Something here catches my attention:
On Tue, 29 Aug 1995 DwBuff@aol.com wrote:
> In some LO circles, we ache for scenario development. For those
> of us who have seen a war room, or participated in simple
> military planning, we wonder why the military can do it for the
> sake of learning (planning as learning) and preparation, yet
> today's well-informed organizations can only laugh at those
> military fools for wasting so much of their taxpayers money. Too
> bad we can't force organization chiefs to spend a least a few
> hours a month simply THINKING about their own behavior,
> their organization's futures, people and customers. But, these org
> chiefs can't waste their time doing that. They are action (elbows
> and legs flailing) oriented.
I've never been in the Army or any other military group.
But something in your comparison of military with civilian makes sense.
Maybe it's something like this: in the military there's this chain of
command, as a kind of backbone. I imagine that in peacetime the commands
don't come very often. Obviously, even in the military, there are other
ways of interacting than to give orders. So how does one conduct a
brainstorming or groupthink in the military? Same as in civilian life,
right?
Isn't the difference, then, that in most business organizations these
days there is no chain of command to be a backbone for deliberations?
Isn't a planning session going to be different in a situation where you
_know_ that what the session decides should happen _will_ happen, than
in a situation where - as in so many businesses - there isn't the slightest
certainty that any decisions will actually be effective?
Is this sort of what you're talking about, Dave?
--
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
-----------------------------------------------------^---------------------
. . . . . . . . . . Actions speak louder than words . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . but not as clearly . . . . . . . . . .