Consensus, TQM, Conflict Management
\doc\web\99\16\tqm.txt


Date sent:      	Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:41:23 -0500
From:           	JSOOD@aol.com 
Subject:        	Consensus, TQM, Conflict Management


Loop,


This isn't groundbreaking information, but I decided to post this info for
the record and for the benefit of any newer loopers who by chance haven't
heard this.


  I've been reading "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" by Charlotte
Iserbyt by night, and intermittently going through old files by day, and I
keep thinking, "Hey! She's right!" about old documents. Her book
chronologically lays out the use of psychologists of behaviorism in schools
to change the nature of education, training people to respond in an automatic
way. She discusses Dean Gotcher's extensive research that showed that
consensus, conflict management and TQM were the reworked versions of the
Hegelian dialectic-- attitude-changing mechanisms being used in schools, in
business, in government, and in churches. These employ facilitators to bring
the diverse opinions of participants to a new result, planned from the start
by the facilitator. Gotcher says an individual will not be able to stand for
the rule of law, scripture, other absolutes against this enforced group-think.


In papers from one daughter's elementary school PTA meeting in 9/93, I see
they budgeted for $3200 for Conflict Resolution training, 4 days for the
training of teachers, who would then teach their aides and the students. I
remember that it was presented as a little local thing that had been tried at
other nearby schools and that it had caused peace to break out all over the
playground! What hype. It was suggested by the principal. It is noted on the
budget: To be repaid by grant monies. My other daughter was in a different
Berkeley elementary school at the same time, and it was the same situation,
but there,some categorical funding paid for conflict resolution, year after
year, though it was hard to gauge whether it made any difference or not.
Except for the severely disturbed special ed kids, the students of West
Berkeley (low income) actually all got along pretty well anyway!


In a file from a class called Personnel Management and Labor Relations, which
I took at a local business school in the public administration department in
8/96 in preparation for serving on a personnel commission in my school
district, I found a page from the Xerox Total Quality program. It defines
Consensus as:


A psychological state which can be described as...


--I understand what most of you would like to do.
--I personally would not do that, but I feel you understand what my
alternative would be.
--I have had sufficient opportunity to sway you to my point of view, but
clearly have not been able to do so.
--Therefore, I will support what most of the group wishes to do because it
was arrived at in a fair and open way.


(In italics) Operationally, consensus would be defined by the fact that those
members who would not take the majority alternative, nevertheless, understand
and are prepared to support it.


  (My note: I remember when our school board announced that they were going to
be doing everything by consensus from now on, sometime early in the 90s.)


Xerox Total Quality: In Order to Achieve Consensus


--Time must be allowed for all group members to state their opposition fully
enough to get the feeling that others truly do understand them.


--Careful listening by all members to people expressing viewpoints different
from their's is imperative.


--Avoid arguing for the sake of "getting your own way."


--Avoid changing your mind for the sole purpose of avoiding conflict.


--Avoid conflict-reducing techniques: i.e., majority vote, averaging, power
plays, coin flipping, etc.


--Accept responsibility that you represent your constituencies.


--View differences of opinion as natural and helpful rather than as a
hindrance.


--Be suspicious of initial agreement.


--Verbally test for consensus by going around the table; silence or a few
head nods does not necessarily mean consensus.
-----


The instructor, whose day job was administrator for the General Services
Administration (federal government), gave us lots of information about TQM
and conflict management. The poor guy was a white male who felt like a member
of an endangered species--there was a lot of reorganization going on and he
seemed to feel like the least popular category of employee!


We students had to give presentations on different management topics. One
pair researched "Reward/compensation Systems for Organizational Tasks."
Their handouts note:
1-- Motivation--
--Rewards motivate to achieve increased quality output
--Workers associate with organizations that reward needs.


2--Motivation Theory:
Behavioralism/Operant Conditioning          B.F. Skinner


Performance/Reward Association
--Behavior that is rewarded will re-occur
--Reward should follow ASAP


Contemporary considerations:
--Make performance/award association obvious
--Rewards should be equitable
--Organization must be prepared to deliver award


Drawbacks:
--Rewards at year-end for past performance=poor association
--Sense of 'entitlement' causes loss of motivational use
--Teams make difficult individual motivation


3--Self Actualization         Abraham Maslow


-(Triangle diagram shows layers must accomplish for self fulfillment; from
bottom up:
Physiological needs; Safety and security; Belonging and social; Esteem and
ego; Self Actualization.)


Contemporary considerations:
--Workers can be motivated to increase performance if it fulfills their needs


Drawbacks:
--Once needs are met, motivation may cease
--Management forever reviewing employee needs
--Endless series of reward schemes




4--Two-Factor Theory         Frederick Herzberg
--Expansion of Skinner and Maslow
--Maslow-rewards led to proportionate motivation


--Herzberg-award/performance relationship more complex
--satisfiers      --dissatisfiers or hygiene factors
--Compensation plans must include satisfiers and dissatisfiers
    satisfiers= achievement, recognition, advancement, job/personal growth,
autonomy, salary if it confers status)
    hygiene factors=salary for basic needs, job security, working conditions,
interpersonal relationships, fringe benefits.
--Satisfiers correspond to higher needs (ego/self actualization)
--Hygiene factors correspond to lower needs


Finally, today is received a copy of a notice about a London meeting of
bishops that says: "Within the atmosphere of prayer and through participation
in the monastic rhythms of the Holy Cross community, the bishops entered into
a process of structured dialogue on homosexuality within the larger context
of human sexuality. With the guidance of experienced facilitators, trust and
mutual respect grew as the bishops considered convergent (shared) and
divergent (differing) points of view. The process of dialogue fostered a deep
sense of the Spirit's presence in the midst of diverse confictions. The
consulation demonstrated the great value of facilitated dialogue..."


Susan O.