"Peter E. Pflaum, Ph.D. Institute for Human Resources (904) 428-9609
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply to: Brian McAndrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Crazy Times - to be sure!
IT ALL ABOUT POWER:
What about the backward and Stupid institution I work in? What about
the hopeless stupid and backward local school system? Why? Its all
about LETTING GO OF POWER! The people in charge are afraid -
timid - poorly prepared to deal with the future - these are the training
of the young! GM paid Perot $700 million to go away rather than
change. IBM said there was no market for micro-computers! The only
technology to effect public education in the last 100 years is the
blackboard. The US Congress doesn't know what is being spent and
what the Federal revenues are. No national news organization has on
line services to stringers on the INTERNET around the world - they
don't use ham radio or the news gathering power of global networks.
Why?
My interest has been drawn to the social and psychology barriers to
change. The ancient methods of leadership training (Sufi) are
extremely interesting in development of the potential to see and feel
objectively. To not be so much in yourself, your role, your face, that
you can't really deal with reality. WAKE UP is a process of doing
reality as it is - and that is not easy. These stupid and fixed systems
are not real - but suffer from collective illusion - are walking in
their
sleep - in a trance - WAKE UP - leadership has been trained in
freedom but the masses were not expected to be interested or to
have the time. Freedom is beyond illusions - cultural myths - industrial
myths - educational myths - most people live stupid lives, doing
stupid jobs - and not asking stupid questions - like why and why not?
Those that do get fired.
FUTUREWORK?
See, Kun, T. 1993. PROJECT MIND - The Conscious Conquest of Man
& Matter Through Accelerated Thought. Indian Rocks Beach, FL:
Unimedia.<P> <
>See, Harman, Willis and Rheingold, Howard. 1984. Higher Creativity.
Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher. <
>See, Tart, Charles T. 1987. Waking Up - Overcoming the Obstacle to
Human Potential. Boston: New Science library, Shambala. <
>See, Drexler, K. Eric. 1990. Engines of Creation. N.Y.: Anchor
Books.
>See, Ettinger, Robert C.W. 1965. The Prospect of Immortailty.
London: Sidgwick and Jackson. <
>See, Rheingold, Howard. 1991. Virtual Reaity. N.Y.: Summit Books.
</OL> <HR> <A HREF="project_mind.html"> <IMG
*eradicate "change" from your vocabulary. Substitute "abandonment"
or "revolution"instead.
Green Eggs and Ham. - "not my job Man"
Do you like power?
I do not like it, Sam-I-Am. I do not like power.
Would you like power here or there?
I would not like power here or there. I would not like power
anywhere. I do not like power Sam-I-Am! I do not like power
Sam-I-Am. Sam, Leave me be!
Try it, try it - you will see - you will like Power, so you see? I
do like
power, Sam-I-am, I like power here and there, I
like power everywhere.
(Dr. Seuss 1960)
Freedom and independence are not inherent in every person. It must
be sought and be earned. Proactive, responsible, independent people
are the result of effort. Some are chosen or born free, some make
themselves independently and other are driven to express their
individual character and value. Even some grow to relish power or
green eggs and ham?
Bureaucratic organizations, factories have been the dominant form in
industrial society. People were interchangeable "roles" with limited
capacity to connect thinking (done at the top) and doing (done by the
workers). This is the model of the bureaucratic system.
Congress, bureaucrats, planners, supervisors, deans, principals,
textbook publishers etc. try to produce "fool proof" systems but the
fools are too clever. If the supervisor and the "worker" were the real
source of information the power structure could be stood in its head
as it should be in modern times.
>(We) not have enough influence to stem the tide, but what
>alternative is there?
In reading early twentieth century Dewey and in reading Goodlad's
recent book (Goodlad, 1984), one is struck by recurrent themes and
by apparent inability of the American educational system to adapt to
changing circumstances. Schools are part of a complex web of life.
The social change of which Dewey was an early prophet continues to
evolve. The philosopher's concern with the exigency of learning to
learn permeates his 1920 thinking. Dewey notes rapid progress of his
times. Advances in industrialization, transportation, and
communication dictated need to adapt to a continuously and quickly
changing environment. Experience and thinking involve connection of
relationships. This connection is essential for reasoning to occur.
