Normally, I lurk near the edges, taking it all in...so please forgive me
if I am beating a dead horse. In the postings that I read on the various
lists (complex-m, mgt-ed-dv, odnet & LO), the emphasis is always placed on
factors such as time, manpower, commitment, and all of the seemingly
HUMANE aspects of management, leadership and the like. I spent 12 years in
corporate environments in which the whole system was dysfunctional, by
family relationship standards.
In addition, I spent spent time in Costa Rica for an agricultural project
run by a US firm.
The history of agriculture is very interesting; The large fruit growers
employed (and owned) such large proporties, that the town was actually
corporate based.
The company recognized it's responsibility (and the feasibility) of
sponsoring all neccessary community functions including medical,
religious, communication and Alcoholics Anonymous (we'll ignore that they
also ran the cantina...).
This system demonstrates that there is most definately an advantage from
an organization encouraging the "family" paradigm of management. In that
scenario, such policy was economically feasible.
It is still about economics. When a company has chosen not to consider
new methods, or not to implement a plan of action, or take a consultant
seriously, it is due to the fact that no one thinks that it's important
enough. In other words, it hasn't cost enough money to the organization to
do.
Before anything can be done to change an organization; that org needs to
know that something needs to be done.
just my opinion...
michael weisman.
+================================+
| Michael Weisman |
| Graduate Student |
| University of South Florida |
| mweisman@packet.net |
+================================+
CHAOS IS MERELY A FUNCTION OF
THE GRANULARITY OF THE SAMPLE
--Michael Weisman <mweisman@packet.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>