I am not sure about this... there is a part of me which would like
to go down this path of thinking .. and yet something is holding me
back.
Firstly I wonder if in doing so we are attributing intentions to
the actions of seniors managers that are not really there? Why
do they only read half of a book?? (for that matter whay have I got
so many half read books??) What does skimming represent?? How
often do we read stuff and really understand it?? Possibly because
a lot of the books are saying similar stuff and there is so much of
it we aspire to and yet struggle with - conceptually we understand
and support it - pratically we fail to apply it...
Secondly I am unsure if senior managers are really the issue - or
is it people?? Why do we single senior managers out for our
attention in these matters of change in organisations?? (I think
that one was rhetorical - because of their influence over the whole
system) Yet if senior managers are most able to see the whole
system are they a) most likely to be influenced by it themselves
and b) even more frustrated than everyone with the 'quick-fixes'
that fail??
If LO is going to impact more than adding to the number of words
which become unmentionable in organisations (empowerment,
catalyst, vision, mission, TQ, the list is becoming a long one)
then my sense is that one of the clues lies in us resisting the
path of easiest resistance and blaming the senior managers (and any
other single groups) and stickingn to our 'whole system' guns.
Another clue is in the 'sincere reflection' which Ray mentions -
how do we 'facilitate' that *happening* rather than staying an so
far I am finding curious inquiry ... and questions which seek to
understand (without attributing blame or raising defenses) is
helping .. anyone else any other 'clues' or helpful tips on this
one??
--Julie Beedon <julie@vistabee.win-uk.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>