While all thinking results in knowledge, ultimately the value of
knowledge is subordinate to its use in thinking. For we live not in a
settled and finished world, but in one which is going on, and where
our main task is prospective, and where retrospect -- and all
knowledge as distinct from thought is retrospect -- is of value in the
solidity, security and fertility it affords our dealings with the future
(Dewey, 1920, pp. 177-178).
Implications of such thought exist today in our post- industrial
information age.
The core of Dewey's educational theory was encouragement of
flexibility, creativity, and practicality in individual thinking. His
argument suggests these qualities are required of a broadly
democratic society as he defined it. Public schools were originally
designed for students who would settle well into industrial
discipline.
Waves of immigrants arriving in the mid-nineteenth century were
socialized to American ways through the public schools.
As a segment of society, early public schooling saw as part of its
role this preparation of factory workers. Assembly lines were largely
staffed by immigrants from foreign countries and rural America.
Factory-like compartmentalization was reflected in physical traits of
schools (rows of nailed down desks) as well as in curriculum with its
segmented structure. Subjects were and often are separated from
other subjects and from life itself. Dewey is a prophet of
contemporary critics of our educational system. The American school
system is not working. Goodlad (1984) sees necessity for change
even in our best schools. The system designed to produce factory
workers is no longer relevant. Rather than factory mentality, we need
reason -- reason derived from thinking and knowledge. As technology
rushes forward, it is imperative for citizens to have learned how to
learn. Dewey saw schools as small communities where students
grasp larger concepts through smaller concepts relevant to their own
worlds.
Individual discovery of findings established centuries earlier, are new
in the sense of unique interpretation. As a child uncovers wonders of
nature, the individual's revelation is as fresh as an initial
discovery.
Goodlad (1984) sees the role of schools as communities for changing
society, not as mere reflections. Sadly, what we often see inside of
our schools is a mirror image of what is wrong outside.
Dewey the philosopher and social theorist based much of his
thought on the social sciences and psychology. He spoke of
organizations as the organic whole. As industry changes from
production lines to cooperative work groups, X Theory becomes
Theory Z.
Traditional schools espouse X Theory (individuals are
inherently unmotivated, needing coercion to work or learn). Dewey's
school is based on Theory Z (learning occurs naturally through
relevance). Organizational structure of small schools lends itself to
Type-Z application.
The nongraded multiage approach is an attempt to break out of the
industrial mold and teach the child as an individual being, rather than
as a product to be processed. Age segregation is as unnatural as
subject matter segregation. Retention shatters self-esteem into small
bits. Goodlad proposes teacher cycling, schools within schools, and
multiage nongraded grouping in an effort to bring continuity to
schooling.
Smaller, simpler - Federalism as originally conceived in the
constitution (Federal had VERY limited role) - proportional
representation -
>Ignorance is not an insult: no single person or small group of
>people has enough knowledge to do everything or even a majority
>of things right.
Either does the majority of the majority. All societies depend on moral
and political elites and always have and always will. This is the point.
There is some but limited "wisdom of the people" but not much and it
is transient and foolish. Out system was not established to reflect the
"will of the people" - but to have balanced and responsive leaders. The
issue is "A CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP " moral, social, ecological,
intellectual, not a failure of the popular voice.
>Even if we understand the limits to growth (and even that
>subject is complex), we don't understand everything else.
We don't ? God does ? Do we know God ? It is systems not policy we
are dealing with here - If the system doesn't work the policies won't
be very good. Fix the system - a new basis for social action - real
federalism, regionalism, less federal government, more responsibility,
etc.
>I have been reading the entries regarding work and the future with
>great interest. The dialogue and sharing is terrific and
valuable. At
>the outset, I would like to share some information and then
>participate in the dialogues. Looking at the nature of work, things
>are changing so dramatically and so quickly it is tough to predict
>what skills will be needed and what type of work will be needed.
