Thanks so much everyone for your thoughtful responses to my post on=20
Learning Organizations and the Media. A number of points I=92d like to=20
pick up on and expand:
Keith Cowan writes:=20
- The TV has used sitcoms to illustrate reality in Murphy Brown and have
highlighted oil companies in Dallas, hospitals of all sorts, law
offices... My real question would be how would you keep it entertaining,
and why would anyone want to watch on TV what they see every day.=20
Dilbert is effective in poking fum at corporate folly, but I can onlyt=20
handle a bit a him each day because he is too accurate!
Keith =85 you=92re channelling man. Channelling every TV Program Director=
=20
and Producer I=92ve ever worked for. Two great points here. The "how woul=
d=20
you keep it entertaining" part of your question is of course the=20
ultimate challenge of any TV program, or newspaper article, or radio=20
show. Ben Compton suggests:=20
- I think that Rich would be well served if he used dramatic=20
interpretation to show how new management ideas were discovered, how=20
they pervaded organizations, and so forth. Then bring in a bunch of=20
people to discuss current business practicies, and how they might impact=20
the future (do some scenarios).
This is certainly a possibility, though I am leery of simulated=20
interpretations because they are by nature representations of an actual=20
event, not the actual event itself. Simulations are products of the=20
biases and perspectives of the people creating them, and the pressures=20
to "adjust the story for dramatic impact" are enormous. Just watch any=20
movie "based on a real story".
One approach that may work is documentary footage - taking the cameras=20
into the team meeting, or into the workshop, or onto the floor to=20
capture the idea-being-discussed in its implementation in the real=20
world. But you tell me - is that doable? Can we ensure safety to all=20
participants if there are cameras lurking in the background? Will the=20
responses and dialogue be real or artificial? Will any organizations=20
allow their processes and methods to become public domain? A couple of=20
years ago, a documentary film crew gained access to the=20
behind-the-scenes meetings of the Canadian Auto Workers Union as they=20
negotiated a new agreement with de Havilland aircraft, and the ensuing=20
documentary was gutsy, crude, honest, and riveting, although I=92m sure=20
uncomfortable to the participants watching themselves months after the=20
event. But this documentary element - if it=92s possible - combined with=20
interview segments, historical footage, animated diagrams, etc. could=20
keep this thing interesting enough.
The second concern from Keith - "why would anyone want to watch" - is=20
also worth considering. Frankly Keith, many people won=92t want to watch.=
=20
But so what? That doesn=92t mean it=92s not worth doing. As for the fact=20
that they see it every day - it=92s my contention that they don=92t see i=
t=20
every day, certainly not with any context provided, any perspective on=20
how what they=92re witnessing fits into a whole picture. Ben Compton=20
mentioned James Burke=92s program "connections", which was a great exampl=
e=20
of a program striving to explain and give us a time line to understand=20
the large forces shaping our culture.
One final thing - please check out the November issue of the Toronto=20
Globe and Mail=92s Report on Business magazine. A provocative and critica=
l=20
piece on examples of severe trauma caused by management inflicting some=20
consultant=92s dubious theories on an unsuspecting workforce. Sure be=20
interested in some of your thoughts about that.
Anyway, thanks again for your provocative interest in my project.
Rich Jones
rjones@pathcom.com
--rich jones <rjones@pathcom.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>