At 11:47 AM 2/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I'm a firm believer in the notion that language shapes thought and
>>>thought shapes
>>>behavior. The label placed on a problem, for example, invokes a frame of
>>>reference that constrains and restrains the problem solver's efforts to
>>>solve the problem. So, I guess I'm more inclined to explore the
>>>"linguistic constructions" of problems than you might be.
>
>Gene Taurman responds...
>>It is necessary to define the problem and come to agreement on the
>>problem. That definition helps focus energy of the team all in one
>>direction. Unless there is agreement on the problem each person runs off
>>in their own direction. Without a problem definition and agreement on it
>>unified action and support is not likely. A problem definition serves the
>>same purpose as a mission statement. It unifies the energy of the team. It
>>also helps them know when a solution has failed.
>
>There was a time when I would have agreed with the statement above.
>However, I have since come to believe that what is essential is agreement
>regarding the solved state, that is, the set of conditions you are trying
>to bring into existence.
I agree that defining the future state is crucial to success and focus of
energy.
I still sue the problem definition and require an ability to quantify the
problem. Until then there is only complaining. With out an ability to
m4easrue I find too many cocky support example make a change and leave
without actually solving anything.
et.
Eugene Taurman
interLinx Consulting
414-242-3345
fax242-0137
http://www/execpc.com/~ilx
"Consensus is easy when all the facts are on the table"
Harry S. Truman
House Committee Chairman on Military Waste
Inresponse to a 1939 Press Question
--Pilx <ilx@execpc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>