Replying to LO28120 --
Dear Organlearners,
Alan Cotterell <acotrel@cnl.com.au> writes:
>I notice in particular XYZ working as a consultant
>in the area of complexity management. What is he
>selling? Is this stuff all bullshit? I have received a
>bit of flack from him from time to time. Many of the
>postings on the list proclaim a 'new way of
>management thinking', what am I missing? I also
>notice that XYZ talks in code.
Greetings dear Alan,
I think we have a many sided problem here. Some write because they have a
passion for that which they write about. Some have made their passion
their job so that for wholeness as reason they cannot avoid writing about
their job too. Some have to tell that they are free lancing which is also
not wrong. But sometimes the under garment sticks out a bit too much for
being comfortable seeing it. Trying to convince someone else what one self
sells is good and proper is a salesperson's gimmick which resulted into
many an unpleasant surprise.
The problem becomes worse when we bear in mind that most, if not all,
subjects in academy each has its own dedicated terminology. Even
managerial science has to some extend its own dedicated terminology. In
the solution of this problem we ought to bear one tning in mind above all.
The idea of a LO (Learning Organisation) does not belong to a particular
subject, even though Peter Senge from managerial science has succeeded
first in articulating this idea convincingly. As I read more and more
books on the history (i.e., evolution) of a subject, the more I get
glimpses of LOs having existed in almost every century. Perhaps the most
astounding example is the city Athens some twenty four centuries ago.
We here in South Africa are learning fast how much we have to think
"multi-culturally" since there are at least twenty major cultures
interacting in our nation. I think that we ought to do the same on our
LO-dialogue by allowing for dedicated terminology from any subject. Should
a writer often put too much dedicated terminology of one kind into his/her
writings, he/she will just have to live with the fact he/she writes in
code which few can decipher. Should a reader want to have deciphered code
in every contribution, he/she also will have to live with the fact he/she
is spinning him/herself into the coccoon of mediocrity.
I think that interdisciplinary and especially transdisciplinary thinking
and speaking will eventually become common in the LO-dialogue.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
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.