more people in the organization begin operating out
of them. In this setup, people can leave the organization
and new ones arrive, but the routines remain intact.
We agree with Argyris that the culture of chaos remains
intact in organizations and becomes systemic. We think,
however, that he misses the root cause of its stability. We
believe it is because the organization has become an
addictive system and has that disease process underlying THE
DEFENSIVE ROUTINE. When one works with addicts, it is easy
to see that this behavior is clearly characteristic of
addiction.
Thus far we have been discussing the process of
communication in addictive organizations. We now want to
say something about the CONTENT of communication. Addictive
organizations are skilled at eliminating significant
communication. Significant communication is any information
that could make employees more effective, decisions more
strategic, and change more likely in the organization. The
processes we have been describing serve to cloud significant
information and make it more difficult to get access to what
is REALLY going on. Consequently, mundane announcements may
be given more time at meetings than important decision
making. Significant content simple does NOT get through in
an addictive organization. We are not saying that this is
malicious or deliberate. What we are saying is that this
blocking of significant information is observably present in
addictive organizations.
THE EXPRESSION OF FEELINGS is also noticeably absent in
addictive organizations. Frozen feelings are
institutionalized. First of all, feelings are just not
discussed in these companies. If there is a display of
feelings, it is seen as inappropriate. A common statement
is, "Get control of yourself." There is a general belief
that if feelings are expressed, one will be seen as
unstable, and this could jeopardize one's security on the
job.
In the addictive organization, people are either OUT OF
TOUCH with what they feel, or they PUT DOWN any feelings or
awareness of what they need, because to have feelings or to
need something would be seen as being out of control. We
often encounter executives who are not aware when they need
to take time off. In these organizations it is seen as
inappropriate for other executives to observe that a
coworker seems to need a vacation [always important to look
good]. This is a good example of the lack of intimacy in
the addictive organization and the unwillingness to honor
feelings [or even human dignity].
By intimacy we are not referring to sexual intimacy or even
what might be seen as emotional intimacy. What we mean by
intimacy is the willingness to know oneself and to let
oneself be known by others. William Ouchi describes
intimacy as a common thread binding people together in
caring closeness and support in social relations [do you see
a lot of this in Digital by employees to one another?]. He
observes that intimacy is very rare in American life and
that we resist the notion that closeness can be achieved in
the workplace. We have segmented our lives in such a way
that personal feelings have no place at work.
Interestingly, the inability to form and maintain intimacy
is a prime characteristic of an addict. We do not feel that
it is by accident that our corporations have been structured
to reflect this lack of intimacy.
In the addictive organization, the prohibition against being
who you are makes intimacy almost impossible. The addictive
organization then tries to counteract this reality by
setting up planned encounters [team building woods meetings]
and workshops in which individuals tell one another what
they like and dislike about the other and practice
"communication skills." Regardless of how many
communication workshops the organization sponsors, intimacy
is not possible, because the person and the system are part
of the same disease. We know that maintaining this disease
is dependent upon keeping out of touch personally and
institutionally [as in managers NOT "walking the floor"
knowing both THEIR employees, and customers, for that
matter], and a quick "communications fix" may bring
temporary relief, but it does not address THE PROBLEM.
The addictive organization has a narrow view of the type of
content that is acceptable inside the organization. Most of
the content communicated must be LOGICAL AND RATIONAL
[proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in practice with a
preponderance of evidence!].
We are reminded of this problem when hearing testimony of
the scientists and engineers who worked with the ill-fated
spaceship CHALLENGER. Apparently, some of those closest to
the project had enough information to be sincerely worried
about the worthiness of the spacecraft. Others just "felt"
it shouldn't be sent up. However, in the NASA community
hunches and intuitions were NOT considered reliable content
for a decision to curtail the flight. Feelings, intuition,
and imagination are considered ILLEGITIMATE and not
CONTROLLABLE. Consequently, feelings and intimacy are just
not acceptable. The information that gets through has to
come through the indirect, triangulated, and defensive
communication forms. Ironically, there is a belief that
feelings and intimacy are counterproductive to the
accomplishment of the task. We have known for some time
in organizational circles that attending the process usually
facilitates production. We have seen that the really
addictive organizations are noticeably depressed and
entropic and have difficulty in attending to tasks except at
crisis times.
|
| 1208.22 | | LESLIE::LESLIE | Open the QAR database please, HAL | Sat Oct 13 1990 18:11 | 1 |
| Are these materials not copyright?
|
| 1208.23 | Probably, but | CARTUN::MISTOVICH | | Sun Oct 14 1990 03:56 | 3 |
| I could be mistaken, but I think excerpts are not considered copyright
violation, although it may depend on the amount of material that is
copied.
|
| 1208.24 | | LESLIE::LESLIE | Open the QAR database please, HAL | Sun Oct 14 1990 08:10 | 8 |
| "Fair use" is for review and examplative purposes. Extensive quotes
such as are being entered here may well be getting near the borderline,
in this non-lawyers opinion.
/andy/
|
| 1208.25 | dysfunctional thinking processes | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Sun Oct 14 1990 14:35 | 201 |
| Another "fair use for discussion purposes" excerpt from THE ADDICTIVE
ORGANIZATION by Anne Wilson Schaef and Diane Fassel.
THINKING PROCESSES
LOSS OF CORPORATE MEMORY, or FORGETFULNESS, is an
outstanding characteristic of the addictive organization.
People have said of addicts that they cannot learn from
their past behavior, because they have no memory. This is
one of the aspects of the disease. Addictive organizations
have the same problem.
Forgetfulness among employees is certainly related to the
sheer amount of work and the confusing way communication
occurs. Sometimes memory is very selective. A man who
worked for a heavy equipment manufacturer told us he was
part of an executive team that had responsibility for
marketing strategies. They met routinely in a team of
seven. Over time they discovered they did well
acknowledging small tasks and completely forgot large,
important projects. This even happened when tasks had
definite deadlines. "I know it is hard to believe," he
said. "But we just spaced it."
This is not unusual in the addictive organization. Small
tasks suddenly become more attractive. They appear
manageable with the depleted human and organizational
resources available, whereas big tasks are overwhelming and
are just ignored or forgotten.
This type of forgetfulness may be related to the penchant of
addicts, co-dependents, and the addictive institutions to
take on what they cannot do but believe they should accept.
In the case of the executive just mentioned, his team was
overloaded with work because a co-dependent team leader took
on more work that he could possibly do. Instead of dealing
with the conflict among themselves about work loads, they
conveniently avoided the task by forgetting it.
Another aspect of forgetfulness we see related to
organizations is not learning from past mistakes and past
experience. Occasionally, in our role as consultants we
will remind people they are proposing an organizational
design or project they used in the past with dubious
results. No one remembers. Sometimes groups get into the
middle of a project, and someone has the feeling that "we
have been through this before." Not until they are too
deeply committed to back out do they see that they are
replicating old patterns and old solutions.
Addictive organizations get into their most serious trouble
when they forget to keep the primacy of their mission before
them [read: fundamental business of the company]. They then
lose contact with the reason for their existence, the
contribution they expect to make to the society or what they
want to do. Although it seems incomprehensible that
organizations could be so out of touch, the confusion in the
addictive organization often results in the company's
pursuing a product line or strategy that LOOKS GOOD in the
abstract at the moment without asking how it relates to the
missing, consumer [customer] needs [and wants], or
readiness. They then end up having to develop a market.
Addictive organizations are always on the lookout for the
"QUICK FIX," and anything that may provide temporary relief
or solutions is leaped upon gladly, even if it is not
congruent with their mission.
In TIME magazine we read of "Crime in the Suites" describing
large corporations being convicted of "obstructing justice"
(LTV chairman), "illegal billing" (General Electric), mail
and wire fraud (E.F. Hutton), fraud (E.S.M.), missing bank
funds (Jake Butcher, Tennessee banker), and failing to
report large cash transfers (Bank of Boston Corporation).
We hear of struggles with workers' rights being described as
not "union busting 101... This is ADVANCED union-busting."
These are examples of loss of contact with the morality and
mission of the organization.
Organizations can keep their mission in focus if they can
remember their history and can tell it. Such a process
keeps alive the mission in the culture of the group.
However, when both people and organization are out of touch
with their own thoughts and feelings, they become
progressively numb. As a result, they are less able to
focus on anything outside themselves, even if that is the
very purpose of the organization.
The next process we will discuss is perhaps best described
as DISTORTED THINKING PROCESS. This kind of thinking
process relies heavily on EXTERNALIZATION, the process
whereby an organization assumes it is normal for people in
the organization to work out their personal issues on others
in the organization. This behavior is accepted in the
addictive organization; however, it wreaks havoc and
contributes to confusion.
We encounter this phenomenon in organizations with key
persons who are addicts. They are not dealing with their
addictive diseases in treatment or in AA groups, so they
externalize them in the workplace.
Externalizing issues can be seen at many levels, from the
executive having trouble with his wife and taking out his
feelings on his secretary to the organization itself fixing
the blame on other organizations for behavior that causes a
slump in productivity [like in: Japan and Germany "do
things" which has caused the slump in U.S. companies]. The
purpose of externalization is to place the issues
inappropriately on someone or something else, so that you,
as the source, will not have to deal with it. In
organizations where addictiveness is high externalizing
takes place because the group is always symbolically
protecting its secret and/or its "supply." These people
cannot afford to see what they are doing. Unfortunately, it
is so common that it is often accepted as standard operating
procedure. Many employees say, "Well, that is just the way
it goes," and resign themselves to being DUMPED ON by others
[an increasing trend that began years ago in DEC as stated
by a former head of Digital personnel]. Both the person who
does the dumping and the one who receives it collude in
keeping the SYSTEM going; both must distort their feelings
and the object of their feelings for externalization to
work.
Another distorted thinking process (defense mechanism) that
we see in addictive organizations is PROJECTION. Basically,
projection is taking something that is going on inside,
placing it outside, and reacting to it as if it indeed were
coming from another person or organization. We see this
kind of thinking in the alcoholic and in the paranoid.
When an organization is involved in projection, it is
institutionalizing NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY. An
organization that operates out of a distorted thinking
process using projection takes all its own problems and woes
and blames them on the market, the economy, and other
corporations [or "the workers" or "management" -- when the
issue in fact should be addressing the SYSTEM, the rules,
official and unofficial, that determine the organizational
culture that drives how the organization works]. This kind
of corporation is willing to face anything but itself.
Responsibility is always linked with blame, and the
organization simply will not look AT ITSELF. Hence, all its
problems come from outside. The byword of the addictive
organization is "if only."
The last of the distorted thinking processes of the
addictive system in organizations we want to discuss is
DUALISM. We have said a lot about dualism at other places
in this book. We will focus briefly on some of the
organizational aspects of it here. In planning, dualistic
thinking is deadly, because it limits options to TWO or the
multiple of two. These multiples are usually none other
than the ORIGINAL POSITIONS IN DISGUISE. In the addictive
organization, dualism in planning is always a FORM OF
CONTROL AND COMPETITION. It prevents people from looking at
their choice and the choice of others for creative
solutions, which usually CANNOT BE PREDICTED AND CONTROLLED.
Dualistic thinking sets up sides and establishes enemies.
It sees other groups and individuals as the good guys or the
bad guys. This simplifies relationships by removing
ambiguity and subtlety. Organizations that do not think
dualistically let themselves see that a competitor may have
something they can learn from and in fact, they may work
cooperatively in some areas. Dualistic thinking obviates
this kind of knowing. It is ARROGANT knowing that comes out
of the pressure to know everything [sound familiar? Don't
talk to ME about a problem or idea or a change unless you
have ALL the answers, supported by a preponderance of PROOF
first!].
