Re: Philosophy of Mgmt LO3297

Dr. Ivan Blanco (BLANCO@BU4090.BARRY.EDU)
Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:48:24 -0400 (EDT)

Replying to LO3055 --

> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 22:07:21 -0400
> From: jack@his.com (jack hirschfeld)
>
> A couple of weeks ago I received the following message from Stuart Umpleby
> at the GWU Center for Social and Organizational Learning. I asked him if
> he would permit me to forward it to the LO list for comment, offering to
> collect the responses and forward them to him. Please feel free to
> respond to the list, to me directly, or directly to Stuart Umpleby at the
> address below:
>
> >Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: "Stuart A. Umpleby" <umpleby@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Singer and CSOL

<<< lots of good stuff deleted here >>>

> > Peter Vaill, a graduate of the Harvard Business School,
> >frequently repeats the HBS orthodoxy that doing management and talking
> >about management are not the same thing. He believes that trying to
> >structure knowledge of management in the form of science will not only
> >not be effective, but is probably counterproductive. I think a
> >producer-product approach could be said to subsume a cause and effect
> >approach. Paying attention to the observer (second order cybernetics) is
> >one way of moving from a cause and effect model to a producer-product model.

I agree with Peter Vaill. There is stroing emphasis on
rationality and science in management, when the field is really more of an
art than anything else. I could borrow some other expressions by Vail,
who said that "American behavioral science has been- we have been- saying
the wrong thing. For decades we have tried to say the wrong thing better
and better, for within our disciplinary matrix we have had trouble saying
anything else. As long as we continue to say the wrong thing - no matter
how well we say it, no matter how `reliably' and 1va;idly,' no matter how
elegantly and mesmerically - it still will be the wrong thing."

I think that all theories of management (if such theories really
exist), are being treated the same way. Most management professors have
been -we have been- developing models, applying regression analysis and
analysis of variance to concepts and theories that, for the most part,
might be totally wrong for today's business world. We are not
incorporating new concepts, models, forms, etc. I think that we tend to
reject or simply ignore knowledge and practice that is not proven through
the classical scientific methods. If there no t-test values, or whatever,
you might be telling me anything of value!

> > I think it would be fun to work with our doctoral students in
> >trying to produce a GWU-SBPM philosophy and theory of management. I
> >think it should take into account the three dimensions that Eric Dent has
> >identified -- circular rather than linear relationships, holistic rather
> >than reductionistic thinking, and persectival rather than objective
> >observation. I also think it needs to go beyond a narrow conception of
> >science while not being vague or elusive about the epistemology being
> >used. In educating managers perhaps exercises or training and drill (or
> >case studies) are more effective than discussions of various theories.
> >If so, does our current understanding of the nature of knowledge
> >(including second order cybernetics) help to explain why this is so?

For some time now, some people, including Deming, have advised
schools of business in general to reconsider what they are teaching and to
revise their approaches. Deming has advised to stop teaching yesterday's
knowledge. We should preppare our for the of business that exists today
and tomorrow.

> > Hence, my question is, Can Singer's work help us to develop such
> >a philosophy, theory, and pedagogy of management? What other authors
> >should we look at? C.S. Peirce? I welcome comments.
> >
> Jack Hirschfeld When two hearts become one,
> jack@his.com who could ask for anything more?

Some time ago, Robert Pavsner a then 19-year old student in an
Introduction to Business class, wrote on his paper that "business can not
taught. One can teach accounting or information systems, but business has
to be experienced." This kid was on his way to open his own business at
the age of 21, which he just did. I hhave been practicing that notion for
some 6 years. Teaching business has very little to do with the practice
of business. SO the most important skill (?) for us to develop in our
learning partners is learning how to learn. To do this, we cannot rely on
pedagogical approaches. According to how I see it, we must use andragogy
rather than pedagogy when dealing with management and other areas of
business.

Ivan,

--
  ***************************************************************
  R. IVAN BLANCO, Ph.D.                        Voice 305 899-3515
  Assoc. Prof. & Director                      Fax   305 892-6412
  International Business Programs
  Andreas School of Business    _________E-Mail Addresses________
  Barry University              Bitnet: Blanco%bu4090@Barryu
  Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695   Internet: Blanco@bu4090.barry.edu
               <<<<< ---------------- >>>>>
     "Las naciones marchan hacia el termino de su grandeza, con
  el mismo paso que camina su educacion." "The nations march      
  toward their greatness at the same pace as their educational    
  systems evolve." Simon Bolivar
  ===============================================================