Responding to Resistance to Change LO24678
Hi Winfried and others,
Winfried these following comments of yours caught my eye:
>In my eyes, and nobody need to follow me here, the organization consists
>at least of three equally important, because necessary for sustainablilty,
>those working in the organization and
>A compromise on any of the three will harm the organization as a whole. It
>is in order to reduce such harm, that I view resistance as an asset worth
>exactly the harm avoided.
In particular, your use of the word "sustainability" caught my attention.
Recently a local politician who was zealously oriented to economic growth,
in particular building structures with lots of concrete and pavement, used
the word really without thinking of the surrounding system at all. She
used "sustainable" to modify "development" meaning "growth," with an
emphasis on continuing, expanding growth. She was using "sustainability"
almost to mean unmitigated growth, i.e., growth without restraint as in
"growth is good."
I don't find this so unusual, actually. Isn't this a premise of most
"business" as we know it, especially in the west? It concerns me because
I'm beginning to see this conventional growth paradigm as closely
associated quite a few hard to grasp, yet important, entropic forces:
I think I might add to your three important conditions necessary for
sustainability yet another:
those working in the organization
other surrounding environment (inclusive)
What do you think?
Grins and best wishes,
"Heidi and Dan Chay" <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.