Scott's distinction between arrows in the chest and arrows in the back is
an excellent one. At first I didn't agree with it, but when I included
the arrows of 'neglect' and 'ignore', it became very relevant. The
pioneers tend to get shot from behind through two mechanisms -- negative
feedback "what a stupid idea" type response, and also just plain being
ignored or forgotten.
Scott said, in reference to pioneers versus leaders:
These are good distinctions and help to clarify some of the differences.
Yet, I've seen it expressed, operationally of course, a bit differently:
Leaders are the ones just ahead of the group who are the targets of the
external competition because they are visibly leading their teams of
people forward.
Thus, Leaders are the ones with the arrows in their Chests.
Pioneers, on the other hand, don't appear to be leading the group onward
and thus are much more likely to generate a variety of negative
organizational / political reactions.
Thus, Pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their Backs.
Thus, we have a simple physical test for determining the difference, of
course. It may not be always accurate, since some organizations may also
appear to "shoot from all sides" when suggestions for improvement are
encountered from within. And the good news is that most of these
organizations do not have accurate marksmen.
== end quote ==
==
Rol Fessenden
LL Bean, Inc
76234,3636@compuserve.com
--Rol Fessenden <76234.3636@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>