Two Sides

It is interesting to me how a single situation can be seen two completely different ways.

On the one side is the individual that lives in the situation, that is forced to work in it.  From their point of view, little is able to be accomplished: management is controlling and does not allow anything of consequence to be undertaken or performed without some level of approval and oversight.  That which is accomplished goes unnoticed; that which fails seems mercilessly thrown back as proof that nothing can be done correctly.

On the other side is the individual who is in the same situation.  From their standpoint much can be accomplished; that which is not officially proscribed is allowed.  Initiative is rewarded in this world and in fact the expectation is that initiative is expected.  Outside of a narrow band of items limitations do not exist - and in fact, this person is surprised at the reluctance of so many to take some sort of action.

So here is the question:  who is correct?

This revolves around the question of limitations and control:  what are the actual limitations, what are the actual controls, and who is subject to them.

Do we create an environment where creativity and action are encouraged.  Or do we create an environment where control is the most critical aspect and changes - unless properly submitted and approved - are frowned upon?  The atmosphere resulting from this basic standard is what comes to permeate whatever organization it is involved in.

People are not, generally speaking, stupid.  They respond to inputs.  And if the inputs are "Try something without permission and get dinged" or "Decisions may only be made by a chosen few" they come to internalize that.  This may not be true for everyone - certain individuals have a degree of initiative that may not be allowed to the entire organization.  But the reality is that for most, such things are not tried because the underlying rule is that without taking all the appropriate steps and getting all the appropriate buy in, there will be nothing allowed.  The only surprising thing at that point is that often the people in charge are stunned that no-one will take initiative. 

How is this combated?  There are only two options.  One is for a true internal look at the soul of the organization and what it has come to practice (and by practicing, demonstrates its beliefs) about ideas, change and initiative - and make changes.  The other choice is for those that wish to do such things to look elsewhere. 

For without changing the real nature of control, all the lip service to "We wish people were more self motivated" will drift into the wind of the organizational reality