How do employees "devote" to their work —— Inspiration from Russell, Z Theory and Cyan Organization

First, the metaphor of "empty raincoat"

"I saw a statue in a sculpture park in Minneapolis. That is an empty raincoat that nobody wears. That morning, I visited the headquarters of a large multinational company. Walking through rows of desks and offices, I feel that people there are in danger of sacrificing their personality for the role. Maybe they are just unknown' role players'. "

This is a scene described by British management philosopher Charles Handy in his book The Empty Raincoat. Handy believes that this sense of powerlessness of "separation of body and mind" at work, even in a rapidly changing society, is the reason that puzzles people and makes them have no direction and go with the flow. With Friedrich? Leroy's words in "Remodeling Organization: Ways to Create Evolutionary Organizations" are as follows: Many people feel that the way we operate organizations has reached its limit at present, and our dreams are increasingly shattered due to organizational life. For those who have been working hard at the bottom of the pyramid for a long time, the result of the survey is always: work always makes people feel scared and boring, without passion and meaning. Because, "we have turned the workplace into a place that is not only unhappy, but also frustrating. Employees just follow orders and have no way to participate in decision-making and give full play to their talents. "

The so-called "wholehearted" discussed in this paper is aimed at the state of "separation of body and mind" in people's work. It should be noted that "wholeheartedly" does not mean that people are "absorbed" in a short time, but refers to a state of being able to continue to work. The reason for discussing this issue is that people familiar with enterprise practice will see employees' "empty raincoats" everywhere, as Shane said when describing "subculture of frontline employees":

Directors of all production units know that employees rarely really do their best, except in times of crisis. More typically, it is normal to "be a monk banging the bell every day", and employees who work harder than this state are defined as "quota destroyers".

For a long time, managers have been trapped in this state of employees, so that they have become accustomed to it and turned a blind eye, while employees are actually very dissatisfied with their work status. The management theory "spawned" from this state also stands out from the "Hawthorne experiment", but it has not changed this situation so far.

Second, why "separation of body and mind"

So, how did this "separation of body and mind" happen? We try to combine the views of several scholars to briefly analyze:

First of all, this situation may be related to cultural background. For example, william ouchi, a famous corporate culture expert, thinks in Theory Z that there is obviously a view in the minds of contemporary Americans that traditional institutions such as churches and families are the only legal sources of intimate relationships. Therefore, they have always opposed the idea that people can or should have intimate relationships in the workplace and think that "personal feelings have no place in the work." Most western institutions practice "partial relationship", that is, the relationship between employers and employees only involves those activities directly related to the completion of specific tasks. Even many western social scientists believe that "local relations" can maintain personal health complex, and the tension caused in one environment can also be alleviated in another environment.

However, Ouchi also observed that in a successful industrial society like Japan, intimate relationships exist not only in the workplace, but also in other environments. Therefore, compared with western societies such as the United States, Japanese institutions maintain an overall relationship and have a set of methods to provide social support necessary to stabilize their emotions, so that employees' nervousness can be alleviated. Therefore, he said, although Americans have deep-rooted views on the proper source of intimacy at the social level, the case of Japan forced them to reconsider this issue.

Secondly, in most enterprises (including Japanese enterprises), employees are regarded as tools for enterprise development. As Russell 1948 said in "Authority and Individuals", "management organizations have an inevitable tendency to treat people who work for them more or less as their machines, that is, just as a necessary means" and "all away from those people they control". In this case, a large number of employees just do what they are told, and it is impossible to keep their enthusiasm and initiative in their work. Shain also holds the same view on this issue. When talking about the "cultural hypothesis" of senior managers, he said that senior managers tend to think that although people are necessary, they are also an inevitable evil, not an intrinsic value; Like any other resources, they are resources that need to be acquired and managed, not for their own purposes. A well-run mechanical organization does not need complete people, but only the activities stipulated in the contract.

Under such circumstances, what enterprises pursue is mainly the efficiency of production and operation, and nothing else can be discussed. As Russell said, enterprises only need the "stability and reliability" of employees, not creativity. "Those who are in charge of industrial enterprises are impersonal and indifferent, which is fatal to any and all ownership benefits of ordinary employees."

