About OBS
OBS Members
Publications
What's New
Survey Projects
Biodiversity in Ohio
Academic Biologists
Links
|
 |
Hands Off!!!
by Brian J. Armitage, Ph.D.
Ohio Biological Survey
Vol 8, No. 2, May 2000
I have now worked for almost 30 years in a variety of
roles and situations. Two years were spent in the military,
ten years were spent in and dealing with federal agencies,
eight years were spent in an academic institution as a
professor, and, now, eight years have been spent as
director of a consortium, dealing with a whole medley of
organizations. Throughout this entire time period, even
extending back to my graduate student days, I have
consulted with a variety of corporations, agencies, and
individuals, either in the area of computer science
(databases, discrete event models, etc.) or in
environmental work (toxicity bioassays, aquatic habitat
evaluations, etc.). Whereas, each of these employment
situations were somewhat unique, with differing roles,
rules, and emphases, there are some common threads. I
would like to discuss one of these today.
From time to time, often outside the bounds of the norm,
projects and/or groups of individuals co-inhabit the same
space and time yielding a positive, synergistic result. For
example, the initial group of individuals who started a
business which resulted in today's behemoth Microsoft.
Or, the various groups which have formed over time in the
areas of art and literature (e.g., the Bloomsbury Group,
the Bauhaus Group, etc.). The success which resulted
from these initiatives or synergistic interactions ultimately,
and almost invariably, led to their demise either internally
or from external meddling. Demise from reasons internal
to the group or project after initial success (jealousy, lack
of commonality of purpose, ego, burn-out, etc.) can't
really be avoided except by the combined perceptions
and agreement of the participants. However, dampening
the individuals in a group, so that the group continues to
exist, could be self-defeating. Combined efforts toward
a common goal usually fall apart when the particpants
suppress their own individuality. The magical or
serendipitous effect is lost. Individuals who break away
from a group or project for internal or personal reasons,
on occasion, form a new group or start a new project
which sometimes yielding new successes.
More common, and less likely to yield new successes, is
the death of some temporal synergism from external
meddling. The most benign of external intrusions is an
individual or group trying to copy the success of another.
Flattery aside, others trying to imitate the success, or
magic, of one enterprise can lead to either negative or
positive results. On the negative side, limited resources
(money, talent, markets, etc.) can be taxed by too much
emulation. On the positive side, copying can lead to
competition, and this can lead to better focus, lower
costs, higher efficiencies, more innovation, and so forth.
Less benign, but at least apparently logical and harmless,
is a two-option response by the management responsible
for the project or group. One impulse, when confronted
with the success of the project or group (usually for which
they had no early involvement or can be given no credit)
is to over-manage it. "Wow, look what's happening
here? This is great. Let me add my managerial expertise
and make it better (and, thus gain credit for the original
success of others, and/or make matters worse)." Or,
"We sure are proud of you and what you are doing, but
we have someone to add to your team to make it better
(= invariably worse)." Or, "Your products are fantastic,
but accounting and legal have some questions about new
company policies. So, please get their approval for
everything that you do." There goes creativity, there goes
synergy, there goes the serendipitous event in time and
space.
A second impulse by management is to borrow from the
success, theoretically to start new successes elsewhere.
Borrowing can take the form of moving personnel from a
successful project to a new or a failing project. Or,
borrowing can take the form of reducing other resources
(money, equipment, etc.) from a successful group to a
new or a failing group. "Y'all are so good, you can do the
same or more with less." Who gets blamed when the
original project or group becomes less productive or falls
apart?
There are more severe forms of external meddling,
however, they are fortunately rare (or less publicized)
and were not among the examples which formed the basis
for this discourse.
Few projects or groups have continued for extended
periods of time, even when external influences have been
minimal. Some of my favorite television shows, such as
M*A*S*H, Cheers, and Barney Miller, come to
mind. In fact, the genesis for this column came from my
readings about the recent failures of NASA in sending
probes/landers to Mars (NASA suffers from over-
management), and in the current hubbub about breaking
up Microsoft (Big M lost its synergistic roots a long time
ago and began borrowing freely from others; now, the
Justice Department is adding its two cents worth). All of
these, the television shows, the agency, and the
corporation, came a cropper because of some
combination of internal and external influences affecting
what originally were synergistic phenomena. We all
change with time, each at varying rates and stages, and to
hope that some interacting amalgamation of personalities
and relationships will continue forever, or that some
heroic or popular project will remain challenging, is
foolish. However, we can maximize the positive products
and results of the moment by minimizing external
meddling. Hands off!!! To borrow a useful adage, "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it!" Or, as the Beatles sang, "Let it
be."
|
top
|
Policy
Contributions