Dear Roy,
Thanks for your comments.
>I agree with your view that there is a need to address issues of power in
>the context of this thread.
Yes, but we seem to have avoided it thus far! As Bacal has said, he would
like to know the context of Drucker's remarks...it is increasingly
difficult in many developed economies to "command" anyone to do anything.
What happened to collaborative decision making, skillful conversation,
influencing skills, value-based leadership, listening to people etc, All
the great learning organisation skills and capabilities are thrown out the
window based on one remark! (I exagerate of course!)
>It amuses me that there is so much discussion
>these days about knowledge management but none, whatsoever, about power
>management.
A good point. Increasingly, power lies with those who have critical,
relevant and "useful" knowledge, and knowledge is tied up with access to
knowledge sources such as education, ongoing training and access to
electonic communications such as the one we are using now. Many people
are being left out - including a good part of the developed and developing
world.
>Do you find that there is a reluctance to discuss power?
Yes, and this is interesting because power in all its forms is part of
life. Yet many of our most powerful people deny they in fact have any
power over events. ( eg "I am just a humble billionaire." or "I am ONLY
Prime Minister - I can't actually change things.") Personally, I am
comfortable with the notion of power in itself, but the nature of power,
who has it and how it should be exercised are important questions that we
often don't get to. And in a learning sense, this often causes the
failure of change and development processes. For example, middle managers
undermining a TQM implementation or frontline workers sabotaging new
machinery or French farmers blockading roads because. All in part because
they have not taken part in the decisions and/or risk losing power (or
money, which often equates to power) when the planned changes happen.
>I agree with your comment about the unitary nature of Marxist analysis but
>the same comment can be made about most forms of analysis. Do you know of
>any pluraist approaches?
I don't know of any pluralist approaches except perhaps at a meta-level
Post Modern analysis might be seen to function this way.
>As a point of interest, Jurgen Habermas has taken Marx's work forward, and
>I do not believe that the fall of communism has devalued Habermas's work.
>This continuity with the past, is why I would have liked to have seen an
>analysis of power based upon Burrell & Morgan's framework.
I think the distinction you make is worthwhile Roy. Perhaps it is more
accurate to say that recent historical events and new theories have acted
in such that Marxist analysis has not so much been devalued as put in
context with a range of other approaches.
I've read Habermas but a long time ago...
Regards,
Philip
Philip Pogson
Leadership Development Strategy Consultant
Staff Development Branch
University of Technology Sydney NSW 2007
Australia
ph: +61 2 9514 2934(w)
fax: +61 2 9514 2930(w)
ph/fax: +61 2 9809 5185 (h)
mobile: +61 0412 459156
"The new heresy for the organisational renewal movement to espouse is that
when we build organisations that act upon this world we must not do so with
the intent to exploit, pollute and plunder but to renew the life of the
planet and ourselves."
-Dexter Dunphy
--Philip Pogson <ppogson@uts.EDU.AU>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>