We were working with a European company that had only one
competitor. Our client company was sorely in need of a new
organizational design. We suggested that they consider
their competitor's design because it worked well. They
dismissed our suggestion without a moment's hesitation
because it was tantamount to admitting the other company was
better. In fact, in this one area the other company could
be emulated, because they did having something that worked.
Our company's dualistic thinking was a box that prevented
them from using what was good because they felt they would
lose all identity if they borrowed an organizational design.
As it happened they devised a very complicated design that
plagues them to this day.
This example suggests the other result of dualism. It
allows one to stay stuck. By staying in the we-they
mentality, our company could never take the focus off a
two-sided mentality and ask, instead, What do we as an
organization need to be EFFECTIVE IN this product area? [or
service area, or fundamental business]. They needed to look
inside and begin by making themselves open to all options.
The question they needed to ask is based on humility and
truth and is one that addictive organizations rarely ask
themselves. If they did, the answer would take them away
from the illusion of simplicity and plunge them into a world
of complexity and ambiguity.
|
| 1208.26 | | KEYS::MOELLER | Born To Be Riled | Mon Oct 15 1990 16:22 | 12 |
| Another aspect of codependency is the assumption of one's own power..
"if I do THIS, then they'll do THAT". Of course this can be manifested
by not feeling one's own feelings, twisting oneself around to influence
the person with "the problem".
I am reminded of Sales within Digital. I work in Volume/Channels, out
in the field, and am continually amused and amazed by the assumption
that we can positively influence the buying patterns of end-user
customers, and budget and plan and plot and scheme to make the numbers
from our resellers.
karl
|
| 1208.27 | management & personnel processes - long note | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Sat Oct 20 1990 12:49 | 216 |
| More "fair use for discussion purposes" excerpts from THE
ADDICTIVE ORGANIZATION by Anne Wilson Schaef & Diane Fassel.
MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL PROCESSES
DENIAL AND DISHONESTY
Denial is not allowing oneself to see or know what is REALLY going
on. It is a type of dishonesty. Dishonesty is related to lying
to or misleading the self and others.
Organizationally, a company is in denial when it routinely refuses
to see or ACKNOWLEDGE what is happening internally and/or in its
markets. Companies that persist in producing and marketing
products that are harmful to the environment are in denial about
their effect on consumers, and they are often dishonest in
reporting to regulatory agencies.
Before the popularity of such concepts as MBWA (management by
walking around), executives were often removed from the "common
people." Why? They were not responsible for what they did not
see. We have found that it is not possible to be into "a
selective denial" as an organization. Denial is a phenomenon that
progressively pervades the processes of a company.
Dishonesty arises from within the organization alongside denial,
and it takes other forms as well. In organizations in which
dishonesty is the norm [read surveys], there is a belief that if
you are honest, the organization cannot possibly survive. In such
cases, dishonesty is functionally related to the resistance to
change at every level of the organization [re-read that again].
Perfection is also related to dishonesty, as it is not possible to
maintain an ILLUSION of perfectionism without keeping information
from others. Perfectionism requires institutionalized secrets and
dishonesty.
The systematic nature of dishonesty is that once dishonest
communication and practices become established in an organization,
they are assumed to be normal. Consequently, the only way to
survive and progress in such a system is to enter into the
process.
ISOLATION
Addictive organizations become more isolated the more they sink
into their disease. For one thing, isolation keeps other people
from seeing what is happening. [How many hundreds (?) have times
have you heard "Well, Ken or Jack WOULD do something, but "they"
keep them isolated and nothing gets through."]
Organizations practice isolation when they stay out of touch with
the consumer [customer], those they serve, and with society at
large.
Often decision makers in SERVICE organizations rarely have any
contact with the clients they serve.
Isolation means remaining in your own reality without concern for
employees or the community in which the company exists.
SELF-CENTEREDNESS
Self-centeredness is related to isolationism in organizations;
when an organization feels it is the center of the universe, it
sees no need to include any other information in, for example, its
planning.
JUDGMENTALISM
Judgmentalism is a characteristic of the addict. It is very
different from making choices or deciding on a course of action.
Judgmentalism is adding the element of "BAD" to an observation or
choice. There is a great deal of difference between saying, "I
don't like that," or "I will not be involved in that," and saying,
"You are bad," or "That is bad." Judgmentalism requires separating
from and judging the other, and is nonparticipatory. In the AA
program, there is a saying, "You have a disease; you are not your
disease." It means you are a good person, and your disease is not
you. It is separate and is something that is overcoming you.
Addictive organizations do NOT make this distinction. You are
your actions, and you are your disease. This is the essence of
judgmentalism with people and with organizations. Look at how
confining judgmentalism is when applied to personnel practices.
It automatically means that many standards are established for
behavior and used to measure the worth of a person [we MUST
measure YOU and grade you A,B,C,D,F or 5 to 1 or whatever,
COMPARING you to your peers, FORCING RANKING and thus NURTURING
INTERNAL COMPETITION "RATHER" THAN COOPERATION -- ranking is
cursed as a MAJOR detriment to companies by Dr. Deming].
Judgmentalism in corporations means that employee evaluations are
dreaded because employees come out deflated or exalted, depending
upon the judgment. TRUTH is frequently LOST in judgmental
corporations. When companies can separate a person's worth from
his or her behavior, then information input can be utilized for
growth and change. Judgmentalism in organizations actually
prevents growth. It stunts growth, promotes stasis [what do you
mean change, this customer gives us a 9.6 rating! We don't need to
change NUTTIN'!], and puts people on constant alert, lest they be
judged.
Judgmentalism is EXTREMELY limiting to creativity in organizations
because creativity cannot be "controlled." Creativity depends on
both success AND failure. Employees who feel judged take few
risks and limit their creativity [know anyone like this?].
PERFECTIONISM
In order to perpetuate the illusion of perfection, one must live
with constant denial, avoiding the OBVIOUS.
Organizations institutionalize perfectionisms in job descriptions
for example.
We have found that most job descriptions describe jobs that simple
could not be accomplished by human beings. There are frequently
far more objectives in them than any five people could accomplish,
but they are given to employees as if they are real.
CONFUSION AND CRISIS ORIENTATION
All addictive organizations are marked by confusion. The
confusion is punctuated periodically by a crisis, which serves to
take the attention temporarily away from the constancy of
confusion. Executives and planners make the assumption that
crisis can be reduced if confusion is reduced. Unfortunately,
they see the two as separate.
In the addictive organization, everyone is trying to find out what
is really going on with the firm and believes that it is possible
to get such information. Of course, these efforts are futile,
because it is frequently an illusion that anything is really going
on in the first place. There is very little real productive
activity in the addictive organization, or if it takes place, it
is taking an inordinate amount of effort; that is what the
confusion or the crisis orientation is hiding.
Confusion keep us in the past. We are constantly going back to
understand how we got to such a mixed-up place.
The confusion keeps people figuring out the past and too busy in
the present trying to see what is truly going on to know about the
current situation.
Crisis has a slightly different function in the addictive
organization. Like confusion, crisis keeps us from being
effective in our work because we leave the routine to handle the
crisis, but the other function of crisis is that it is a
substitute for other feelings. In the addictive organization,
feelings are not permissible, and people are generally dead to
what is going on inside them. A crisis creates a great upheaval
and intense feelings. One of the reasons organizations create
crisis is to feel. Another outcome of crisis is that it brings
people together who feel alienated from each other in the
day-to-day work. Crisis lets people lay aside their animosities
to cooperate for the greater good. In these two ways, crisis
creates a false sense of camaraderie. It is a fake, it is
temporary, and it is a substitute for real life and a healthy
organization. It leaves people with the illusion that if they can
pull together through this crisis, they are really a GROUP. The
organization absorbs this illusion and uses it to maintain itself.
The other way crisis orientation keeps the addictive system intact
is through the power it gives various CONTROL mechanisms. In
crisis we allow people to take over and enact unusual procedures.
Crisis feeds on the illusion that control can bring the situation
under control. Crises are used to excuse drastic and erratic
actions on the part of managers, and they heighten the
organization's tolerance for addictive behavior. Ultimately,
crisis reduces an organization's ability to plan or to take
responsibility.
SEDUCTION
In the addictive organization, people often find themselves
getting on bandwagons or being pulled into activities that do not
feel right to them. We have worked with people in a large
cosmetics firm who attend meetings that are run like pep rallies
to get salespeople fired up. Our client BELIEVES IN THE PRODUCT
she represents; nevertheless, she is somewhat uneasy with the
backslapping, hugging and kissing, hooting and hollering of sales
rallies. She feels seduced and that her INTELLIGENCE, and ever
her personhood, are being IGNORED OR NOT RESPECTED.
SETTING UP SIDES
One organizational process of the addictive organization is
setting up sides. In this process, people think they are expected
to take sides around issues. They HAVE to be for one or the other
person, idea, or product -- or for the other.
It is not recognized that OPTIONS do exist.
MANIPULATING CONSUMERS [CUSTOMERS]
Organizations ask employees routinely to cover up faulty products
or faulty functioning (keep secrets). The organization
participates at two levels of dishonesty here. It knowingly makes
a defective product [and ships it]; then it markets it, asking
employees to continue the lie.
ALL THE ABOVE processes are organizational dimensions of an
addictive system. Individual addicts and co-dependents operate
with these characteristics in their personal and professional
lives all the time. The organization itself takes on a "persona"
that is the composite of the individuals, and it is also more than
just the sum of the individual parts. Many of the characteristics
we describe have existed in companies for years. They are bigger
than the individual personnel and more far-reaching. Many have
also been considered normal operating procedure. This is one
reason they are so INSIDIOUS and DIFFICULT to detect and change.
We want to emphasize here that these procedures are not normal.
They are normal for an organization that has become an addict, and
there are alternatives.
|
| 1208.28 | structual components, fixes, and the real issues | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Sat Oct 20 1990 14:13 | 174 |
| More "fair use for discussion purposes" excerpts from THE
ADDICTIVE ORGANIZATION by Anne Wilson Schaef & Diane Fassel.
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
What do we know about organizational structures that is like the
addict. We know that many structures are set up to engender
[internal] competition, heighten control, apply punishment,
guarantee predictability, and make accomplishment of the mission
of the group extremely difficult.
We know from observing organizations that as the system gets
sicker there is a proliferation of structures and rules. As
individuals inside the addictive system become sicker, they cannot
be trusted to use good judgment. In an attempt to control this,
an abundance [of] rules and procedures are set up.
The most glaring system problem we find in the addictive
organization is that the structure of the organization is not
established to be congruent with the mission of the organization.
External referencing is a process of the addictive organization.
A group is referencing externally when the only real source of
validation is outside itself. It looks externally to get clues on
how to behave without balancing this information with information
from inside to see what is right. Co-dependents and ACOAs [adult
children of alcoholics] spend their lives outside themselves for
direction about how to act and react [like looking to "managers"
as authority figures rather than knowing intuitively within
yourself what "do what is right ETHICALLY" really means].
Dishonesty and denial may be the clearest characteristics of the
individual addict, but CONTROL is the prime characteristics of the
addictive organization. Perhaps because organizations are so
complex, they look to control as a method of reducing chaos {see
also THRIVING ON CHAOS by Tom Peters].
Structurally, control is built into every level of the addictive
organization. In an addictive organization, personnel practices
are built on concepts of punishment. In this type of system,
there is a belief that behavior reflects a person's goodness or
badness. It is not a system in which logical, clear consequences
one's behavior are built in as a result of choices made.
