Here is another one of those dialogues that made me thoughtful… And, again, Stefan created waves by throwing a pebble into the water. Said waves eventually also reached me, which caused this dialogue and article. It all started with:
Everything is dependent on cooperation: how to organize cooperation! › Hagen Management GmbH, Dornbirn
(Auf die Kooperation kommt es an: Zusammenarbeit organisieren! › Hagen Management GmbH, Dornbirn)
Stefan wrote:
In his latest book “leading radically”, top author Reinhard K. Sprenger says that leaders should use all means to make sure the “cooperation priority” is realized. …
(maybe you want to read the entire article?).
I replied – perhaps a little rashly:
If someone formulates an ultimatum “if you do not cooperate, you will be given notice”, then this virtually tells you he is unfit to do the job …
You could just as well write: “we know what is right and what is wrong and those who cannot agree will be given notice!”
And that is when you can kiss civil courage good-bye!
Of course, Stefan replied:
To be sure, the sentence is provocatively formulated. In order to avoid misunderstandings, however, let me add a few ideas:
a) It does NOT mean that we need people who say “yes” to everything in an organization.
b) Instead, it means that we need a constructive argumentative culture in organizations.
c) It does NOT mean that controversial opinions will be fought against.
d) Instead, it means that people who are apparently neither capable nor willing to cooperate have no business remaining in an organization.
After all, if you are a radical solo-player, you are welcome to practice your potential as an individual entrepreneur. On the other hand, organizations depend on competent persons who are willing to learn and to offer their competence in the interest of a common cause. This is the only way how TEAM work can succeed. And that is actually what matters, both now and in the future.
Roland, do you disagree? If so, then I am very much looking forward to your next comment …
Of course, I did not disagree. But still, I had to reply:
Hi Stefan, I totally agree with what you said in a) to d). The same is true for the rest. I am certainly one of the people who acted rigorously in these kinds of situations by removing people from a team or giving them notice. Some of my decisions in this context were definitely “isolated” and not at all easy. And – luckily mostly only initially – these decisions also caused irritations and were met with little understanding, even among the other team members.
However, I also had or saw negative developments in teams. Consequently, my worries are situated in the border area which probably will always exist when you have lateral thinkers and “people who object”.
Ironically, it only got clear to me through the conservative politician Klaus Töpfer how important the community of “people who object” and the “culture of objection” are! Personally, I was far too quick to condemn all those people who opposed or actively fought against windmills or electricity grids. Basically, I always assumed they were acting according to the Saint-Florian principle (dear saint, spare my house, ignite that of someone else).
Now, however, I think I understand the huge if not irreplaceable value this “culture of opposition” and particularly the lateral thinkers can have.
One of the reasons is that there will always be a latent tendency of organizations and systems towards fascist structures. And it happened frequently that those who “objected” and were lateral thinkers were quickly defamed as being those who – as you yourself write – were “apparently not capable or willing to cooperate” and were “not pulling at the same string”, thus jeopardizing the great national (or entrepreneurial) goal.
As I see it, the danger to fall victim to this is particularly strong if you work with great enthusiasm for something you personally consider extremely important and can also easily justify, which makes it look totally legitimate. I very much appreciate it if someone is enthusiastic in everything he or she does. But it opens the path towards getting angry with inconvenient disturbances, which will make you irrational and you might start defaming others.
Conclusion:
Basically, I wholeheartedly back the demand you formulated; the only reservations I have are that one should be aware of the ever-present danger of a creeping appearance of – well, I will write the evil word: – fascist tendencies in organizations/social systems. Using that concept, even “good” people who disagree and lateral thinkers can be silenced in the interest of “the higher goal” or even “the bigger interest”. And I recommend that declarations using these kinds of terms should always be questioned with an extra critical eye …
When all is said and done, it is probably always a question of who decides what exactly our “shared, higher goals” are. And this is when, as I see it, even good democratic structures fall far short.
Perhaps this is the problem with trying to find the synthesis between individuality and collectivism we as humans are constantly facing.
Sorry for my long answer …
Here is something to make you smile:
When I was young, I frequently heard:
“If you do not like it here, why don’t you go and live in the Soviet Zone?”
And in retrospect, I have to say that exactly the things I and my friends found disagreeable at the time are those things that make me realize today that we were absolutely correct in disagreeing.
“You had to wait a mere half century, and already you can see the consequences …”
Since the topic will not let me rest.
Here are a few more ideas!
Probably the weak link is the “collective goal”. For me, team work has a very positive connotation. I like working in a team and I believe it matches our needs. We humans are social creatures. And in order to have “good team work”, you doubtless sometimes have to decide and realize “hard steps”.
Still, the “collective higher goal” remains a problem. If we are talking a good goal, there are basically no objections. But what happens if the goal turns into an end in itself? Or if it gets so important that all means seem to justify the end? Or if a good goal suddenly turns into a bad goal, for whatever reason?
A “healthy goal” can also become an “unhealthy goal” without itself undergoing change. Just because the entire world undergoes a change (in values) or because the frame conditions are differently perceived.
And if then the team is “trained too well”, the “inner immune system” – which might have functioned if precisely those “scaremongers and defeatists” were still on board – can be missing.
Because then the team “crowd” will have to save the situation – and woe if now the “evil ones” are absent.
Maybe I will try and dedicate an entire article or a barcamp session to this topic. Regardless of the fact that I failed with these kinds of ideas in discussions with certainly very wise and good persons in the past. I remember my comment against a strongly goal-oriented project organisation free from a strong and critical reflection of the project goal that from my point of view seemed harmless but very important causing dismay in my discussion partner. Eventually, it led to him believing I was personally accusing him of something nasty.
Basically, I was just trying to make it clear that collective goals might easily turn foul. And I mean in little slices and in a way that makes it hard (or impossible) for the “agents” to realize what is happening. And if such a situation arises and you removed the (perhaps only so-called) “consequent lone warriors” before, keeping only the perhaps equally so-called “competent persons who are willing to learn and prepared to dedicate their competence to a shared and higher goal”, then it might happen that the inner immune system of such a team against abusive requirements or even fascist developments weakens.
So:
I believe that the pariahs of a team as described above might well be quite important for the team, even if they are perceived as “a-social stinky sourpusses” who are nothing but a burden to the team.
But perhaps I am suffering from some paranoia when it comes to over-harmonious teams and fascist systems because inside me, the individualist part is very scared of the collective force.
But this would lead towards the topic “healthy autonomy”, which is an extra chapter. Well, all those were my complex reasons for criticizing a basically totally correct idea.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...