On 16 Dec 1995, Rol Fessenden wrote:
> As time goes on, we mix in successes and failures, keeping the whole mix
> in front of everyone. This creates an environment in which management can
> easily see that the successes more than pay for the failures, and
> therefore, they condone ongoing experimentation.
Is this implicit or do you explicitly state this?
> Some people may view this as manipulation. It is not. It is absolutely
> essential in a competitive environment that we achieve enough ongoing
> success to pay for the failures and still make a little money. The
> process described above forces a discipline on the department to meet a
> certain positive payback ratio. Generally, the 'failures' provide learning
> that eventually is converted into a success further down the road.
> Keeping the process visible to all is merely responsible behavior.
This can get very tricky. The department has given you a certain level of
agreement to manage their interests. What you are doing could be
misconstrued as operating in a way that the department hasn't agreed to.
The goal? To get their agreement with explicit understanding on their
part. Maybe the way to do this is through a technique used in sales
letters, the "damaging admission." State that there will be failures but
then really load up on the advantages - failures provide learning being
one of them.
Maybe it's better to keep it implicit....
I think it takes a lot of courage to discuss these undiscussables.
Thanks. I wish systems thinking books talked about HOW to deal with this
stuff.
Andrew Moreno
-- Andrew Moreno <amoreno@broken.ranch.org>