Hi Pascal. The definition of a LO, I argue in a recently submitted paper
to Jnl Org. Change Mngt., is that it depends on the paradigmatic
assumptions; the underlying premises about human individuals, the nature
of organising, how you understand 'rational', whether you think that
business orgs. have a role to play in forming the society, how you value
the spiritual etc. So I would not like to see one definition 'set in
concrete'. Compare Senge and Garvin for example and examine their
underlying premises and note the difference. A problem with taking the
position I have outlined, which is itself steeped in a particular
paradigm, is that discussing epistemology, theory and method is not a 'big
ticket item' in the literature or in orgs. The respondents in my study
who are the 'leaders' are anti-intellectual to a man. Is this a phenomenon
of Australian business leaders?
Regards
Patricia Morrigan
-- From: Patricia Morrigan <patricia_morrigan.gsmstudent@muwaye.unimelb.edu.au>