>An insightful resource that I highly recommend is Tom peters most
>recent book titled THE TOM PETERS SEMINAR: CRAZY TIMES CALL
>FOR CRAZY ORGANIZATIONS (1994) Vantage books. Here are
>some preliminary quotes I have gleaned from his book which may
>provide some fodder for FW discussions.
>I do know that imagination is the main source of value in the new
>economy. Company managers will devote a half-dozen meetings to
>a $50,000 capital proposal, then just skim over training issues and
go
>through the whole year without a serious discussion about
>imagination, which is the basis of all those intangibles.
Do you spend more of your time in the office working with the same
old matters? or are you constantly out and about, working hither and
thither, via electronic networks, with an ever-changing group of folks
from all over?
On a scale of 1 to 10, how "crazy" (a) are you? (b) is your unit? (c)
your company? (d) your most innovative competitor? Are you
excited about going to work on Monday? is the workplace a kick? On
a scale of 1 to 10, how dull is you (a) unit,(b) company (c) closest
competitor? how dull are you?
We removed the entire formal organization. We have a tremendous
competitive advantage, because we don't care about formalities. We
only care about performance and results."
This is the age of "more and more intellect, less and less
materials."
This is the age when the "only factory asset is the human
imagination."
The world of technology is complex, fast-changing, and unstructured,
and it thrive best when individuals are left alone to be different,
creative, and disobedient."
Successful change from creating "self-inflicted catastrophes...the idea
is to build a greenhouse in which to nurture the new order -- to test
the new organizational forms and the creative use of new technology
-- to break the rules and invent the future."
It's useless to tell people to make decisions on their own (empower
them) without giving them the information they need to make the
decisions.
On Trust -- without trust we cannot expect the human imagination to
pursue value-added.
Who will testify to your existence during the last 12 months?
Your sense of job security lies in your employability.
Jobs are joint ventures (with an employer) in problem solving. They're
strategies to solve pressing problems in organizations.
In the new economy, learning to make a job is probably going to be
more important than learning how to take a job.
So it's better to make a decision, on your own, right ordeveloping a
uniqueness and expanding your skills as opposed to
fitting yourself into opportunities that present themselves.
...acquire new skills constantly...you need to get (or stay) smarter
than
the next person, which means that you have to be committed, in
some form, to school for life.
Your personal program should (must) add up to nothing less than
retooling every four to six years.
In this brain-based economy, education is economics and economics
is education.
Some people and companies understand the relationship between
skill development and strategic necessity.
To fail to take big risks is the highest risk of all...
the whole idea of routinely moving "horizontally" is critical.
the career "ladder" is a dangerous image. It suggests knowable, linear
directions. Up = win. Anything else = lose. "Careers" today involve
jumping around, up, sideways -- and occasionally down. But always
grasping for a new learning experience, one that allows you to
develop and maintain or enhance skills, your network, and ultimately
your labor-market edge."
Michael Deery e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael, I read
somewhere recently that 4,000,000,000 people on our planet have
never made a phone call. They've got some catching up to do, eh?
Brian McAndrews * * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * *
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * FAX: (613)-545-6584 * * e-mail:
mcandrew@qucdn (Bitnet) C* * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Internet) * **************************************************
The technology revolution is getting up to speed just in time to
coincide with the arrival of the global village. And there is no
place to
hide, no placid backwater in which to sit this one out.
disembodied enterprise Clearing on the fly, forever more
intellect...less materials Human asset...human imagination
Institutions are about power. Information is a major prop for
bureaucratic power. Open information and where the lower levels
have more information than the top is subversive to hierarchical
power. The engine of change is not the technology itself but the
redistribution of information and the power for workers to act on their
own without someone's constant supervision, rules, procedures
(SOP), forms and committees. Some technical companies remain
top-down, but software requires flatter and more participatory
organization. Top down is too slow and dumb to take on fast markets.
This is what Ross Perot (from the computer service industry) tried to
tell General Motors in 1975. Financial markets are models where the
pattern of information has changed the power structure and
organizational form.
Small groups and individuals with their own work stations and a home
computer - power-books are nice! - They may promote a breakout
and help people take charge of their own learning.