The addictive organization wants to control how it is seen by
others -- and it believes it can. This image (actually an attempt
at IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT) supposedly is created by dress codes,
appearance at certain functions, the discussion of some topics and
NOT others, and a host of other actions all developed to give the
RIGHT IMPRESSION.
The right impression is part of the desire to appear ALL RIGHT to
other organizations [and internal groups, higher-ups], clients and
the public.
Planning can be a form of control in the addictive organization.
Healthy organizations do plan, but the difference is that their
planning is a process, assumes flexibility, and is not used to fix
unaddressed ills. Planning in a healthy organization is not an
outcome. It is a description; it is NOT a prediction or a
prescription.
Addictive organizations do NOT sample widely from inside and
outside the organization. They are very careful about WHO they
listen to and where they go for information. As a consequence,
future plans at some level perpetuate the present system, thus
giving the impression that change is happening. To enhance this
impression, they may perhaps make a FEW inconsequential cosmetic
alterations.
Though planning is illusionary in an addictive organization
because sufficient informations is NOT solicited, POWER, on the
other hand, is controlled by giving only PARTIAL information
[which would become increasing hard to do when an entire
organization has the minds of all its members linked via the power
of distributed computer networking]. When only partial
information is given, people always feel a sense of uncertainty
and dependence on others; they never have all the information they
need to make informed decisions. Such lack of information leads
to hypersensitivity among individuals and INFIGHTING among groups
[anyone see this anywhere?] We rarely see cooperative problem
solving in an addictive organization. The form of control we see
in addictive organizations puts the power into the hands of a few
manipulators, and coping with it wastes energy that could
otherwise be spent making the organization more effective [THIS is
a BIG reason why Kodak's decentralization of power is producing
such SIGNIFICANT INCREASES in efficiency and effectiveness, in
waste and cost reduction, and in quality in products and actions].
In addictive organizations, power and control are also exerted
through structures that replicate our present political process.
Power in these systems is the ability to get SOMEONE ELSE to do
what YOU want THEM to DO [even though all the authority is held by
those holding all the power - catch 22]. Inside organizations,
coalitions and power groups are formed that use the political
process, hence promises are often made and rarely KEPT [no ethics,
no doing what's right]. People are approached as OBJECTS and a
MEANS to an end, although superficially they are treated with the
utmost respect and friendliness [and in "some" cases, not even
this tokenism].
The political process is, in fact, a model for organizational
functioning in many groups. Consequently, concepts of pluralism
and democracy exist and are verbalized, but the REALITY is one of
dishonesty, control and co-dependence. As organizations get
sicker, the addictive processes increase, and individuals and
groups will go to extreme lengths to get their way [firing people
or threatening to do so right to the wire, all without
justification and due process, as an example].
In an open system, people say what they want and need, hear
others' needs, and then negotiate solutions acceptable to all
[like in everyone being a Digital PARTNER, owning rights and
responsibilities to build a better and more successful Digital
with authority decentralized to groups as groups, working as
self-managed virtual TEAMS with leaders of the group's choice].
However, addictive systems revert to power plays, collusion,
lobbying, and manipulation as forms of control.
Competition is integrated into the addictive organization. When
the organization chooses to SET employees AGAINST each other for a
reward, it is promoting a process by which people receive the
validation from outside themselves. It is setting up the other as
an object, and rewards come from beating out [and typically also
BEATING UP] other persons or groups.
Competition is intrinsic to an addictive organization, both
internally and externally. Some people have stated that
external competition is necessary, claiming that they have no way
of avoiding competitive relationships with other manufacturers
making the same product. Our response is that there is a
QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE between being in business to beat out a
competitor and being in business to make a product or render a
service that is the best one can do [Digital espouse this
philosophy but does it practice within the hallways in how
employees compete up the ladder for power, money, control and
other perceived desires. Do most compete by being THE BEST in
knowledge, intuition, wisdom, leadership, ethics, all reflected in
the QUALITY of their individual WORK and practices? Or by
ruthless manipulation, politicking, always "looking good" and
BEATING other employees using whatever methods and means get the
desired end desired to fulfill personal ambition].
Addictive organizations believe if they can get the form [the
"fix"] right, they do not have to deal with the underlying disease
process. There is a firm conviction that when STRUCTURES [lots of
rules and red tape] can be PERFECTED, the people inside them are
then adequately CONTROLLED [would employees conducting themselves
as REAL partners "need" to be controlled?].
Form as a fix is a constant pursuit of something that will take
the complexity out of the organization and make it perfectly
predictable [an impossibility, especially these days with
technology AND the exchange of information going at breakneck
speed].
All of these structural components result in ethical
deterioration, the ultimate breakdown of the addictive
organization. When organizations have lost touch with their
essential purpose, their consumers, and their own employees
because they are into the processes and structures we have
described here, they are by definition, morally bankrupt. They
are no longer able to honor the contract they have made with
society, with their workers, and with themselves.
Through it all, we should remember that they are NOT bad
organizations getting GOOD, they are sick trying to get well.
They are hurting at many levels and are in need of recovery. We
must also recognize that PARTIAL recoveries or "FIXES" are NOT
adequate. They may bring temporary relief, and they do NOT
address the REAL ISSUES.
|
| 1208.29 | controllling and "self-elected" censors | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Mon Oct 22 1990 13:22 | 75 |
|
An employee has sent me a memo "requesting" that I remove my excerpts
and not post any without my having "official" permission. Here is my
reply, copied to corporate personnel:
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 22-Oct-1990 09:51am EDT
From: David Carnell @ALF
CARNELL.DAVID
Dept: PROPOSAL DESIGN RESOURCE CENTER
Tel No: DTN 385-2901
TO: {removed}
CC: Remote Addressee ( JIM PITTS @MLO )
CC: Remote Addressee ( JOHN SIMS @CORE )
CC: Remote Addressee ( ALAN ZIMMERLE @CFO )
Subject: RE: DIGITAL #1208 - VAXnotes Conference Topic
Thank you for your attached memo of protest.
In my opinion, by way of your memo, you are inappropriately
attempting to censure and intimidate me into silence and to keep
co-workers ignorant and unaware of deep underlying problems
within Digital by restricting the free flow of information within
this company.
Since there must be about 200 books on this subject, if I wish to
pull excerpts from any or all these books "for fair use for
discussion purposes" to enlighten employees within a proper forum
for discussion of the merits of my arguments around co-dependency
within Digital within this topic in the DIGITAL VAXnotes
conference, or in the hallway for that matter, then I should be
entitled to do so without harassment. The amount of material I
am excerpting from any given book is minute compared to the
overall length of the book material within any book I reference.
Please cease and desist from interfering with freedom of
expression and open sharing of information pertinent to how we
work in Digital, including the discussion of any problem, as
defined by any Digital employee and supported as he or she sees
fit, including the use of excerpts from published materials.
If you have a problem with excerpts being quoted to intelligently
support open debate, then you SHOULD have sent your memo raising
the issue to corporate personnel, John Sims. Not to me. Your
sending it, demanding I stop and in fact remove my entries, to me
smacks of intimidation and self-elected "official" censorship on
your part. Digital already has thousands of such "controllers"
of information and we need less of this, not more. I will not
comply with your demands.
Since I have already extracted my entries and have forwarded them
to Jim Pitts and John Sims as an aid to understanding deep
problems within Digital, I shall take the liberty of forwarding
this memo with yours to them also and if they with corporate
legal wish to limit excerpts not having "official permission"
from ANY and ALL published sources, thereby restricting the free
flow of information, then THEY can make the decision as to what
articifial number of words will be allowed.
Note, however, that such a decision would also then have to
impact all innumerable "copies" made of published "articles" on
Xerox machines which are subsequently distributed by the tens of
thousands of copies every month within Digital, all done without
anyone HAVING "official" permission as you would now advocate.
David
("incoming" memo to me deleted since I do not have official permission
from the author to share it publicly. Perhaps said employee will post
it here to complete the rathole).
|
| 1208.30 | | CSSE32::LESLIE | Andy | Mon Oct 22 1990 14:03 | 15 |
| I requested the removal of copyright materials in mail to you and the
Moderators of this conference.
Your protest at my "demands" is an emotive reaction and is an
inappropriate reaction in my opinion.
"I" am not "demanding" anything. As a former DIGITAL moderator and as a
long-time moderator of many conferences, I expressed an opinion and a
request.
Asking your respect for copyright laws isn't censorship.
I leave any decision on this up to the Moderators of this conference.
/andy
|
| 1208.31 | go to a VP everytime you don't think a note is in the companies best interest? | CVG::THOMPSON | Aut vincere aut mori | Mon Oct 22 1990 14:26 | 12 |
| >If you have a problem with excerpts being quoted to intelligently
>support open debate, then you SHOULD have sent your memo raising
>the issue to corporate personnel, John Sims. Not to me.
I find I must disagree with these lines. This is Digital were
one generally tries to solve problems at the lowest level possible.
With Notes issues the lowest level is with the author of a note
and one should ALWAYS IMHO start there. The next level is the
conference moderators. Only if all else fails should "real"
management get involved.
Alfred
|
| 1208.32 | what's the REAL issue here | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Mon Oct 22 1990 14:41 | 17 |
|
Ref: .31
Sorry, Alfred, but I think there is a need here for Corporate to get
involved in defining more precisely what is or is NOT allowed in the
communication of published information within Digital, whether said
published information is related to information/computer technology or
to issues relating to "how" we work in Digital, and appropriate
problems, the latter which are legitimate topics for discussion and
debate in this conference. When entire VERY LONG articles are
reproduced via copiers and distributed in hardcopy throughout Digital,
all without permission, the argument over excerpts, which are minute
compared to the entire book becomes less of an issue over what is or is
not fair use of copyright material. I submit the "problem" HERE is NOT
excerpts of copyright material but rather the nature of the content of
these particular excerpts and THIS particular topic.
|
| 1208.33 | my opinion regarding this topic content | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Mon Oct 22 1990 15:06 | 28 |
|
It has been brought to my attention that I have failed to post my
opinion in this topic so far -- I guess I thought it was self-evident.
I believe the model of comparing dysfunctional organizational practices
to having characteristics comparable to that of an addict and his or
her family of co-dependents is extremely accurate, closer to what I
perceive to be a deep underlying problem and truth than any other model
I've seen postulated by any business guru in the United States.
I believe the excerpts from Co-Dependency and The Addictive
Organization accurately depict characteristics that are everyday
"norms" within many "pockets" within Digital. I believe surface
solutions will not GUARANTEE Digital's future prosperity, especially
against IBM and more particularly, Japanese computer/information
technology competitors, who are increasingly coming to "own" this
industry, as they have successfully accomplished in several other major
INDUSTRIES, created and formerly "owned" by American corporations.
I believe the better solution is to finally ferret out the REAL
underlying problems, understand and acknowledge them, and then address
them. I believe the cornerstone of such a solution lies in a major
paradigm shift within Digital, bottom to top, top to bottom, where
essentially all employees become TRUE Digital "partners" owning joint
rights and responsibilities to build a better and more successful
Digital (see other topic on Paradigm Shift in Digital and host of other
topics and discussions within the last 300 topics in this conference).
|
| 1208.34 | so you are telling people they don't mean what they say they mean? | CVG::THOMPSON | Aut vincere aut mori | Mon Oct 22 1990 15:21 | 8 |
| > I submit the "problem" HERE is NOT
> excerpts of copyright material but rather the nature of the content of
> these particular excerpts and THIS particular topic.
I submit that the problem *is* the excerpts of copyright material
and that you have no reason to believe Andy has any other motive.
