On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, John Conover wrote:
> Again, whether this is true, or not, depends on who is
> telling the story, but for more details see, "Fractals, Chaos, Power
> Laws," Manfred Schroeder, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York,
> W. H. Freeman and Company, 1991, or "Chaos and Order in the Capital
> Markets," Edgar E. Peters, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 1991.
Thank you for an enlightening post. It's like having x-ray vision into the
inner workings of "the system". :) I'll find these books.....
> But this may have advantages: the way you sell a CEO on a new concept,
> (your management concept, development concept, etc.,) is to put it in
> terms of increasing share holder's equity. Works every time ...
That's the stated selling point, but is that the unstated model in
operation? Do learning-org practitioners have to make a choice between
developing share holder equity or developing company employee's (the CEO
included)? Wouldn't it be great if things could be made win-win so that
the shareholder's (institutional investors - banks, pension funds, etc.)
AND the company employee's got more out of their respective agreements
than they expected?
Maybe this is wishful thinking.....
Andrew Moreno
amoreno@broken.ranch.org
--Andrew Moreno <amoreno@broken.ranch.org>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>