TJ Elliott wrote:
> When Walsh made the resource move, he likley made some very important moves
> in other sector. Would one have failed without the other? Do you go to one
> area because that's what the company calls for or strive to balance efforts?
A very good question. In my view you should strive to deal with specific
issues in a holistic context (if that is what you mean by "balance
efforts"--is it?). However, in my experience it is very, very hard to do.
Clients resist it tooth and nail. In a sense it is denial on their part
(i.e. "It can't possibly be that our whole strategy and organisational
infrastructure is screwed up, so lets bring in a 'specialist' to look at
our compensation system.") This is why most consulting projects result in
only minor or tranistory "successes." It is also the reason why
consultants that can convince clients to look at issues in a broader
context can make the big bucks.
> later in your pose you state
Surely you mean "post." Otherwise this is a very serious breach of
"Netiquette" which I very much resemble, to paraphrase Groucho.
> I wonder. Is a bad end for MS preordained?
If my post implied preordination of a "bad end" for Microsoft I plead
guilty to hyperbole. All I was really trying to do was make a trite
observation along the lines of "trees don't grow to the sky," or "in the
long run we are all dead." If the time frame is long enough, of course
they will fall from where they are (or where they might get to, at their
peak). Also, of course, even though GM and IBM have fallen from their
peaks, they still exist and are very powerful. So, don't expect Bill and
Melinda to be showing up in the Seattle soup kitchens for a few years, at
least.
> My reason for asking is that increasingly I want to know what difference our
> efforts make. I do not circumscribe the kinds of differences. I just want to
> know any differences at all.
So would I, TJ, so would I. My strong suspeicion is that our successes
are small, but they exist. Even if we screw up, the Hawthorne effect
gives us some sort of legacy in any organisation we deal with.
> I'd like to know if anyone is reading Gibbon or Heller At MS?
I'd be surprised if they haven't hired Heller. I'd also be very surprised
if they're not reading Gibbon, perhaps too seriously. To me, the defining
characteristic of hubris is the thought that "I'll make sure that it can't
happen to me."
Cheers from Caledonia
Richard Goodale
PS/Disclaimer--all my comments on Misrosoft are only based on what I read
in the paper.
rfg
--Richard Goodale <fc45@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>