? Thirdly, this situation may be related to the nature of the enterprise organization, such as large scale and different goals. For example, Russell believes that "to a certain extent, this kind of disadvantage is inseparable from mechanization, which is combined with huge scale." He said that the purpose of a car factory is to make cars, while the purpose of workers is only to earn wages. At this time, the purpose of the factory owner and the manager is the same, but most workers have no purpose consistent with them at all. Therefore, when managers "may be proud of the excellent quality of their cars", most people are mainly concerned about wages and working hours.

Finally, it may be the result of a fear. Frederick? Lailu believes that the reason why we lose ourselves as soon as we enter the workplace comes from fear, which is jointly created by organizations and employees. The organization is worried that once we bring our complete selves into the workplace, including joys and sorrows, one-liners and casual clothes on weekends, the company may become chaotic. For soldiers, the simplest way of management is to let soldiers think of themselves as screws that can be replaced at any time. On the other hand, employees are afraid that once they show their true self, they will be regarded as maverick and inappropriate, thus being ridiculed and judged. Therefore, everyone naturally played the safety card, put on a professional mask in a low-key way, and hid their own nature.

The above possible reasons have finally caused the long-term estrangement between management and employees, leading to the current situation of employees' work. Argyris, an American scholar, said that the traditional assumption and management model reduced employees' work motivation, delayed their psychological growth and hindered their freedom and independence. Only when every worker pursues personal goals and has experienced independence and psychological growth can the motivation of work reach its maximum. Therefore, argyris requires managers to combine individuals with organizations and ask them not to create alienated, hostile and emotionless bureaucratic workplaces.

So, how can argyris achieve this state?

Third, Russell's answer

For this kind of problem, Russell, as a philosopher, keenly put forward his own views.

Russell said that for such problems, we should eliminate them in the spirit of humanity and with an understanding of the roots of life and happiness. As for the solution, he believes that the first is to reduce the size of the organization. That is to say, in a large-scale and highly organized group, only a few people are destined to have enthusiasm and initiative, while others are unable to have such behavior because of alienation. Therefore, the only way is to reduce the scale of the organization, let front-line personnel elect their own direct managers, implement local and small-scale democracy, and create an atmosphere of "small enough to know each other, with unity consciousness and initiative".

Under the guidance of this idea, we can entrust the power of enterprises to some small groups, "leave all functions that do not hinder large institutions from achieving their goals to small institutions", and at the same time "power is in the hands of people who are interested in the work to be done as much as possible". In these small groups, individuals as workers will not be swallowed up by pure huge numbers, but will be brave enough to take risks. At the same time, just as Russell suggested that government agencies should do-these small groups should have enough power to make them stand out and make capable people feel satisfied when influencing this group. At the same time, "if these institutions want to achieve their own goals, they need to have a considerable degree of financial autonomy" (see Russell's article "Making Big Enterprises Smaller": authoritative and personal reading notes 2).

Fourthly, the enlightenment of "Z theory"

More than 30 years later, william ouchi continued Russell's method in the book Z Theory: How American Enterprises Meet Japanese Challenges published by 1980s. He said that everyone and every group in the organization is like an organ in the human body. If the coordination mechanism between eyes and hands is destroyed, their common productivity will not be improved no matter how hard the eyes or hands try.

Therefore, Ouchi advocates that Z-organization is a "culture that everyone agrees with". This is a society composed of equal people who cooperate with each other to achieve common goals. It not only depends on the hierarchy and the monitoring of work, but also has a sense of dependence and trust. This new perspective represents the increase of employees' contribution-taking on more obligations and paying more emotional and spiritual strength. Although employees may be more tired after work, they will feel more satisfied and excited about their work.

In order to illustrate his ideas, ouchi discussed this problem in detail. He quoted some sociologists' theories that intimacy is a necessary factor for a healthy society. Once social intimacy collapses, a vicious circle will occur. Under certain circumstances, if people do not cultivate a sense of responsibility for their own communities, they will lose their "sense of society". Therefore, when economic life and social life are integrated, the relationship between individuals becomes close. The relationship between people is not only through a single working relationship, but through various ties. Intimacy prevents selfish and dishonest behavior within the organization because everyone can't ignore a broken relationship. Intimacy, trust and mutual understanding arise when people are integrated into a whole relationship through various ties.