Alfred
|
| 1208.35 | Maybe someone should call a lawyer | CARTUN::MISTOVICH | | Mon Oct 22 1990 16:10 | 2 |
| I seem to remember that under copyright, most or entire works may not
be copied, but portions for discussion may be.
|
| 1208.36 | | CSSE32::LESLIE | Andy | Mon Oct 22 1990 16:45 | 5 |
| re: .34
Thank you, Alfred. My motives are as stated.
/andy
|
| 1208.37 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 22 1990 17:03 | 18 |
| re somebody should call a lawyer.
Lawyers give opinions, but will not normally discuss specific cases.
Somewhere, probably in this conference, maybe in some others; I don't recall
where right now, I posted what our corporate lawyers have officially put into
writing on the topic of fair use.
Fair use is not well-defined. Posting excerpts moves from fair use to
prohibited use when it is done systematically or in too great a quantity,
and especially where it prevents the copyright holder from gaining profits
from additional sales of the copyrighted material.
Since it's not well-defined, if we ask for a corporate rule, we'll end up
with a "no posting of copyrighted material" rule which will work against
all of us.
/john
|
| 1208.38 | | CSSE32::LESLIE | Andy | Mon Oct 22 1990 17:17 | 2 |
| As previously stated, I think that it's the call of the Moderators -
and I'm willing to abide by their decision, whichever way it goes.
|
| 1208.39 | | RICKS::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 225-5487, 223-3326 | Mon Oct 22 1990 17:21 | 10 |
| Look, if it's an area of uncertainty and we push the powers that be
into making a ruling on what can and cannot go into notes, the powers
that be will make the most conservative decision. This issue should be
dropped, IMHO. There have not been flagrant violations per my
understanding of "fair use", but if it becomes a big enough issue you
can count on "persons of responsibility" to take a conservative
position.
Steve
|
| 1208.40 | I detect an inconsistency | SMAUG::GARROD | An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late | Mon Oct 22 1990 19:58 | 6 |
| I find this amusing. Here is Mr Carnell who is always arguing for
employee empowerment saying that corporate should come down and say
whether it is OK / not OK for him to post these excerpts. Make up your
mind, Sir!
Dave
|
| 1208.41 | | ESCROW::KILGORE | $ EXIT 98378 | Mon Oct 22 1990 20:01 | 5 |
|
...seems like the real problem is a legitimate difference of opinion
that got moved by .29 into a public forum, for apparently no good
reason...
|
| 1208.42 | VAXnote Wars! An opportunity to grow thru conflict | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Mon Oct 22 1990 22:07 | 60 |
|
REF: 1208.40 SMAUG::GARROD
>><< I find this amusing. Here is Mr Carnell who is always arguing for
employee empowerment saying that corporate should come down and say
whether it is OK / not OK for him to post these excerpts. Make up your
mind, Sir!>>
I find it amusing that so many can attack everything but never have an
intelligent discussion and debate related to the content of a topic,
and what truths might be found that could lead to change, and building
a better Digital in which to work, and a more successful future
Digital!
You got it backwards, Sir. It is Leslie that wishes referenced
excerpts removed because HE has decided, as self-proclaimed good
citizen defending the rights of published authors everywhere, that my
excerpts are too long (gosh, this is getting to be a very old broken
record, but if you want to keep playing it, that's your pleasure) --
has Leslie sent Ken Olsen memos warning him of the dangers of thousands
of Digital personnel making unauthorized copies of 100% of authors'
works, like in articles, distributed everyday throughout Digital. My
excerpts are less than 1% of the authors' works (books) referenced.
Fair use, I say.
No, I copied corporate to protest intimidation. The excerpts ARE okay
for me to post, did not nor do not require me getting anyone's "okay"
beforehand to post as fair use, and it is going to take corporate
involvement to have them yanked -- not Mr. Leslie sending me mail
saying he doesn't "like" what I'm communicating -- using whatever
definition of what "like" is as he wishes.
The hypocrisy communicated doesn't sit at my end, Sir.
REF: 1208.41 ESCROW::KILGORE
>><< ...seems like the real problem is a legitimate difference of opinion
that got moved by .29 into a public forum, for apparently no good
reason...>>
Ah, but there is a reason for me to move it to a public forum. I'm
quite aware of lots of people who have been intimidated into silence by
such maneuvers and who have failed to either be assertive for their
rights to express their opinions, to use the open door policy for
redress, or to file grievances against wrongs that clearly break both
the expoused rules within Digital as well as its values. By making
this issue public, and by demonstrating by action that I am not going
to be run roughshod by anyone, perhaps all the hundreds, thousands
even, of others who get these little memos, little phone calls, and
little remarks, will also stand and put a stake in the ground, saying,
"I'm doing what's right in my actions. Let's escalate and let the damn
light of day see which of us is peddling the bureaucratic bs."
Now, do you suppose all of you could address the contents. Like
expressing your opinion that NONE of the characteristics listed in the
excerpts are found in this company; or all; or which ones and whether
this model offers any direction that "should" be explored further to
understand what's bottlenecking real change and real employee
participation in building this company.
|
| 1208.43 | Ignore the moderators; they have no authority over you | SMAUG::GARROD | An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late | Tue Oct 23 1990 01:23 | 20 |
| Re .-1
David, it was you who took the bait from Andy Leslie. If you believe it
is OK to post excerpts (personally it looks OK to me, but that doesn't
have much to do with it) then post the excerpts and take responsibility
for them. My approach would be to simply ignore all the high handed
moderators and self appointed pseudo moderators. If you genuinely
believe that what you are doing is right and are willing to take
responsibility for your notes then post them, ignore 'helpful' comments
from self appointed policemen, repost your notes if they are deleted
thus forcing the pseudo policemen to escalate the matter themselves.
Since the assumption is that what you are doing is right you'll have
nothing to fear if and when someone with 'real' authority over you
challenges you.
Just one thing though. If you actually expect people to read these
excerpts I'd humbly suggest that you paraphrase them otherwise people
will just next unseen past them; that's what I've been doing.
Dave
|
| 1208.44 | | ESCROW::KILGORE | $ EXIT 98378 | Tue Oct 23 1990 10:46 | 9 |
|
re .-2
...and do stop trying to save the little people. Work on your own
arguments; they're on quite unstable ground as it is. Keep private
disagreements where they belong -- private.
|
| 1208.45 | no, I won't stop | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Tue Oct 23 1990 11:17 | 15 |
| Ref: <<< Note 1208.44 by ESCROW::KILGORE "$ EXIT 98378" >>>
>><<...and do stop trying to save the little people.>>
Little people? Where have I heard that before. Oh yeah. Didn't hotel
magnate Leona Helmsley have a opinion regarding employees and worker
bees in general, the "little" people? I believe her true feelings came
out in the quote, "Only the little people pay taxes."
Again, when will you begin discussing the contents of the topic instead
of diverting attention into ratholes? One might think the model
presented by me in this topic (addict/co-dependent dysfunctional
behaviors) was hitting too close to home to warrant intelligent debate
and discussion.
|
| 1208.46 | | CSSE32::LESLIE | Andy | Tue Oct 23 1990 12:10 | 28 |
| Well, since Mr Carnell seems determined to publicly impune my motives
and accuse me of intimidation, I see no reason not to reply likewise in
public.
David,
when I mailed you and the Moderators of DIGITAL, it was as a
concerned DEC citizen, wanting to ensure that what was going on was
kosher. I have seen problems regarding copyright materials being posted
in Notes Conferences before and wished to ensure that all concerned
knew what they were about. You reaction - to insult and attempt to
intimidate me by a) taking this discussion public and b) copying your
reply to amongst others, John Sims, tells its own story. If I was he,
by the way, I'd be getting might sick of people who don't sort out
their own problems without jumping to VP level at the slightest
provocation. Don't you think they have better things to do? Well, let
me tell you a not-so secret - they do. Sort out your own messes,
instead of creating more.
Frankly, I have real work to do - as presumably do you. I intend to
get on with that instead of particpating in any continuing
conversations here with someone who has totally lost any respect I
might have had for them from past discussions.
In the meantime, will the Moderators please make their decision?
Thanks
Andy
|
| 1208.47 | | STAR::ROBERT | | Tue Oct 23 1990 12:46 | 28 |
| re: copyright
I think Andy was totally in order to raise the copyright issue, and
to raise it directly with the author was correct and proper. The
facts, as they've been given here by both parties, do not suggest
intimidation and I can't see any reason to escalate it to the levels
that it has apparently been taken.
David, I'm sorry you see that as intimidation. I would have
considered Andy's question to be a legitimate one, REGARDLESS
of whether the postings are legal or not.
We work in a company that is heavily dependent on intellectual
property and we must needs be follow a high standard with regard
to these issues. We must be scrupulous in the way we observe
copyright, patent, license, trademark, trade-secret, and other
mechanisms if we are to expect our customers to also observe
these business and legal practices. Declaring questions of
legitmacy to be "intimidation" is itself intimidation; I would
hate to think that some employee would fail to question such
behavior in the future because they might be reported to a VP.
Let me repeat: even though 1000 lawyers may say that Andy's concern
is misplaced, he IS STILL CORRECT TO RAISE IT. (Of course, they
may say the opposite ;-). Andy's behavior is completely consistent
with the empowerment and initive that you seek of all employees.
- greg
|
| 1208.48 | | CSS::DCOX | | Tue Oct 23 1990 12:51 | 21 |
| re><<< Note 1208.43 by SMAUG::GARROD "An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late" >>>
> -< Ignore the moderators; they have no authority over you >-
A voice of reason popped in.
I would offer a slight modification of otherwise sound advice;
> for them. My approach would be to simply ignore all the high handed
> moderators and self appointed pseudo moderators. If you genuinely
> believe that what you are doing is right and are willing to take
> responsibility for your notes then post them, ignore 'helpful' comments
Instead of "ignore"ing them, recognize that, for the most part, they are
creative, well meaning individuals and THANK them for taking the time to
contribute to your "good ideas". Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, nor
does it mean that they are right, just that you acknowledged that they care
enough to voice an opinion.
I have yet to find any good reason NOT to be polite.
Dave
|
| 1208.49 | Not relevent, I think | TLE::MINAR::BISHOP | | Tue Oct 23 1990 14:13 | 24 |
| Back to the topic:
No, I don't think the concepts of "addictive" or "co-dependent"
have any meaning in large organizations driven by gain. Small
organizations driven by personal affection (e.g. families) is
where co-dependence happens.
I believe, however, that organizations with unclear lines of
authority or poor accountability suffer from a problem which
cannot be cured without restructuring the organization. Putting
"good" managers into a bad structure will only turn those people
into "bad" managers. I also believe that organizations within
which there is a power struggle suffer from a problem which can
look to an outside observer as though the organization is, as a
whole, bent on its own destruction.
For the organizational equivalent of family disorders, I think
you have to add an element of compulsion, as has existed in
totalitarian countries: there everyone must proclaim an ideological
fervor almost none feel, and must fear accusation of thought crimes
no one can defend against. Such a shared lie is close to what
happens in familes called "co-dependent".
-John Bishop
|
| 1208.50 | Aren't ratholes fun? | DR::BLINN | Carpe Diem | Tue Oct 23 1990 14:22 | 39 |
| The "official" moderators of this conference have considered the
issue raised by this topic, and have concluded that we are unable
to determine a clear dividing line for "Fair Use" of copyrighted
materials. We could have a simple, hard-and-fast rule that would
ban all copyrighted materials, unless explicit permission had been
obtained from the copyright owner, and the person posting them had
stated that he or she had obtained permission. We think that
would be a waste of everyone's time, and suppress discussion of
ideas that are worth discussing. So we don't want to make that a
rule of this conference. (Other conference moderators may have
chosen to make that a rule in the conferences they moderate, and
if you have problems with that, please take them up either in some
other topic in this conference, or with the moderators of the
other conferences.)
