Living and working together requires co-operation ; not work side by side, but work together. This leads to a noble endeavor to form
units and impose cooperation on parties. This is often preceded by a good reason or
an objective analysis of the benefits of co-operation. And yet there are many problems in that
area. We see that between two people, within a team, between
departments in an organization and between regions within a country or between
countries, for example in the European Community. Mergers also give us quite a few
demonstrations of failing structures tha were designed for co-operation.
The basic principle for a sustainable solution is: people work together, not because they have to, but
because they want to . ‘Must' then refers to coercion from outside or from one
partner in the cooperation structure. "Wanting" is based on idealism, common goals or even a necessity that is recognized on both sides. It therefore becomes clear that imposing
co-operation, even with a good analysis of benefits, will not work as long as
it is not perceived by the parties as being desirable.
In the well-known book by Stephen Covey (The Seven Attributes of Effective
Leadership) a useful scheme is provided in this area. We must first gain autonomy,
self-determination and freedom, then connect with others. The two phases that both people and groups
of people go through are therefore:
- Evolve from dependence to independence
- Grow from independence to mutual
dependence
Cooperation goes wrong (or becomes very difficult) if
there is a relationship of dependence that is held under pressure, even if that
is with good substantive arguments. One should first allow sufficient self-governance, and then come together
again on the basis of freedom.
The reason is clear: respect for each other is only
possible in freedom and autonomy, not in forced dependence. And respect for each other is a basic
condition for trust. Without trust, cooperation is impossible, unless in a
calculated and manipulating way that requires a lot of energy from both parties
to constantly pay attention to making and complying with agreements correctly.
Why is it so hard for people to follow a constructive
way in this dynamic? The main reason seems to be that in the past mixing
structures were created through the use of power. This leads to a striving for emancipation,
autonomy and freedom. If this is countered, either on the basis of a need
for control, 'use' of one party by another, or even through objective analyzes
of benefits, then cooperation becomes forced and therefore difficult.
If, like in European history, after a period of
division and competition there is a striving for cooperation based on mutual
respect for individuality, it can still go wrong if one starts to overly
centralize and build a new power structure that takes away the feeling of
freedom from the partners. Attempts to introduce the principle of ‘subsidiarity’
(decentralize authority as local as possible), often fails because of the urge
for uniformity. This is sometimes enforced faster than local differences
can evolve into unity, and coercion is born.
The stronger the partners stick to their past, the
slower the "natural advancement" will evolve, and the sooner the logically imposed
cooperation will be experienced as a brake on one's own identity. For individuals, sticking to the past often
comes from a low maturity (defensive attitude to life, focused on survival) and
for organizations it is based on a static culture, often through long-term
totalitarian leadership, accompanied by low intellectual development. The learning capacity is then not a
cultural characteristic, and therefore people strongly hold on to what exists,
for safety reasons.
It is clear that the closer the related individuals
are suffering from ‘autistic limitations’, the more fear they will have for the
unknown, and look for safety and control in the settled routines they have
developed. (1)
Hugo Der Kinderen (Nov. 2017)
(1)
See the very inspiring book from Temple Grandin on
autism.
No comments:
Post a Comment