Therefore, Z-culture believes that any worker's life is a whole, not a Jaeger-Hayward dual personality, not a machine from 9 am to 5 pm, but a person around this time. Z theory holds that humanized working conditions can not only improve labor productivity and increase profits for the company, but also make employees feel self-esteem and comfortable, and make a person work better as a person.

Under the guidance of Z theory, it is the basic choice to establish many "United and semi-autonomous working groups" in enterprises to maintain the "whole heart" of employees in their work. Such a group can cultivate a subtle and intimate culture among people and promote the development of the working group. Individuals who are accustomed to interdependence, undertake long-term obligations in their working relationship and cooperate happily will form a United group, which will naturally solve the problems they all have to face better. These groups "have the same ethical autonomy as any individual in the industrial clan." The following is the case of general motors listed in ouchi:

1978 On April 12, General Motors held a very important meeting: the meeting of work and life quality managers. The vice general manager of General Motors, 15 other managers and 16 * * from the United Auto Workers' Union attended the seminar, and all the participants put forward their own views on the characteristics of the best and worst organizations they know. As the deputy general manager summed up, the descriptions of trade unions and management authorities are often the same: the characteristics of the best organizations are often to make people play the greatest role. It should be noted that all these characteristics are related to interpersonal relationships and have nothing to do with technology, economic considerations or products. The whole focus is on people's quality-how and why people can cooperate well ... In short, when people become necessary members of such an organization, everyone is at their best. This kind of organization challenges people's spirit, encourages personal growth and development, and makes things successful. It only advocates and supports the highest standards of ethics and moral behavior. This is the whole meaning of the quality of work and life, and it is also the purpose of our gathering here today.

Based on this consensus, GM's transformation began. Ouchi said that such a change is based on a basic purpose, that is, to do everything possible to resolve the obvious conflict between humanitarian and commercial purposes. For example, Pacardo's factory has adopted many long-term views: (1) Trust in relationships: without trust, any interpersonal relationship will inevitably degenerate into conflict. With trust, you can do anything; (2) Participation: Decisions are made at the bottom of the facts, and people will support what they help create; (3) Information exchange: People need to know their working environment as much as possible. If they don't know this, it will hurt people's self-esteem, damage their reason, cause their fear and lead to a decline in productivity; (4) Higher expectations: A philosopher once said: "Set high goals, because high goals have magical power to stimulate people's enthusiasm." Achieving this challenging goal will make people proud.

As a result of the reform, it has been proved that the factories with the highest scores of "quality of work and life" are also the factories with the highest quality indicators inspected by the company, the highest customer satisfaction with the process and the least complaints from employees.

5. How does an evolved organization emancipate employees' minds?

More than 30 years later, in 20 14, Friedrich Lelough published the book "Remodeling Organization: Ways to Create Evolutionary Organization", and continued to study how to solve the problem of "separation of mind and body". He put forward a new statement-physical and mental integrity.

Lailu said that as soon as people put on their work clothes, they left behind those parts that they thought were not in the workplace. They wear professional masks to meet the expectations of the workplace. This means that in most cases, we must show the determination and strength of men, put away our fragility and hesitation, and ignore or exclude our flexible side, such as caring, curious or pleasant. Rationality is regarded as the most indispensable quality in most workplaces, while emotion, intuition and spirituality are unpopular and unacceptable. For most people, organization has become a place where the mind has nowhere to put-a barren land that ignores our inner human nature and spiritual aspirations.

Leroy divided the organizations that appeared in human history into red, amber, orange, green and cyan according to the degree of control. He believes that cyan organization (evolutionary organization) is the organization that should be advocated most. The biggest feature of this organization is that it inherits the research results of Russell and Z theory-it removes all levels (the whole bureaucratic system) and establishes a team of 10 to 15 people. Everyone in all teams can make any decision for the company, including sales, marketing, recruitment and research and development. For example, FAVI, a French gearbox copper manufacturer, has a 500-person factory, which is called "mini factory", and each team has 15-35 employees, most of whom serve one or a certain kind of customers (such as Volkswagen team, Audi team, Volvo team, water meter team, etc.). ), and several upstream manufacturing teams (casting team, casting team, etc.). ). Each team is self-managed and has no middle management; There are almost no other rules and regulations except the rules or processes decided by the team itself.

