Weekly Journal 09-19-00

Section 1:  Preparation for class

I guess what I really am having the most trouble getting past is the idea of giving up safety for adventure.  The idea of adventure seems appealing.  However, the thought of giving up safety is somewhat threatening to me and, more importantly, is probably threatening to virtually everyone working under our current organization structures.  I pose a question here that I plan to post to the discussion board in hopes of obtaining some reflective responses.  If the organization that is based on stewardship and partnership is better (will be more successful) than the organization that is based on patriarchy, do workers actually have to give up ultimate safety or does the premise that the organization will be more successful indicate greater safety?  For those who will fully participate in an organization of stewardship, are we talking about giving up safety or the implication of safety?

It appears to me that one who is willing to take full responsibility and ownership in an organization can choose adventure while retaining safety.  Granted, there are more individuals involved in the process of serving the customer.  Therefore, It may be more accurate to say that the unit that is willing to take full responsibility may retain safety.

I also enjoyed the chapter in which Block answers the question "How?"  According to Block, we already know that there are plenty of sources with adequate information explaining "how" to put partnership into action.  It is indicated that we need only stop making excesses for not doing it by asking "how" and say "Yes" to action and begin the process of moving from patriarchy to partnership.

Section 2:  Reflections

I was thinking about the way Block answers the question of "How?" referring to the question of how do we move to stewardship and partnership.  He says the correct answer is "Yes".  This means we should stop making excesses and "just do it".

I can remember times when, in committee meetings, we have continued to try to "nail down" the specifics of "how" to implement an idea until the idea was forgotten about.  We concentrate so much on the means of getting things done that me forget about the original objective.  On the other hand, many times we believe we can implement the change but ask "how" solely as an excuse for not acting on the needed implementation.

Section 3:  Applications

In order to apply the perspective I have discovered on "how" to accomplish a task I have decided that setting a timeline or "deadline" for accomplishing specific objectives might be helpful.  I am apprehensive about this idea because it could very well lead right back to patriarchy if the right people are not involved in the "setting" of the timeline.  All involved must participate in the process of setting this up in order for all to possess ownership and full responsibility.  Once management begins to hand out "objective deadlines" we have circled right back to patriarchy.

Section 4:  "Light Bulb Moments?"

I had a "light bulb moment" which I started not to include in this journal simply because it promises not to be a very popular viewpoint.  It is that I am beginning to realize just how difficult it will be to successfully change our organizational systems.  This is because of the necessity for people to give up safety in exchange for adventure.  Even if units have a greater possibility to be successful, people know they well have to rely, at least to some degree, on team members.  Since, during change, it is very hard for most to put their safety and stability in the hands of others I believe this change will be meet with great resistance.  Again, at the risk of expressing an unpopular viewpoint, at present I cannot guess where this task lies on a continuum between difficult and impossible . 

< Back