I think probably a lot of reasons, but one that I think affects areas such
as Deming's work, or LO's etc is the language we use. It is hard for me to
conceive of a manager who would not throw someone out on their ear at the
first hint of the kinds of language used here.
For example:
> How do they do it? For example, some of them dogmatise their model
> into a fixed version. It means in terms of the essentiality liveness
> ("becoming-being") that they take the 'becoming" out of the model.
> Others assume that their model, based om a small part of reality,
> can be applied to a much greater part of the whole. It means in
> terms of the essentiality wholeness ("associativity-mondaidity")
> that they deny the associative pattern in jumping from the part to
> the whole.
If the things we are trying to explain to managers MUST use this kind of
language, then there isn't much hope. If we can translate them into
language that is familiar to those we work with, then there is a chance.
Robert Bacal, author of PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,(McGraw-Hill). Details at
http://members.xoom.com/perform and http://members.xoom.com/cooperate.
"Performance management - about people and creating success"=
Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm
--"worknews" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>