It's my *personal opinion* that David Carnell's excerpts comprise
"fair use" of the materials in question, but I'm not a lawyer and
I'm not the copyright holder. I appreciate Andy Leslie's concern
about the extent of the extracts. It's clear David was not trying
to "pirate" the materials, since he clearly attributed them to the
sources. That allows anyone who wants more information to obtain
and read the original, which is appropriate. I wish David had put
more of his own comments interspersed with the materials, since it
would strengthen a claim of "fair use" for purposes of discussion,
but he did not do so. And I wish Andy had addressed his concerns
to David outside this conference, and if he could not get what he
felt was a satisfactory outcome, he had contacted the moderators
outside the conference. But that did not happen, either.
Until and unless we are instructed by "higher authority" that the
copyrighted materials reproduced here should be removed from this
conference because, in the opinion of someone qualified to make
that judgement, they either violate the "fair use" rules or that
the risk to Digital that they violate the rules is too great, we
plan to leave the materials here.
Perhaps we can get back to the original topic?
Tom
|
| 1208.51 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 23 1990 15:11 | 11 |
| re .50
>I wish Andy had addressed his concerns to David outside this conference,
Excuse me, but if you look at .29, you'll see that Andy did just that.
David seems to believe that any time anyone disagrees with him, he's
being "intimidated." We've run into this with him more than one time
before. I think he needs to learn the difference between intimidation
and disagreement. I'm not sure how that's done -- maybe someone should
_really_ intimidate him. :-)
|
| 1208.52 | | CARTUN::MISTOVICH | | Tue Oct 23 1990 16:02 | 22 |
| re: .51
Andy claims that his memo to David was not an attempt at intimidation;
David claims it was. Unless we see the actual memo, we have no way of
gauging the tone or intent.
Back to the original topic:
I can see some similarities in co-dependent relations within families
and co-dependencies within an organization. Since most people learn
behavior within the context of family relationships, it is not
impossible that behavior patterns would carry through to to
relationships that exist within other contexts.
Also, I disagree with the noter who stated something about family
relationships being based on affection, while corporate relationships
are based on profit. You, clearly, were never exposed to my family.
In any event, co-dependency is kind of passe, so I think I'll skip
out of this note. Must say that I enjoyed the rathole immensely!
Mary
|
| 1208.53 | Let's see what John Sims has to say | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Tue Oct 23 1990 16:37 | 22 |
| <<< Note 1208.51 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>><<David seems to believe that any time anyone disagrees with him,
he's being "intimidated." We've run into this with him more than one
time before. I think he needs to learn the difference between
intimidation and disagreement. I'm not sure how that's done -- maybe
someone should _really_ intimidate him. :-) >>
Well, John. You now seem to be encouraging "someone at large" with
clout to come get me. If an employee following your public advice to
40,000 employees now physically threatens me, am I now free to sue you
and Digital on the basis of this public written note?
I believe an individual just lost a civil case in Oregon (?) for
instigating violence -- $12,000,0000, I believe.
Or are you not so subtlely suggesting an official hard put down by an
executive in Digital? On what justification will you defend your call
for someone "to really intimidate me?"
Let's find out.
|
| 1208.54 | help for the humour impaired | STAR::HUGHES | You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred. | Tue Oct 23 1990 16:43 | 6 |
| re .53
Are we to take it that you missed the 'smiley face' at the end of
John's last sentence?
gary
|
| 1208.55 | humour? really | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Tue Oct 23 1990 16:49 | 4 |
|
Organized crime hitters smile too in order to get close. Sorry, but
smiley faces don't cut it on this.
|
| 1208.56 | Calm down, David. You're on a wrong tack. | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 23 1990 16:52 | 8 |
| I don't know whether he missed the smiley face, but if he forwarded it to
John Sims, I may find out whether John Sims knows what a smiley face is.
BTW, David, that's a good example of the difference between intimidation
and disagreement. You might disagree with my reply and tell me so; when
you threaten me with John Sims and $12,000,000 lawsuits, that's intimidation.
/john
|
| 1208.57 | One more rathole couldn't hurt | ASABET::COHEN | | Tue Oct 23 1990 17:25 | 20 |
|
For what it's worth, the extended quotation of the material
in question is a violation of copyright laws. (As a rule of
thumb, to quote anything over two hundred words you better
have a very good reason.)
Therefore, David is also correct in noting violation by many
other members of this corporation who copy complete chapters
of books without permission. The same goes for magazine and
newspaper articles which are reproduced for distribution in
the company without express editorial consent.
So, what we have are many people breaking the law followed by
a spate of the pot calling the kettle black salvos. There
simply isn't a prison large enough to hold all of Digital's
offenders.
And a parting comment, as noted before by another, we are a
company which claims copyright to a number of products. To
violate the copyright of others is not only in very poor taste,
it goes down *very* poorly in a court of law.
Do whatever you feel is right.
|
| 1208.58 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 23 1990 17:29 | 6 |
| re .57
Would you please post your qualifications for judging the fine line between
fair use and copyright violations?
Thanks/john
|
| 1208.59 | let's talk about it | LEMAN::DAVEED | What you get is how you do it | Tue Oct 23 1990 17:33 | 17 |
| Could we get on with discussing co-dependency?
Maybe I can distract folks from this digression by opening discussion
on something that alot of field hands talk about. Is the relationship
between SWS and Sales a sick co-dependency? Frequently SWS people will
complain about being treated like mushrooms by Sales...at the same time,
the same people seem to increase their output the more they're dumped on.
And many in Sales will treat SWS folks like they had leprosy...then later
practically court them in order to get a "fix" (e.g., PID delivered to
customer, special demo to close a sale, etc). Sounds similar to an
individual's substance abuse cycle. Is this a little example of what
David was talking about? Am I describing a common situation or is this
unusual? Is this SWS insecurity/looking_for_approval interacting with
Sales insecurity/exploitative_control_trip? Are we ready/willing to
discuss this? Is this provocative enough to get us off ad hominum?
-dinesh. :-) :-)
|
| 1208.60 | RE: .59 | YUPPIE::COLE | A CPU cycle is a terrible thing to waste | Tue Oct 23 1990 17:41 | 6 |
| If that is co-dependency, then it's not a new problem by any means!
That's been the Sales/Services relationship norm for the 14+ years I've been
in SWS/EIS.
And if you think life is tough now for Sales Support, we used to do
that AND product warranty support AND revenue services!
|
| 1208.61 | After a while, any attention or help will do | SVBEV::VECRUMBA | Do the right thing! | Tue Oct 23 1990 17:51 | 12 |
| re .59
Or is it that we're just pressed so "up against it" that we'll just keep
working harder and harder to get any show of appreciation and will trade
any kind of favor to get help for what we need to do or have done?
"Have _you_ sent out a thank you note today to someone who deserves it?"
And not this let me make you visible to your manager cloying bull***t, just
a plain thank you, _one-on-one_.
/Petes
|
| 1208.62 | I'm member kind 1 today. What kind of member are you? | TLE::AMARTIN | Alan H. Martin | Tue Oct 23 1990 17:53 | 53 |
| Digital Internal Use Only
From the "1989-1990 Internal Guide to Digital Organizations", EL-ENGRS-OM:
Page 243:
"
Chapter 24
LEGAL SERVICES FOR ENGINEERING/MANUFACTURING
The Engineering Law Section of the Digital Law Department fills the roles of
general counsel to the Engineering/Manufacturing organization, and worldwide
intellectual property and product liability expert for the entire corporation.
This section provides basic legal information for Digital employees, explains
how to deal with the most common legal problems, and tells how to contact an
Engineering lawyer if you need more help.
"
Page 263:
"
24.5.4 HOW TO AVOID LEGAL PITCALLS WHEN YOU WRITE
The outcome of lawsuits can be affected by correspondence written years before
by people who never thought about how their words would sounds in court.
Whenever anything is written (either in hardcopy or electronically) - a memo, a
letter, a note - remember that your words might be read some day by an
unfriendly competitor or customer, or by an enthusiastic government prosecutor
who may interpret its language in the most sinister way possible.
For this reason:
* Don't speculate in writing about the legality or ethics of Digital's
actions. While you should be concerned if you have any questions about the
legality of any action, the way to handle this situation is to contact the
Law Department, and to find out. Speculation might be thought (incorrectly) to
be evidence that the company has recognized a law violation, and had tried to
camoflage it in some way.
"
Conclusion: the Law Department insists that there be exactly two kinds of
members of this conference:
1. Those who have no concerns about the legality of its contents
-and-
2. Those who have concerns, but address them by contacting the Law Department
for more help.
A third kind of member: one who speculates in writing about the legality or
ethics of some action, must not appear.
/AHM
|
| 1208.63 | C'mon, the rathole's been the best part of this note.... | ESCROW::KILGORE | $ EXIT 98378 | Tue Oct 23 1990 17:56 | 16 |
|
Re .59:
Don't try to intimidate me out of my digression!! :-) :-)
(smiley faces)
Seriously, perhaps the reason we rat-hole so easily is because it's
hard to find merit in the co-dependency theory as applied to Digital
operations.
Re .56:
He also wouldn't know sarcasm (.45) if it bit him on the tush. Is there
a prescribed sarcastic face? (Not that it would do any good.) :-)
(smiley face)
|
| 1208.64 | healthy strokes or addicts' "fix" ? | LEMAN::DAVEED | What you get is how you do it | Tue Oct 23 1990 18:12 | 17 |
| re .60
The fact that it's been going on for a long time isn't the issue.
Is it healthy and wholesome? If not, what steps can we take towards
restoring health?
re .61
My ears are sore from listening to my colleagues complain about this
and it seems to be negatively affecting their performance now more than
before. Is this just a local issue? How do I persuade Sales to give
my colleagues more strokes? Is this just another quick "fix" ?
Other suggestions?
Thanks,
-dinesh.
|
| 1208.65 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Oct 23 1990 18:30 | 2 |
| I vote for making this the official copyright/intimidation note. The
co-dependency argument is boring.
|
| 1208.66 | | ASABET::COHEN | | Tue Oct 23 1990 18:42 | 19 |
|
Re: .58
Can't site legal expertise, but I have been involved with
publications, reproductions, and with broadcasting off and on
(mainly on) for roughly twenty years. This includes both
written and pictorial items. I've written, edited, created,
placed, and read material in newspapers, magazines, books,
over the air, and was involved with reproducing original
art for commercial applications.
I'd require a release to use that much material. It can be hidden
here, but in the real world. . .
I just did a voice over for a radio commercial and wanted to use
ten seconds of an original track by a local band. I called.
They were flattered. But I got them to sign off. Lawsuits can
be so messy.
As I said earlier, do what you want. You probably won't get
caught here. However, to the best of my experience, I wouldn't
quote that extensively.
|
| 1208.67 | We're probably more like news (old, new, and otherwise) | SVBEV::VECRUMBA | Do the right thing! | Tue Oct 23 1990 18:50 | 14 |
|
To digress to the "other topic"...
When the VNS still had letters to the editor, I obtained a study and
reproduced figures from it -- the institute categorized me as news media
and released the materials to me.
So, electronic or paper, what can the "news" quote without violating
copyright?
