Replying to LO24809
Hello At,
I read all of your 'novel' and believe some circuits have been reconnected
in my mind. The reception has been poor for a while.
I had to chuckle when I read your question
"Why do I keep up with composing complex contributions when so many
members clearly express that they want simple, practical contributions?
I often ponder similarly when lobbying for more attention for our learners
within my company. I continue to rail about having to communicate what I
want to on one page else it will not get read. And sometimes what I have
to say cannot be said on one page But with rote learning (my
interpretation of it) the rewards come from being seen and saying the
'right things' - no time to read what the trainer has to say for the
ongoing betterment of the organisation - not suggesting that what I have
to say is our salvation - but at least more complex than being in the
right place and saying the right things. Nevetheless it remains a problem
for me in my work - to move our managers into rather more complex things
than climbing the corporate ladder, it's leaning against the wrong wall
(my opinion)
In this contribution At I can 'feel' your passion that we (all humanity)
accept and learn complexity and in my mind communism and aparthied and
capitalism are examples of simplicity. If this is the case I agree. Yet
like I intimated in a previous contribution, if the pathfinders are too
far ahead, the flares are cold before the followers get there. I'm
thankful that that Rick reminded you - and Andrew - that you had left us
on a rock and that you had to come back to get us before the tide came in!
So in my particular sphere of influence within my company, how do I cut my
way through simplicity? Modern technology is indeed a great thing. I
concentrate on the shop floor. I pick out positive progressive things
from management reports and relate how shop floor effort contributed to
such things and e-mail them to every mail address in my division. I have
two folders full of writings from the likes of Senge, Waitley, Covey etc
etc that I use at opportune moments when shop floor and front line
managers seek my counsell. It helps that senior management (overseas)
work to a charter and look at the organisation in its widest context - a
small atom within a big one - the world. And yes I've been through the
parable of the boiled frog with several people. Now what did Andrew say a
couple of digests ago? Oh yes
>I too had a choice last night; to attend a meeting by a prominent English
>Business guru ( not my term) called a 'MasterClass' Usual format, he
>talks we listen then we all get to ask questions...., I am prepared to
>name this prominent person, Sir John Harvey-Jones (late of ICI), a man of
>immense charm, grace, wit and more than a little in depth 'practice and
>theory' of organisation structure and change OR be with a young man,
>seventeen who briefly stated to me -" I hope I don't come over as stupid,
>I am taking tranquillisers for stress.." snip
I think I'm doing 'that'. Of course it's not good for the career path
"not being seen and not saying etc", but so what, people are more
important and reading and debating a parable about a boiled frog is good
for the soul as well as the business, perhaps the soul will win and its
owner will voluntarily get off the bus going to the capital.
And you did say
>The more complex anything, the more minor things have to go in it.
Hope the picture of this in my mind is the same as the one in yours.
Regards,
Dennis.
--"Dennis Rolleston" <dennisr@ps.gen.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.