If, I love your example of the dynamite video! Also, the meaning you
attribute to the event and the structure of change ring true for me.
"Buy in" is way oversold. What is wanted is the conditions where
something happens. Do you "buy in" to your communities preactices or
are they largely something you just adapt to?
What I want to pick up on is
>> what are the best options for systemic change when you
> >don't have adequate time to promote buy-in?
This question suggests to me a fundamental misuse of "systemic".
Leaving aside the specific of "the need for buy in", how can we think
it possible to have systemic change without taking the time that it
takes to do what is required? Isn't time a major component of a
system? Is there any way around "what is required" by a system if it
is in fact required?
Surely "don't have adequate time" (or resources, or intent, or ??)
means that there is not going to be any sort of organised system
change occurring.
I suggest that when the thought as formulated "when there isn't time
for what's required by systemic change" then we have a signal to
reconsider what we are up to and/or what we consider to be the nature
of systems and they way they change.
Theories of complex adaptive systems suggest ways which provide
leverage beyond anything that systems dynamics offers in this matter
as far as I've been able to tell so far. Check it out.
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus
--Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>