And, for those of you bored by the original and alternate topics, what
kind of "news" are we (HUMAN::DIGITAL), anyway? :-)
/Petes
|
| 1208.68 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 23 1990 19:17 | 8 |
| re .66
But the DEC document on fair use (where _did_ I put that) draws a distinction
between the kind of use you are talking about -- use of copyrighted materials
in sales literature or other externally disseminated materials like radio
shows -- and the kind of use we have here -- a completely internal discussion.
/john
|
| 1208.69 | root causes - what is the addiction | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Thu Oct 25 1990 11:58 | 61 |
|
Someone asked, "Just what is the root cause that causes all the surface
problems and impediments to real change and real employee participation
to build a more successful Digital?"
I believe the root cause to be that the wrong people (some, not all)
are being promoted into manager's jobs, upward into higher manager's
jobs, and perpetuated in manager's jobs. They are wrong because they
have little leadership skills, no inclination to lead others to greater
success, and are driven by inappropriate motivations that these days
are detrimental to a corporation, and even to a society.
What are the motivations that have driven such people into management,
and into clinging to said jobs and empires at all costs? What is the
addiction as eluded to in THE ADDICTIVE ORGANIZATION?
A survey that appeared on national television this morning briefly
noted the definition of business success by 1,000 American executives
as they defined it. Overwhelmingly it was defined in one word: RESPECT.
Success to these managers meant "respect" by bosses, peers,
subordinates, the organization, society.
But which way is respect manifested in reality? Esteem and honour for
leading the members of an organization to greater success? Or respect
as in deferential treatment?
I believe the latter: deferential regard -- with power, you get control
with others doing it YOUR way, regardless of what way is pursued, if
even said "ways" lack competence and common sense and are disasterous
to the organization.
Respect above all other considerations. I submit the driving
motivation is really power, control and deferential regard by all
people within the sphere of a person driven to "get respect."
The motivation to be a manager by many simply is NOT to lead the
members of an organization to higher levels of success, to grow a
greater enterprise, where all members benefit from said leadership and
attained results, with then said "respect" being solely from a
reflection from accomplishing this.
But how can you change "the system" that puts many who are wrong into
manager's jobs when "the system" cannot be changed because it is
controlled by those who would perpetuate promoting wrong people rather
than ONLY people devoted and driven to lead OTHERS to success without
thought to attaining and retaining personal reward, glory, power and
control? Thus, to make an addiction organization better requires
awareness and understanding of the root causes and effects, and then
within heightened enlightenment, a major paradigm shift has a chance of
happening.
If Digital is to attain and retain GREATER success in the year 2000+ I
believe it will necessitate all employees being regarded as TRUE
Digital partners owning joint rights and responsibilities to build a
better and more successful Digital, accepted by all employees, with all
continuously effecting millions of "improving" changes in all
processes, lead by real leaders who driven and motivated by real ethics
and altruistic values to the total organization, and not driven by
quests for personal glory, power, control and deferential treatment.
|
| 1208.70 | ownership in affecting decisions and change | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Fri Oct 26 1990 00:30 | 92 |
|
An example of a "new paradigm" within GM at Saturn -- see below
memo just sent to Ken Olsen/Jack Smith/John Sims/Win Hindle/Jim Pitts
Subject: The Right Stuff -- new ideas at GM's Saturn facility
As you weight the merits of all the ideas for change being
submitted to you by a wide variety of employees, particularly
those addressing the Digital "system", which drives the behaviors
of all employees, advocating greater employee involvement, I
would like to submit for your consideration a couple short
excerpts from the article THE RIGHT STUFF by S.C. Gwynne,
Detroit, that has appeared in the October 29, 1990 issue TIME
magazine regarding GM's new Saturn facility:
"Why is Saturn so revolutionary for American industry? Primarily
because this attempt to reverse GM's industrial decline
acknowledges for the first time on a large scale the real reason
for Japan's manufacturing superiority over the last two decades.
The secret is not advanced technology or low wages or some
mystical Asian work ethic. Japan's most important advantage is
its management system: the way it deals with employees,
suppliers, dealers and customers. This month a historic,
$5 million M.I.T. study of the world's auto companies concluded
that Japan's advantages boil down to a few elements, including
teamwork, efficient use of resources and a tireless commitment to
improving quality."
"Saturn's best hope is that it represents a profound change in
the way GM manages its people. But the difference is not
technological. Saturn's cavernous, mile-long Tennessee factory
is a medium-tech plant, as are many of the most efficient
facilities in Japan. The core of Saturn's system is one of the
most radical labor-management agreements developed in this
country, one that involves the United Auto Workers in every
aspect of the business. The executive suite in Spring Hill is
shared by president LeFauve and U.A.W. coordinator Richard
Hoalcraft, who often travel together and conduct much of the
company's business in each other's presence.
"Beyond sharing power at the top levels, the labor agreement
established some 165 teams, which have been given more power than
assembly-line workers anywhere else in GM or at any Japanese
plant. They are allowed to interview and approve new hires for
their teams (average size: 10 workers). They are given wide
responsibility to decide how to run their own areas; when workers
see a problem, they can pull on a blue handle and shut down the
entire line. They are even given budget responsibility."
"Not all of Saturn's progressive ideas sprang up in Tennessee.
Many were borrowed from around the world by the Group of 99, a
team of Saturn workers who traveled 2 million miles in 1984 and
looked into some 160 pioneering enterprises, including
Hewlett-Packard, McDonald's, Volvo, Kawasaki and Nissan. Their
main conclusions: that most successful companies provide
employees with a sense of ownership, have few and flexible
guidelines and impose virtually no job-defining shop rules.
"From that blueprint grew the most radical twist in Saturn's
labor agreement, one that is even more democratic than the
Japanese model: provision for consensus decision making. The
Saturn philosophy is that all teams must be committed to
decisions affecting them before those changes are put into place,
from choosing an ad agency to selecting an outside supplier.
'That means a lot of yelling sometimes, and everything takes a
lot longer,' says Jack O'Toole, who oversees Spring Hill
personnel, 'but once they come out of that meeting room, they're
100% committed.'
As you can see from the excerpts, it appears that at Saturn,
all employees are in teams that are self-managed and
self-motivated, all interlinked by the way with connected bonus
sharing as mentioned elsewhere in the article, with groups making
nearly all decisions as groups. One might surmise that the
employees there do regard themselves as Saturn partners owning
joint rights and responsibilities to build continuously and
excitedly a successful Saturn organization and enterprise.
Similarly, as a change in the Digital system, what would happen
if all 125,000 Digital employees in 10,000 groups/teams became
self-managed and self-motivated, linked with interdependent bonus
or profit sharing if high profit goals were obtain, with groups
making nearly all decisions as groups, each considered by you and
by each from within to truly be a Digital "partner" owning joint
rights and responsibilities to build a better and more successful
Digital, greater than what is, relentlessly driving change to
improve all processes to increase quality in all products,
services and indeed in virtually all Digital actions, thereby
increasing our effectiveness to win "preference" in the minds of
our customers, resulting in happy customers and greater levels of
loyalty, revenue, margin and profit?
|
| 1208.71 | Are all these memos helping? | SMAUG::GARROD | An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late | Fri Oct 26 1990 00:35 | 8 |
| Re .-1
I wonder if JS and KO are running out of disk space yet.
I'm getting a little confused with this 'employee empowerment' thing.
Is the reason that you're sending all these book excerpts to the Execs
to encourage them to enforce employee empowerment? There's an oxymoron.
Dave
|
| 1208.72 | I send letters, lots of letters... | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Fri Oct 26 1990 01:06 | 36 |
| Ref: <<< Note 1208.71 by SMAUG::GARROD >>>
>><< Is the reason that you're sending all these book excerpts to the
Execs to encourage them to enforce employee empowerment? There's an
oxymoron.>>
The "system" does not have sufficient checks and balances to guarantee
that the values, ethics and desires (like increased employee
involvement as was specifically expressed), of Ken Olsen and his
executive committee, the REAL culture of Digital in effect, get
translated into action within all groups in Digital. In many pockets,
maybe not yours, but others, including mine, many employees do not see
the ethics, values and desires of the executives of this company. Some
of us believe their absence is detrimental to Digital's success. Yes,
my opinions in memo form are to influence and affect changes, namely
getting compliance from "some" managers who do not share the values,
ethics and direction of Ken Olsen and his executives, and in getting
real leadership that puts employees first as partners rather than
self-serving ambition for power and control, even if at the expense of
employees and the corporation. The better solution is to make pivotal
changes in how the system works, which drives all behaviors of all
employees; simply changing faces is no longer the most effective route
to ensuring greater success for the corporation.
Doing what's right ethically means to me expressing my opinions and
beliefs to those who have the authority to implement such changes; and
this I do, regardless of the system's trial by fire of any new ideas
submitted. Ken and Jack have explicitly invited direct communications,
without pre-judgment of content or quantity or length. I am simply
taking them up on their offer and according to the stated ethics and
values of this company. I consider myself a Digital partner in
affecting change to build this enterprise and I act accordingly.
Have you sent a memo to Ken and Jack yet? I know you have a lot to
say. Send it.
|
| 1208.73 | The Emperor's Newspeak | GLDOA::REITER | | Fri Oct 26 1990 16:21 | 18 |
| There is no such thing as co-dependency. It is not even a theory. There were
never any so-called interdependent societies that vanished without a trace.
This whole business about co-dependency exists only for those who choose to
believe in it, who need to believe in it, or whose livelihoods depend upon
others believing in it.
By itself it explains nothing, and all of its Sunday-supplement-psychology
mumbo-jumbo about "feminine" and "masculine" traits is nothing but a swipe
at neo-urban political correctness, clad in late-20th Century shaman's garb.
It's pure Mad Ave; it sells. This tripe is shoveled down the throats of
everyone from public school children and recovering drug addicts to talk-show
audiences and business executives. And by invoking the tired old "woman good
- man bad" paradigm, the co-dependency Mafia plays the same polarization and
alienation games that they claim to be so far above.
Get real.
\Gary
|
| 1208.74 | | KEYS::MOELLER | Silopsism's not for everyone | Fri Oct 26 1990 17:00 | 36 |
| > <<< Note 1208.73 by GLDOA::REITER >>>
>There is no such thing as co-dependency. It is not even a theory.
You have a lot to learn. There are tens of thousands of people
regularly attending CODA and ACOA meetings every night of the week.
- and getting invaluable information on the underlying causes of
disfunctional behavior, as well as tools and support for their own
change process. There are thousands of counseling professionals that
actively use this 'nonexistent theory' with their clients. With
results.
I am not certain that corporate disfunction patterns are fixable the
same way family disfunctions are, but to say that codependence doesn't
exist only shows your own ignorance.
>This whole business about co-dependency exists only for those who choose to
>believe in it, who need to believe in it, or whose livelihoods depend upon
>others believing in it.
The same thing could be said for any religion, or our own monetary
system. How about viewer sports ? Or politics ?
>By itself it explains nothing, and all of its Sunday-supplement-psychology
>mumbo-jumbo about "feminine" and "masculine" traits is nothing but a swipe
>at neo-urban political correctness, clad in late-20th Century shaman's garb.
Gee, I don't remember anything about masculine or feminine traits and
codependence - could it be you're reaching a bit and dragging out
another pet peeve ?
>Get real. \Gary
GET EDUCATED.
karl
|
| 1208.75 | Huh? | CARTUN::MISTOVICH | | Fri Oct 26 1990 17:51 | 4 |
| Masculine traits vs feminine traits? What does that have to do with
co-dependency?
|
| 1208.76 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Oct 26 1990 18:14 | 1 |
| SOMEBODY got up on the wrong side of bed this morning.
|
| 1208.77 | Selective memory, naked aggression. Tsk. | GLDOA::REITER | | Fri Oct 26 1990 19:59 | 119 |
| Re: 1208.74 KEYS::MOELLER
Hey, Karl,
> You have a lot to learn. There are tens of thousands of people
> regularly attending CODA and ACOA meetings every night of the week.