On the whole, the blue organization (evolutionary organization) has achieved three breakthroughs in human organization: First, the blue organization implements "self-management": the key to effective operation is based on the relationship between colleagues, which requires neither hierarchy nor consensus, even if it is large. Second, cyan organizations achieve physical and mental integrity: in traditional organizations, people's own emotions, intuition and spirit are usually unpopular and inappropriate. On the contrary, the Youth Organization has formulated a set of systems and practices, inviting people to show their inner integrity and work with their "whole person". Third, the cyan organization adheres to the purpose of evolution: members of the organization listen to and understand what the organization wants to be and what it wants to serve, instead of simply trying to predict and control the future like traditional organizations.

Generally speaking, the blue organization has created a space for people to return to physical and mental integrity. When people dare to work with a "complete self", their lives will be rich and full, and people will find that they have unprecedented internal strength. In getting along with colleagues, a lot of unhappiness and inefficiency began to disappear, and work became the carrier for us to help each other show our inner greatness and reveal the call of life. In such an organization, self-management makes people no longer need to break their heads for a few promotion opportunities, please their superiors for good feelings and crowd out competitors for promotion. They can relax their vigilance and focus on what needs to be done.

In the book, Lu Le gives practical methods to achieve "physical and mental integrity" in cyan organizations, which are listed as follows: (1) Architecture: a warm space decorated by itself, open to children, animals and nature, without identity marks. (2) Values and basic principles: the values are clear and translated into specific codes of conduct to create a safe working environment; Values and basic principles can be discussed frequently. (3) Reflection space: there are meditation rooms, collective meditation and silence, collective reflection, team supervision and peer counseling. (4) Community building: Use storytelling exercises to support self-expression and community building. (5) Job title and job description: There are no job restrictions, which will help you find a deeper sense of identity; There is no job description, allowing you to create your own role. (6) Time commitment: honestly discuss the relationship between personal time commitment at work and commitment to other meaningful things in life. (7) Conflicts: regularly discover and resolve conflicts; Multi-step conflict resolution process; Everyone has been trained in conflict management. (8) Meeting: a meeting method (process) to manage individuals and ensure that everyone can be heard. (9) Environment and social activities: honesty as an internal measure: what is right; With the extensive positive actions of all the staff, everyone feels that they have done the right thing. (10) Recruitment: Future colleagues are responsible for the interview, focusing on whether it meets the organization and purpose. (1 1) Entry: Attend important training on interpersonal skills and company culture, and immerse yourself in the rotation scheme of the organization. (12) Training: Training is the freedom and responsibility of individuals; Cultural construction training is very important, and everyone should participate. (13) Performance Management: A Probe into Personal Learning Process and Mission. (14) dismissal: care and support, and turn dismissal into a learning opportunity.

From 1940s to now, people have been exploring a more reasonable and humanized organization and management mode. Although there are many theories and practices, we have to admit that most enterprises are still under the traditional bureaucratic structure and control. When you think about it carefully, the way to make employees "wholeheartedly" work, that is, to make the organization smaller, is actually a passive and forced choice, which is the result of human beings' inability to solve the contradiction between the size of the organization and interpersonal trust.

From the perspective of "passivity", we may understand why although there are good theoretical and practical cases, there are not many followers, and even some cyan organizations have restored their original pyramid structure after changing their leaders. Because this change is passive or even forced, people will be reluctant and even afraid. The reluctance and fear of business leaders stems from the fear of "out of control" or even "water under the bridge"; The reluctance and fear at the employee level are more from the deep level of human nature. As Fromm said, people tend to escape from freedom.

Because true freedom is bound to be accompanied by greater responsibility, stronger self-expectation and self-management ability. However, can people really shoulder the responsibility that they think and others expect? Are people really willing to "organize and challenge people's spirit"? Are people really willing to achieve "personal growth and development"? In this regard, many people do have different ideas.