Feedback from reading Jennifer Kirley's suggested 'motivation' reading links

[selena15]

Hi all
thanks to Jennifer for the proposal of the following reading. very interesting articles from another thread:
Lack of Will & Empowerment of Employees

.....But I can say that human behavior is generally based on motivation that one can loosely ascertain via the theories of:

Maslow
McGregor
Deming
Drucker
......

here is my feedback:


Drucker article:
page3: the third comment: " learn to say no" --- there is no question about the incidence to success to do so for one individual whatever his function. the question is what is the incidence of it within an organisation? and more is there any framework to say no in order to avoid a discrimination? no stop a way for people who will use it to scape?
would this be usefull to check it as part of improvement system audit ?

Deming
page 3 the last chap talk about the check an individual long term virtue as key word of his implication within a system and to see a performance issues as special or common causes.

100% agreed.
if i try to see this within our present king or org° and not in just my area, as i remember, the annual evaluation don't have this idea in its phylosophie if i can say it like this.

Of course, it is checking how the individual is acting within team, or along, sense of initiative..bla bla, but does this would give a clear and real picture of this person. more, if one person is let's say special or don't fit in any common personal profil. as instance: how it is seen one individual which has an effective adding value within value, but with one negative nature: he isn't able to work within a team. he get better result acting alone.

No one i assume would say that all the employees within an org are team workers. so how this Deming assumptions is established. what i use to see, if yes we do this check but if we discover one adding value person with this lack in team work, we would see it as area to convince this person to improve, with training or any others stuff. what if no solution work and this person keep acting alone. it can for several reason, one that i've notify one day is the difference of acting itself. believe me, i've never seen a person as this, he's just a faster thinker than others. and complain that others do not have the same rate than him!!!!!


Just off topic, i would be curious to audit one certified system against the western system .


Maslow article:
page 4: as critic of this model, it say that move from one need to the sup one can remove the priority of the first need: " the need of esteem can prior to the security need. i would say it can because, once one need become granted, it start to be seen as normal one, permanent one and of course the needs priority would change and established new one where the acquired one do not have the same priority.

i will encurage you to read and feedback
waiting your feedback

Selena

 

[Jen Kirley]

Hi all
thanks to Jennifer for the proposal of the following reading. very interesting articles from another thread:
Lack of Will & Empowerment of Employees here is my feedback:

Drucker article:
page3: the third comment: " learn to say no" --- there is no question about the incidence to success to do so for one individual whatever his function. the question is what is the incidence of it within an organisation? and more is there any framework to say no in order to avoid a discrimination? no stop a way for people who will use it to scape?
would this be usefull to check it as part of improvement system audit?

These are very interesting and worthwhile questions.

Drucker's reference to "Learn to say no" regarded policy because we too often act like weathervanes unless we pursue what is really important. The reference to favoritism was dealt with via the reference to President Truman:

If Truman said no, it was no, and if he said yes, it was yes. And he didn't say no to one person and yes to the next one on the same issue.

In auditing we should be especially aware of this point. As with parenthood, it must surely be easy to believe the auditor is more strict with one person or group than another. And as with parenting, we auditors might indeed over time decide this person is easier to work with than that one. Thinking otherwise, or not acting on the belief, requires discipline.

Deming
page 3 the last chap talk about the check an individual long term virtue as key word of his implication within a system and to see a performance issues as special or common causes.

100% agreed.
if i try to see this within our present king or org° and not in just my area, as i remember, the annual evaluation don't have this idea in its phylosophie if i can say it like this.

Of course, it is checking how the individual is acting within team, or along, sense of initiative..bla bla, but does this would give a clear and real picture of this person. more, if one person is let's say special or don't fit in any common personal profil. as instance: how it is seen one individual which has an effective adding value within value, but with one negative nature: he isn't able to work within a team. he get better result acting alone.

No one i assume would say that all the employees within an org are team workers. so how this Deming assumptions is established. what i use to see, if yes we do this check but if we discover one adding value person with this lack in team work, we would see it as area to convince this person to improve, with training or any others stuff. what if no solution work and this person keep acting alone. it can for several reason, one that i've notify one day is the difference of acting itself. believe me, i've never seen a person as this, he's just a faster thinker than others. and complain that others do not have the same rate than him!!!!!