> - and getting invaluable information on the underlying causes of
> disfunctional behavior, as well as tools and support for their own
> change process. There are thousands of counseling professionals that
> actively use this 'nonexistent theory' with their clients. With
> results.
Words cannot express how happy I am for these people. What does this have to
do with Digital, or as you say...
> I am not certain that corporate disfunction patterns are fixable the
> same way family disfunctions are, but to say that codependence doesn't
> exist only shows your own ignorance.
If you are one of these true believers, you've got an awful lot of untreated
hostility towards people you've never met. Maybe you need more sessions so
you can stop calling people who don't agree with you "ignorant".
> Gee, I don't remember anything about masculine or feminine traits and
> codependence - could it be you're reaching a bit and dragging out
> another pet peeve ?
Could it be that you are "projecting"? Could the Weinholds be misinformed, or
maybe your memory is faulty, or maybe the in crowd forgot the early stages of
its brainwashing. (Hint: my first exposure to this codependency garbage was
_not_ in Notes.) Be careful when you call someone ignorant, it's comes across
as aggression.
But, to assist you in the process, I have excerpted a few paragraphs from Mr.
Carnell's 135-line note 1208.1. I have appended it below. Read it.
No need to apologize, Karl.
Re: 1208.75 CARTUN::MISTOVICH
> -< Huh? >-
> Masculine traits vs feminine traits? What does that have to do with
> co-dependency?
Suppose you tell me. Read the excerpt from 1208.1 or entire note. If you
still don't follow what I am saying, you get your money back. OK?
(PS- Thank you for not calling me ignorant.)
Re: 1208.76 NOTIME::SACKS
> SOMEBODY got up on the wrong side of bed this morning.
No, Gerald, I'm just a read-only noter who's had enough of the whiners in 1128
and the New Wave gurus in 1208. Your 1208.76 is basically an ad hominem attack.
Not nice at all.
Look, your expert opinion is all over this file. I enter my first two notes
in months and all of a sudden it's a problem for you. No, not the wrong side
of the bed, I just don't happen to share your opinions. OK?
\Gary
******************** BEGIN EXCERPT FROM 1208.1 ODIXIE::CARNELL **********
Co-dependency in society: history and characteristics
Quotes from BREAKING FREE OF THE CO-DEPENDENCY TRAP by Barry
and Janae Weinhold.
The Co-Dependent Culture
Dominator vs. Partnership Models
Most people in the addictions field are looking at
co-dependency as an individual problem or family problem.
Some are beginning to examine it as a "systems" problem. A
few are beginning to look at it as a problem of our whole
society.
The Partnership Society
When Eisler delved into prehistory, she found numerous
legends and archeological records that described an earlier
form of civilization in which the culture was organized quite
differently from what we know today. According to these
records, there were large areas in Europe and the near East
which enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity. The
social, technological and cultural development of the
existent society followed a steady move upward. This
civilization, which she identifies as a PARTNERSHIP society,
was based on unity, cooperation and mutual need. The society
* valued the life-giving and nurturing qualities that we might
* consider to be "feminine."
The archeological evidence also reveals that this early
social structure was based on equality. Power, risk-taking
* and rewards were shared without regard to gender. This
cooperative approach helped create unity and harmonious
relationships among people and between people and the planet.
Eisler contends that at a point in prehistory, perhaps around
3500 B.C., this 30-40,000 year era began to wane and the
* qualities of the feminine were gradually replaced with more
* masculine values that structured a completely different kind
of civilization that she identifies as a dominator society.
The Dominator Society
Dominator societies, according to Eisler, exalt the qualities
* that we stereotypically associate with masculinity and value
life-TAKING and destructive activities, such as conquest and
warfare. This social structure, which is based on
inequality, generally ranks one part of society over the
other. Even though the cultural values are what we today
* think of as 'hard' or more 'masculine,' dominator societies
can be either matriarchal or patriarchal. The higher ranked
group holds the power, takes the risks and reaps the rewards,
leaving the lower ranked group to powerlessness and, often,
poverty. Rather than linking people cooperatively, they rank
people competitively, creating a hierarchy that is ultimately
supported by force or the threat of force. This creates an
atmosphere of distrust and separation.
****************** END QUOTE ************************************************
|
| 1208.78 | | MU::PORTER | Small Change got rained on | Fri Oct 26 1990 20:06 | 20 |
| Can I join this rathole?
Co-dependency may or may not exist. I expect that it does. It's
probably a valuable model for describing something like the 'enabling'
behaviour of some (not all) spouses of addicts, and similar cases.
However, this doesn't mean the term is suitable for blanket
application. From my non-expert, decidely jaundiced viewpoint,
there's plenty of opportunity for a charlatan to make a buck
in the self-help-book field.
I think that the author of .73 speaks correctly for many cases
when he labels it as "newspeak". In particular, the usage
in this note is somewhat suspect. It smacks of picking
up the latest trendy terminology (see also "paradigm shift")
and throwing it around with abandon.
I do think DEC has organizational problems, but I don't believe
all this co-dependency claptrap will help matters one iota.
|
| 1208.79 | of people and frogs | LEMAN::DAVEED | What you get is how you do it | Sat Oct 27 1990 01:11 | 34 |
| Most people who have worked with individuals and small groups
undergoing change _including_addicts_ have observed a sequence
that nearly all go through. The sequence is approximately as follows.
Note that at any point, people may regress to an earlier point.
Ignorance unaware of issue or issue doesn't exist yet
Avoidance failure to acknowledge issue (subconscious)
Denial conscious avoidance, e.g. addicts lie to cover up
Confrontation internal &/or group conflict
Depression least understood phase...frequently leads to regression
Acceptance key to change...allows reintegration
Harmony/Community restored balance...change defined, implemented, etc.
Some people treat avoidance/denial and depression/acceptance as the same
phases. Others call them by different names.
In a large group, e.g., Digital employees, there will be a larger
variation between the phases people are in. The replies to this
note have a wierd resemblance to some of the discussions among groups
of addicts and their families ("me? no I'm not addicted." "why do you
want to talk about it? let's talk about football." etc. etc. etc.)
Sure. We're all happy campers. Let's just keep telling ourselves that.
Please _do_not_ actually do the following experiment.
If you put a frog in a pan of cold water and turn on the heat s/he will
remain in the pan until the water boils and the frog dies. If there is
some "sudden" event the frog will jump out of the pan. But the frog
doesn't react to the gradually more hostile environment.
Sometimes people are like frogs.
-dinesh.
|
| 1208.80 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 29 1990 13:26 | 7 |
| Gary --
I replied to your note here after reading your note regarding health insurance.
Your note here is reasonable. Your health insurance note reminds me of
Ed Anger's column in the Weekly World News. At first I thought it was a
put-on. I apologize for my reply here. Please consider it as if it were
in the health insurance note.
|
| 1208.81 | | TOPDOC::AHERN | Dennis the Menace | Tue Oct 30 1990 12:56 | 4 |
| RE: .78 "trendy terminology"
How much are a paradigms? Can I buy just one?
|
| 1208.82 | People cannot free themselves | COUNT0::WELSH | Tom Welsh (UK CASE Marketing) 768-5225 | Tue Oct 30 1990 14:32 | 44 |
| re .18:
>>> I'm getting a little confused with this 'employee empowerment' thing.
>>> Is the reason that you're sending all these book excerpts to the Execs
>>> to encourage them to enforce employee empowerment? There's an oxymoron.
Superficially it looks like an oxymoron, Dave, but I think
this impression will only stick if you are fundamentally
opposed to the ideas. (In which case it is a convenient
pretext for turning your back on them).
Empowerment means that employees have the freedom to take
actions which they believe are good for the business. This
is the opposite to employees doing what they are told, and
nothing else. Obviously these are extremes.
It seems to me that empowerment is better for Digital's
business than unthinking obedience - and what is more,
this balance is tilting further and further. We can less
and less afford to have bosses laying down the law and
employees simply doing what they are told.
Now, there is no way employees can "empower" themselves
if their immediate bosses don't want them to. That leads
at best to disfavour and all its consequences, at worst
to immediate termination. The only way people can be
empowered is if top management tells middle and junior
management that the employees will be empowered OR ELSE.
A historical analogy can be found in Abraham Lincoln's
Emancipation Proclamation. If Lincoln had simply said
"it's up to the slaves to start behaving free, and they
can do that anytime", not much would have been
accomplished. The federal government had to pass laws
to make it a criminal offense to own slaves, and then
there were no more slaves.
Similarly, we need top management in Digital to commit
publicly and consistently to employee empowerment, and
furthermore to act in support of it and to be seen to
do so. Otherwise it won't happen.
/Tom
|
| 1208.83 | A two-way street | TROPIC::BELDIN | Pull us together, not apart | Wed Oct 31 1990 10:11 | 23 |
| "People cannot free themselves".
True, but incomplete.
Freedom or "empowerment" is a description of the relationship between a
person and the society and other persons in that society.
Such relationships as marriage, partnership, employment are usually
formed by negotiation but because they rely on mutual consent, can be
destroyed by either member.
It is true that no person can be empowered without approval from the
formal power holder. It is also true that until they accept the
responsibility to think for themselves instead of waiting for someone
to give them directions, they will not be empowered.
I believe we have been offered the empowerment by Digital's top
management. At this point, the ball is in our court. WE MUST DECIDE
TO USE THE FREEDOM WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN.
Regards,
Dick
|
| 1208.84 | | CARTUN::MISTOVICH | | Thu Nov 01 1990 18:49 | 4 |
| You're right. I didn't read that note. Actually, my knowledge of
co-dependency comes from Bradshaw and company. Masculine vs feminine
roles or traits or whatever are not at the center of co-dependency as I
recall. Just addiction and trying to get needs met.
|
| 1208.85 | "Well, Alice. Now what will you do," says the cat | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Fri Nov 02 1990 14:50 | 28 |
| REF: <<< Note 1208.51 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>><<David seems to believe that any time anyone disagrees with him,
he's being "intimidated." We've run into this with him more than one
time before. I think he needs to learn the difference between
intimidation and disagreement. I'm not sure how that's done -- maybe
someone should _really_ intimidate him. :-)>>
Congratulations.
Following memo just sent to Ross Brown, U.S. Personnel Mgr, and CC, et al.
Subject: Grievance outstanding (see attached memo previously sent)
I was informed a few minutes ago that my tiny cost center, and
therefore my job in proposals, is eliminated. If I fail to take the
buyout offer, I will be put in a resource pool and put on temporary
assignments. Could this be classified as a fulfillment of "real"
intimidation advocated in writing by John Covert to thousands of
Digital employees? It was suggested by the cost center manager that I
start looking at VTX for another job? Anyone looking for an activist
for change who would work out of ALF? Having advocated so much
change, is it likely I would ever find another job? Ethically
speaking, what do you see as the next sequence of events?
David
{grievance memo referenced removed along with distribution}
|
| 1208.86 | Good luck | SMAUG::GARROD | An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late | Fri Nov 02 1990 19:23 | 11 |
| Re .-1
No, it sounds to me like the company has decided that the function you
are/were working for is no longer needed for the ongoing health of
the company. Maybe that explains why you have obviously had so much
spare time over the last few months to compose so many memos.
Good luck, I hope you find a position where your obvious energy can be
channelled in a productive direction.
