"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?