On Mon, 15 May 1995, John R. Snyder wrote:
> Replying to LO1192 --
[ snip snip snip... ]
> ...uncritically they adopted the language of "overcoming employee
> resistance." Here's the mental model, as best I can reconstruct it:
>
> -> Change must start at the top of the org chart
> -> Managers act / Employees react
> -> Managers push / "Targeted employees" resist
> -> Managers should give convincing arguments in support of adopting
> an innovation. They should listen to employees' objections
> so that they (the mgrs) can give more effective arguments
> in favor of their position (not so they could learn how
> to improve the innovation).
>
> Friends, we can do better than this.
Oh yes indeedy. And we _have_ to, don't we. It strikes me that one of
the nastiest components of that scenario you gave is the "debate-team"
adversarial model. Back in high school I took one semester of debate
club. Naively, I thought it was going to be an extended sort of Platonic
dialogue. The reality was ... well, nauseating.
If I had to pin down (and mercifully, up to just this moment I haven't
had to :-) how LO conduct differs from the scenario you gave above, I'd
have to say it's exactly the difference between adversarial debate and
mutual struggle towards truth.
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen
jamzen@world.std.com
--------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
. . . . . There are more different kinds of people in the world . . . . .
. . ^ . . than there are people... . . . . .