Just off topic, i would be curious to audit one certified system against the western system .

We as employees of organizations are members of the team. It is the leadership's responsibility to make that clear and meaningful.

Registrars supposedly do not hold organizations to different requirements based on geography, but global registrars tend to employ local auditors and some of us in the West have considered the possibility that some auditors have applied less stringent criteria for registration than others. It is a question of variation and its cause, and I expect it is a controversial issue.

Maslow article:
page 4: as critic of this model, it say that move from one need to the sup one can remove the priority of the first need: " the need of esteem can prior to the security need. i would say it can because, once one need become granted, it start to be seen as normal one, permanent one and of course the needs priority would change and established new one where the acquired one do not have the same priority.

i will encurage you to read and feedback
waiting your feedback

Selena

A person that works toward self actualization will still need security. I do. The needs are not in conflict and they are not exclusive. I think (and I invite anyone to rebut this) that Maslow's higher motivations are meant to describe the greatest source of human inspiration to succeed versus the lesser ones. In a challenging economy such as the present one, I can suppose the security level to gain rather more weight than the self-actualization level. Does that make sense?

 

[selena15]

Hi Jennifer
thanks for this interesting post

....Drucker's reference to "Learn to say no" regarded policy because we too often act like weathervanes unless we pursue what is really important. The reference to favoritism was dealt with via the reference to President Truman:

Yes Jennifer, in IMO, it would be one of the clue that this reference is established within an org or that one individual has success to impose his decision.

....In auditing we should be especially aware of this point. As with parenthood, it must surely be easy to believe the auditor is more strict with one person or group than another….

-- I’m not expecting any someone’s side since the auditors are independent and diplomat by definition. The point is if such questions are the scope of the audit. Surely, report of an audit can raise the fact that there is lack in doing task because of no time management. The point is as root cause, need on time management training can be considered.
Would the fact that x person “don’t know or do not have possibility to say no” be considered as root cause and seek of corrective action to it ?

....We as employees of organizations are members of the team. It is the leadership's responsibility to make that clear and meaningful.

Maybe I’ve say it in wrong way, but work within team, while respecting the character of one person if it has an effective adding value to the work is good too. I mean, within work, all the employees are team, acting in different tasks to achieve the first requirement. The question is to ensure to persons achieve the work with an optimum adding value.

....but global registrars tend to employ local auditors and some of us in the West have considered the possibility that some auditors have applied less stringent criteria for registration than others..

--- Whatever the localization from where the auditors would be selected, finally they answer the client requirements and in case of Certification, they answer to the certification requirements. Most of org within worldwide are now multinational and take a least part of decision in one org. they send their auditors from the West or whenever they want and probably take into consideration this point. Believe me, from my modest experience within orgs international and I’ve almost met a big part of nationalities, most of problem that I’m launching here is just human being.

Off of topic, I was hearing complains from to friends of me, one USA, and one from UK. Both were complaining about their family’s husbands and that a cultural difference has big part of this. When they gave me reason, I’ve success to convince them that their problem is human being and even they got a husband from their native country, they would have the same problem. For sure, nobody would ignore the cultural difference or barrier or whatever, the hint is to not consider all the issue or situation from this framework, but to consider in its context and check the root cause before to pour it in difference causes packages.
To come back to the auditors comment, sure some auditors can be less stringent as you said, but finally they answer to one requirement, in one established framework and they can be considered as mirror to the maturity of the system. And this would bring me back to my first question: does this “to learn to say no” or any kind of question part of an audit requirements?

.... In a challenging economy such as the present one, I can suppose the security level to gain rather more weight than the self-actualization level. Does that make sense?

----
For sure, gaining a weight can be the mirror that the self-actualization is achieved. As you had said, they are not in conflict or exclusive but human consideration change and fit to their present, I’m remembering one good article send here in cove about motivation of employees, and one reward would never compensate another one.

BTW, sorry for the late, i was a sick
Sel