tom abeles wrote, in part:
> From a time and systems perspective, one wonders, in the future whether
>one will not look >back with a jaundiced eye and ask whether the
>reductionist approach which segmented >knowledge in this manner was not
>the last vestige of a dying intellectual model, or perhaps, a >clever
>marketing approach used by management consultants to differentiate
>themselves (this >latter idea noted with glee by a publisher of
>management books). Rick's remark about what >might be "new" in the last
>3-4 years parallels this concern, particularly when we place >ourselves
>in an evolutionary perspective.
>This is of particular concern to governments (and business). What,
>indeed, is the half-life of >an organization, a company, a government?
>What is the importance of change? On the rate of >change? for the
>organization? for the individuals? for the larger ecosystem? What is
>real, what >is manufactured? what is, ultimately, important?
Hmmm. I had not seen my comment about 'what's new' in the way you did.
Thanks! Your post reminds me to keep the big picture in mind - both in
terms of scope and time. Also, I am old enough to recognize lots of ideas
and practices as they are recycled with new names.
Thank you as well for the profound (and rhetorical) questions you pose.
As I see it, one answer to the last question is: Ultimately, what is
important is for each of us to declare.
Rick Fullerton
Canadian Centre for Management Development
rwfc@odyssee.net
--Rick Fullerton <rwfc@odyssee.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>