Synergy is the most powerful social force. The total is greater than the
sum of the parts. It is possible to create a synergy on the network
if it
is free - open -.
For information to change power the organization must be
competitive in a "learning organization" environment. The group must
learn fast to stay in business. Clearly bureaucratic can't compete and
don't try. Freedom of markets in some form is required. Clients must
be free to vote with their feet. Freedom of choice by students and
parents can come with "models," such as special bureaucratic teams,
bureaucratic-in-bureaucratic, learning centers, labs, clubs, or choice,
etc. The "system" does not only not support real change but kills it off
as a foreign virus. Why the words say one thing "every client a king"
the practice does another. "Every bureaucrat a King." Not by evil
people but an obsolete system that fights to preserve power - as GM
did - it paid Ross $700 million to go away.
RE: Transformations; What is the Message Bill?
What the people want (as if I knew - What does the lady
desire?) is for the system to work better. The current structure
doesn't work. THERE IS A SYSTEM PROBLEM, fix the system not the
blame. Individuals caught is a non- functional system can't function
very well no matter what they do. The PROBLEM is the SYSTEM is
too big.
RESTRICTING is decentralization - regionalization -
power to local communities and OUT OF WASHINGTON.
Bill you don't get it. People don't really want to hear what you are
going to do for them - They don't believe "here is the problem, and
here is what we are going to do about it, what WE are going to do
for YOU". That becomes the traditional politics, programs, actions.
The NEW politics (and administrative theory) is to get out of the way.
Don't promise anything except less government, programs, solutions.
Welfare, medical reform, unwed mothers, crime, education,
productivity, ARE NOT NATIONAL ISSUES but for the states and
regions. There are no good national programs or answers to these
difficult (almost intractable ) issues. Balance the budget and reduce
taxes and national expenditures, GET IT. Big government is part of
the problem not part of the solution.
(Karl Polayni, The Great Transformation) The issue is the truth in the
structure - the real in the administration - the doing thing right
- NOT
ideology, or what is in the public mind. The mind of the masses is
an amorphous, convert, shifting, changing mystery. The response to
real social forces can best be described as a floating anxiety. The
social system is built on the means of production (Marx) and the
occupational structure of jobs and incomes. As the economic activity
changes the social interest reflect the real powers and positions of
"social classes". (Agricultural, capitalist, bureaucratic, forth
estate,
distribution, invention, investment, financial, property,
poverty, etc.)
How about getting closer to the idea of the Constitution? The federal
government was not to do any of these domestic programs. The
great depression required Federal fiscal action, the programs could
be local. Local action will not be wonderful but could be and could
do less harm. I go back to Rex Tugwell's idea of regional
government.
Closed minds on the Open-network, The Ross Perot and GM
syndrome:
Sounds like the problem is fear of change, not the inability to
change.
The people did not need fast paced computers to learn, they are
just a new tool in the process. The Universities have failed to teach
the students how to learn. The models for every scenario are all over
the place, that too is not new. Why have the centers for learning
failed to study the past and recognize that the past is only repeating
itself?
All systems of society have been tried and have fallen pry to their
own weaknesses. The smart people will take a fallen system and try
to correct the weaknesses and provide a long lasting society.
The liberals have fallen because of their own weakness. They wish
to control your very thoughts, in so doing they create a "lost"
people.
No learning can take place, it will be uncontrolled, therefore
bad.
You can not take away the drives of human nature and expect to
survive. Too bad the great thinkers of today do not realize the best
theory to try and to improve is to use the nature drives to the
advantage of the group and the individual. There are several books
and all say the same thing. America has become so liberal it is
conservative. They are right. No one is to be offended, according to
the liberals, I personally fall into about 10 categories that you may
not insult or call by any name I find offensive. How many professors
in poly sci have read NAFTA or GATT? Did they discuss it in the
class? Do students understand the loss of rights is also the loss
opportunity? If you can not be successful, how can you help or
improve society? Yes, I read them. Time for the universities to stop
dreaming and start learning. The standards of education in America
will now be set by the new North American Council, not the
universities. Where were you when we were fighting to save the
universities?
