LEADERSHIP & CULTURE
James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© November 1, 2019
HENRY WRITES
Jim.
On 2019-10-31 5:08 p.m., Dr. James R. Fisher, Jr. wrote:
What I discovered at Honeywell Avionics, a facility, at the time of 4,000+ employees, is that HR did not understand engineers, could not relate to them, in fact HR operatives were seemingly intimidated by their prowess and selective knowledge and therefore could not give management guidance or direction in the proper utilization of this massive engineering force. In fact, the engineering community operated as an essentially privileged body, but not necessarily as an effective one.
EXACTLY.
Just about the same reason that our Canadian senators don't integrate with people from the science stream of academia. They'll consult them, then those scientists or engineers need to dumb down on their replies and even after that they get it wrong when they write their eloquent reports.
"Arts people" and "science people" they are worlds apart. Scientists work with facts and (ideally) do so cooperatively by independent verification and reviews. In contrast, politicians and managers work with opinions and do so more or less competitively. Managers can stand tall; engineers have to genuflect to get their assent.
I put it a bit terse -- maybe slightly warped -- but that, it looks to me, is just about it.
Snow's "Two Solitudes."
Best,
Henry
MY RESPONSE
Henry,
Assuming everything you say is true, and I believe it is, we still have the problem of leadership and culture. I ask for your patience as I address this in a somewhat unconventional way.
When I was at Honeywell Avionics, I had a rather intimate relationship with the facility’s population on the technical, operational and personal level due to the nature of my function, which I have revealed in case studies in my books.
This was especially true of professionals in engineering and in support of the technology. As a matter of fact, I saw many of these same people as graduate students as I was an adjunct professor at the University of South Florida, Florida Institute of Technology and Golden Gate University in these respected universities' MBA Programs.
These professionals were seeking these added credentials primarily as a ticket to management where the prospects of increased earnings were believed to exist. I would often ask these students what they would do once into management, remembering what a foggy period it had been once I transitioned into the heady climate of mahogany row.
Invariably, they would say, “I’m not going to treat people who report to me the way I have been treated.”
I would add, “And how have you been treated?”
“You don’t want to know.”
“But I do,” I would insist.
A cavalcade of invectives would follow from “chewing me out in front of my colleagues, making sly remarks about my character, all sorts of things to make me feel worthless and without redeeming qualities.”
“Why would they do that?”
“Because they could knowing I couldn't do a thing about it if I valued my job.”
Three months later, after such professionals had been promoted into management, I would hear similar complaints about them. They had joined the club of contempt for others without realizing it was what they planned to avoid.
You may think it is a stretch, Henry, but I sense those people in government that give you such fits didn’t plan to behave that way when they first reached that arena. Culture has that powerful a hold on them.
I saw it in the military, in fact, I’ve seen it in every collective group environment in which I’ve had a role. It is why I wrote THE WORKER, ALONE, GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN (1995). We see it in the US Congress, in educational institutions, in the business and industrial community, everywhere.
To break this logjam requires a change in culture, that often takes war, revolution, economic disruption, ubiquitous famine, or near total social collapse. The grip of culture is that great. Is there any other option? Yes, there is. It is called “leadership.”
PRINCE ALBERT, THE QUINTESSENTIAL BUT MISUNDERSTOOD LEADER
I have been watching the PBS series on QUEEN VICTORIA, while mainly interested in how her husband, Prince Albert was treated.
She became queen at age 18 in 1837, and married Prince Albert in 1840 when they were both 20. He died prematurely in 1861 at the age 42, from typhoid fever when Queen Victoria was also only 42. They had nine children and she reigned Queen of the British Empire from 1837 to 1901.
Yet, in the 21 years that Prince Albert was Consort, he literally changed the culture of Great Britain without having had any real direct power. You get a sense of this in the PBS series but only a sense.
Prince Elbert softened the Prime Minister’s and Queen Victoria’s relationship with Parliament so that they could become partners instead of adversaries to get something done.
