Use & Misuse in «Designing Arrangements»

Design Better Arrangements when Working for Another: Framework of all PH-L6 Centres

Introduction

All the emergent frameworks are dynamic states of creative effort. It is conjectured that they are activated naturally in extremis, when the options of exiting or enduring are rejected. This personal choice is an expression of autonomy and transcendence.

However, these socio-mental options have been observed by others with a strong interest in specific goals. That interest more commonly serves money or power rather than the good of each and all, but not necessarily. Applying a framework in this way is always an imposition on another.

Judgement as to whether this constitutes a use or a misuse of human creative potential will vary. If the user is depersonalized or driven by some inner demon, use may tip into abuse. Each framework is examined from this perspective and the findings are compared and reviewed here.

Change Consultancy: Setting Parameters

Autonomy is a necessity to walk tall: a framework that enables the design of better arrangements naturally attracts those who fight for greater human dignity and creativity within organizations.

There are at least 7 distinct forms of management consultancy and not all are focused on systemic or contextual change. A focus on change that demands the most autonomy of managers is one based on setting parameters (PH'5QHt7). This method has a high need for staff engagement and a high pressure for results.

As an organization consultant, I was concerned that staff were often working inefficiently, physically stressed, unfairly treated, and not allowed to be creative. Managers at all levels felt similarly. Demoralization then permeated the system and everyone felt that nothing could be done. The bureaucratic culture was blamed, personalities were blamed, competitive pressures were blamed, internal politics were blamed. But everybody tried to work the system. It seemed that no-one could or would take the lead to make things better for everyone, and so make the organization more economic, efficient, effective and healthier for all.

So, with support from CEOs who took the lead, I responded to the challenge and provided my own lead. My approach can be reasonably described as using this PH-L6 framework as summarized below.

What about Union Leaders?

Union organizers are often people who take the lead to improve conditions for staff. However they typically want to benefit their sub-group and often oppose systemic change. Their efforts are group-based and they end up in an adversarial-political relationship with other groups and management over the division of spoils. The focus is therefore on finding a compromise: which involves a different framework made up of PH-L4 Centres.

Using the Framework of PH-L6s

KL7: Respect Meaning. Everyone needs to have the opportunity to talk about problems in doing their job and making a creative contribution. The meanings they attribute to events and arrangements need to be respected rather than crushed as insubordinate or undiplomatic. That can be ensured by providing confidentiality.

KL6: Enable Representation. It is essential to identify that accepted values are being flouted e.g. you may find that the system generates waste, costs money, prevents innovation, leads to absenteeism, supports harassment and bullying &c. This is a bad picture. Various staff provide accounts and concrete evidence that fill in details of this picture of values being violated.

KL5: Clarify Judgements. The thinking leading up to judgements in particular instances must be explained in terms of the pressures and values in play. Alternative views also need understanding and validation so that no-one feels their perspectives are being diminished or devalued. Judgements using different values or paradigms can also be presented and explained.

KL4: Feel Good Learning. The process naturally runs into difficulties due to personal agendas, misunderstandings and practical issues. These must not be left to fester, but must be picked up and handled by encouraging learning.

KL3: Promote Value Systems. Any complex organization requires a range of paradigms, doctrines and value systems. Part of the problem is that one or more are missing, have been devalued or left unstated. Required beliefs need to be identified so that they can be accepted and understood (even if unpalatable to some) or rejected if definitely inappropriate. The most significant value systems relate to the professionalism and integrity of each person involved.

KL2: Rely on Identifications. Everyone is functioning in terms of their identifications: with their profession, with their role, with their division, with the enterprise etc. These are the most powerful levers for developing improvements that will stick.

KL1: Activate Choices. At critical points, choices must be made that bring better designs into everyday practice even if some matters are still controversial. If the design is good, benefits will then start accruing rapidly. The alternative is to fudge the issue, avoid hard choices and have design on paper or in theory, but not in practice.

Experience of Being Forced

• Anxiety accompanies any major change, even if oriented to improvement. Rumours will fly and fears grow. So the CEO must be forceful in preparing staff and management with a view to helping all to become willing. Enabling everyone to learn the reasons, the goals and the arrangements is crucial. Often that means engaging with those lower down in the organization who, having less power and control, suffer most severely. However, the same principles apply to working with top management in headquarters, who may number a dozen or more.
• Power-centred managers believe in the use of force and are anti-rational. They tend to resist and fear imposition of this rational framework despite all reassurance. As the goal is for all to benefit, these managers must not be neglected. The difficulty is that they resort to values that inhibit and harm others: and any better design will confront that behaviour. Most, however, spontaneously adjust to whatever culture prevails. So they can be brought to use their abilities constructively given introduction of suitable arrangements.
• Organizations are designed via manager-subordinate hierarchies. These hierarchies are not always designed well (i.e. in accord with THEE principles). As a result the implicit arrangements within manager-subordinate relationships may inappropriately or excessively infringe on the exercise of autonomy. Usually it is the subordinate who suffers, but not always. In such cases, enabling learning is given a low priority.

---

• Also: see use of this framework by ideological proponents of change in society.

Initially posted: 20-Sep-2013