Dave
|
| 1208.87 | "Apply for a new job! I will, I will," says Alice. | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Fri Nov 02 1990 19:39 | 44 |
| REF: <<< Note 1208.86 by SMAUG::GARROD "An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late" >>>
-< Good luck >-
>><<Re .-1
>><<No, it sounds to me like the company has decided that the function you
are/were working for is no longer needed for the ongoing health of
the company. Maybe that explains why you have obviously had so much
spare time over the last few months to compose so many memos.
>><<Good luck, I hope you find a position where your obvious energy can be
channelled in a productive direction.
>><<Dave>>
Please spare me your sanctomonious insincerity. My productivity was
never affected by being in Notes anymore than yours was -- your
piousness that YOU are productive but I was not is hypocrisy. Save the
bs for someone else.
Insofar as the specific job I was doing, namely creating the written
sales presentations that I personally did that impacted potentially
well over $120,000,000, it seems strange to me that such a function, in
these dire times where we need values-benefits effectively communicated
to customers, that there is suddenly no longer any need for
professionally prepared selling proposals. Retaliation here? Nah,
couldn't possibly be. Could it?
Regarding your good luck cheerio, don't let the door hit me, unless
Digital is going to flat out fire me, I have no intention of
volunteering to leave, and I sure as hell am not going to be
intimidated into silence by you or anyone else at this point. In for a
dollar, in for a nickel more -- you'll be pleased to know that Alice in
response to the cat just mailed his resume to Ken Olsen applying for a
direct reporting position. Refer to earlier topic on creating your own
job. Not likely, but who knows. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
In the meantime, I guess y'all can find me either in the typing pool or
outside trimming the bushes around the ALF facility. After all, why do
we have 10,000 contractors with so many needing positions; I can pick
weeds and throw fertilizer around as good as anyone, even you, Dave.
Ta ta.
|
| 1208.88 | | PSW::WINALSKI | Careful with that VAX, Eugene | Fri Nov 02 1990 21:31 | 17 |
| RE: .85
> I was informed a few minutes ago that my tiny cost center, and
^^^^^^^^^^^
> therefore my job in proposals, is eliminated.
.87:
> Retaliation here? Nah,
> couldn't possibly be. Could it?
Dave, if you honestly believe that the company is canning an entire cost center
merely to get back at you, then you are being either egotistical or paranoid or
both.
--PSW
|
| 1208.89 | Frontline this week was pretty interesting | STAR::BECK | Paul Beck | Fri Nov 02 1990 23:36 | 4 |
| Further, if you believe that the company is nuking your cost
center due to a tongue-in-cheek comment by a software engineer,
then your compaign for the rank-and-file contributors to have more
influence in the policies of the company must be a great success...
|
| 1208.90 | "arrows" for sale or rent, bows to rent, 15 cent | SAHQ::CARNELLD | DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF | Sat Nov 03 1990 13:36 | 55 |
| REF: <<< Note 1208.89 by STAR::BECK "Paul Beck" >>>
>><< Further, if you believe that the company is nuking your cost
center due to a tongue-in-cheek comment by a software engineer,
then your compaign for the rank-and-file contributors to have more
influence in the policies of the company must be a great success...>>
Paul:
Or must be a great threat to some. Some employees being "selected" for
buyout may indeed be selected on the basis of "like" and "being a
member of the club" rather than skills and capabilities to contribute
to a more successful Digital. To believe otherwise is naive.
Speaking of getting intimidated and dinged for creating ideas, in a
previous life at DEC, where I worked here as an American Indian brave
named Falling Rocks, I was dinged then too for submitting ideas for
change, wanting to truly empower all employees into really being
Digital partners, driving change together in harmony, which I believed
would lead to building a better and more successful Digital.
My manager at that time, being a cautious and controlling bureaucrat,
and not wanting anyone creating ideas, making waves, incurring risk,
and challenging the status quo and "the system", and hating with a
passion anyone who expressed their ideas in long memos supported by
excerpts, decided to really silence me and to punish me for my
transgression. He banished me to THE most remote office in Digital.
This Digital office was so remote -- how remote? you ask -- that
within months of my being located there, the office became "lost" --
totally forgotten about by the entire company!
Years passed. Then one day personnel saw that I, as the employee, the
American Indian brave, Falling Rocks, had accumulated 5,763 hours of
vacation time. Sensing if any employee suddenly took this amount of
vacation at one time that Wall Street would panic and the stock would
drop disastrously to 4 dollars, personnel decided to IMMEDIATELY pass
the new policy that restricted the amount of vacation time any
employee could accrue (any going over the limit now being vaporized).
Wanting to ENSURE that I did not take my 5,763 hours of vacation at
once, personnel then began a massive search for me and the lost DEC
colony, uh, office.
The search covered the globe.
Find the lost DEC office, and employee, Falling Rocks! At once!
Alas, to no avail. To this day, you can still see worldwide the
remnants of this massive Digital personnel search by the signs that
are still visible in nearly every country:
WATCH FOR FALLING ROCKS
;-]
|
| 1208.91 | Try Listening, Dave... We want your success! | DNEAST::GREVE_STEVE | Greee Veee King | Thu Nov 15 1990 23:02 | 53 |
|
Dave, as a fellow employee, as a fellow "used to be redundant, but
smartened up and got busy" employee I want to encourage you in the most
positive and friendly way to stop and take a minute to listen to the
feedback these folks are trying to give you.
When folks (folks who cared) tried to tell me to get off my butt,
and get busy, I reacted with anger and self righteousness
(pompousness?) most times, until it was too late, and I was made
redundant.
Now I've got a real job, and I have to work hard each day. I'm
feeling great about myself, and my performance is improving. My
personal advice (and I'm not trying to give you shit or intimidate you)
is to get off the pot, pal, and get busy! Maybe this listing showing
you making almost 25% of the replies to your own base note will be
helpful. Good luck, if you want to talk, give me a call.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DEC way of working
Created: 14-FEB-1986 20:02 1273 topics Updated: 15-NOV-1990 19:37
-< DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY - Policy #1, Dir #1042 >-
Topic Author Date Repl Title
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1208 ODIXIE::CARNELL 1-OCT-1990 90 Co-dependency within Digital
ODIXIE::CARNELL 1-OCT-1990 1208.1 a little history
ODIXIE::CARNELL 1-OCT-1990 1208.2 some characteristics
SAHQ::CARNELLD 12-OCT-1990 1208.19 dysfunctional addictive/co-dependency behaviors
SAHQ::CARNELLD 13-OCT-1990 1208.20 rules in an "addictive system"
SAHQ::CARNELLD 13-OCT-1990 1208.21 long note but worth reading for understanding
SAHQ::CARNELLD 14-OCT-1990 1208.25 dysfunctional thinking processes
SAHQ::CARNELLD 20-OCT-1990 1208.27 management & personnel processes - long note
SAHQ::CARNELLD 20-OCT-1990 1208.28 structual components, fixes, and the real issues
SAHQ::CARNELLD 22-OCT-1990 1208.29 controllling and "self-elected" censors
SAHQ::CARNELLD 22-OCT-1990 1208.32 what's the REAL issue here
SAHQ::CARNELLD 22-OCT-1990 1208.33 my opinion regarding this topic content
SAHQ::CARNELLD 22-OCT-1990 1208.42 VAXnote Wars! An opportunity to grow thru conflict
SAHQ::CARNELLD 23-OCT-1990 1208.45 no, I won't stop
SAHQ::CARNELLD 23-OCT-1990 1208.53 Let's see what John Sims has to say
SAHQ::CARNELLD 23-OCT-1990 1208.55 humour? really
SAHQ::CARNELLD 25-OCT-1990 1208.69 root causes - what is the addiction
SAHQ::CARNELLD 25-OCT-1990 1208.70 ownership in affecting decisions and change
SAHQ::CARNELLD 25-OCT-1990 1208.72 I send letters, lots of letters...
SAHQ::CARNELLD 2-NOV-1990 1208.85 "Well, Alice. Now what will you do," says the cat
SAHQ::CARNELLD 2-NOV-1990 1208.87 "Apply for a new job! I will, I will," says Alice.
SAHQ::CARNELLD 3-NOV-1990 1208.90 "arrows" for sale or rent, bows to rent, 15 cent
|
| 1208.92 | The earthquake is ahead of schedule... | BIGJOE::DMCLURE | Digital charity worker | Fri Nov 16 1990 16:20 | 50 |
| re: the practice in general of equating the sharing of ideas to loafing off,
Anyone who has ever been to a brain-storming session knows that
the quickest way to kill a discussion is to react negatively to an
idea. Beyond that, it is even *more* destructive to react negatively
to the very process of idea generation in the first place! Likewise,
the quickest way to kill the sort of collective brain-storming that
might otherwise take place in a notesfile such as this (as well as
*the entire Delta program itself*) is to start measuring [the lack of]
a given employee's productivity based on the amount of notes one writes
or ideas one submits.
SET FLAME ON HIGH!~~~
There is a BIG difference (in my book anyway) between an employee
[with a potentially redundant job] who does little to help the company
and an employee [with a potentially redundant job] who shares every
idea they can think of in hopes of helping the company! Believe me,
there are sadly far more who are guilty of the former, than there are
of the latter. One reason could be precisely because of some of the
pig-headed attitudes expressed in this and other notes towards the
sharing of ideas.
There are too few people who care enough about Digital to want to
devote any spare momment they might have towards isolating and fixing
the various problems which exist in this corporation. This means that
instead of enjoying a leisurely lunch with friends, jogging, or at
aerobics class, an employee might instead return to their desk with
their lunch (such as I typically do) to take a momment to address
some of these problems - ACTIONS WHICH DO NOT TYPICALLY EVEN BENEFIT
SAID EMPLOYEE DIRECTLY IN TERMS OF THEIR REVIEW. In my mind, such an
employee should *at least* be granted a minimum of respect by their
peers as having given it their best shot.
By ignoring (or worse yet ignobling) such efforts, you only
encourage sheepishness and subservient behavior in the employee
population. If you would rather our company was staffed by a bunch
of brain-dead, seen-but-not-heard employees who couldn't concieve of
an idea if their lives depended upon it, then I suggest you continue
to intimidate people for devoting their spare time towards writing
notes and sharing their ideas in a forum such as this!
SET FLAME OFF
Now that I've got that off my chest, I suggest that everyone
should please resume the brain-storming session (hopefully it isn't
too late).
-davo
|
| 1208.93 | Softly as I leave you | VINO::FLEMMING | No eraser? Its not fault tolerant | Sat Nov 17 1990 18:49 | 18 |
| Like everyone in Digital (hopefully), I'm busy. I enjoy reading notes
but I honestly don't have the time or inclination to read vast entries
or replies. On the otherhand, its often difficult to follow the tread
of an idea if one doesn't at least scan all of the replies in a topic.
In fact, in a couple of cases I missed one note and discovered that it
really turned out to be what was being discussed in all of the
subsequent replies. That's why I get annoyed when I encounter the 69th
reply to a note written by the same person and its 200 lines long. Even
though I may be very intersested in whatever is being discussed, I
simply can't afford to take the time to try to follow it. That's why
I appreciate brief replies and that's why I tend to type next unseen
(even though I may be missing something of value) in notes where most
entries are made by only a few people (who often seem paranoic) whose
replies read like the great American expense report.
Softly, briefly, and thoughtfully, please.
|
| 1208.94 | Common Sense. | AYOV10::DHUNTER | | Mon Nov 19 1990 10:40 | 7 |
| RE: .93
Congratulations an well done. One of the best notes I've ever read!
I hope it's acted upon.
Don H.
|