He avoided a senseless war with the United States in the year of his death, 1861.
He prevailed on the Queen and Parliament that the economically disadvantaged members of British society were important and their needs addressed and not continually ignored because they had no power.
He campaigned for social and public causes such as educational reform for primary and university education, insisting education should be balanced between vocational and enlightened needs.
He promoted, and ultimately would succeed in having slavery abolished throughout the British Empire.
He particularly looked at manufacturing and how it could be upgraded to be more humane and could take advantage of the arts and sciences in the industrial work place.
Prince Albert was also the force behind the 1851 Great Exhibition to display works of all the nations of the world as a means to promote world collaboration and world peace.
The husband of Queen Victoria was an electric personality in which his energy was wrapped in a mind that never looked at a problem as being too big to address.
During his life, he was not a popular figure with either the public, or indeed Parliament.
Whenever he encountered problems relative to the province of either the Public or Parliament, they knew he had in mind to wrench them from their insular complacency and precious biases.
He made the British Empire humane, and it has profited from that legacy ever sense.
He was not a scientist or an artist in the traditional sense, but knew how to penetrate the sacred egos of both by totally ignoring them. And with that approach, he was able to create a more humane culture and society.
Know anyone like that in your neighborhood?
Three months later, after such professionals had been promoted into management, I would hear similar complaints about them. They had joined the club of contempt for others without realizing it was what they planned to avoid.
You may think it is a stretch, Henry, but I sense those people in government that give you such fits didn’t plan to behave that way when they first reached that arena. Culture has that powerful a hold on them.
I saw it in the military, in fact, I’ve seen it in every collective group environment in which I’ve had a role. It is why I wrote THE WORKER, ALONE, GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN (1995). We see it in the US Congress, in educational institutions, in the business and industrial community, everywhere.
To break this logjam requires a change in culture, that often takes war, revolution, economic disruption, ubiquitous famine, or near total social collapse. The grip of culture is that great. Is there any other option? Yes, there is. It is called “leadership.”
PRINCE ALBERT, THE QUINTESSENTIAL BUT MISUNDERSTOOD LEADER
I have been watching the PBS series on QUEEN VICTORIA, while mainly interested in how her husband, Prince Albert was treated.
She became queen at age 18 in 1837, and married Prince Albert in 1840 when they were both 20. He died prematurely in 1861 at the age 42, from typhoid fever when Queen Victoria was also only 42. They had nine children and she reigned Queen of the British Empire from 1837 to 1901.
Yet, in the 21 years that Prince Albert was Consort, he literally changed the culture of Great Britain without having had any real direct power. You get a sense of this in the PBS series but only a sense.
Prince Elbert softened the Prime Minister’s and Queen Victoria’s relationship with Parliament so that they could become partners instead of adversaries to get something done.
He avoided a senseless war with the United States in the year of his death, 1861.
He prevailed on the Queen and Parliament that the economically disadvantaged members of British society were important and their needs addressed and not continually ignored because they had no power.
He campaigned for social and public causes such as educational reform for primary and university education, insisting education should be balanced between vocational and enlightened needs.
He promoted, and ultimately would succeed in having slavery abolished throughout the British Empire.
He particularly looked at manufacturing and how it could be upgraded to be more humane and could take advantage of the arts and sciences in the industrial work place.
Prince Albert was also the force behind the 1851 Great Exhibition to display works of all the nations of the world as a means to promote world collaboration and world peace.
The husband of Queen Victoria was an electric personality in which his energy was wrapped in a mind that never looked at a problem as being too big to address.
During his life, he was not a popular figure with either the public, or indeed Parliament.
Whenever he encountered problems relative to the province of either the Public or Parliament, they knew he had in mind to wrench them from their insular complacency and precious biases.
He made the British Empire humane, and it has profited from that legacy ever sense.
He was not a scientist or an artist in the traditional sense, but knew how to penetrate the sacred egos of both by totally ignoring them. And with that approach, he was able to create a more humane culture and society.
Know anyone like that in your neighborhood?
Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment