Ian states the case clearly. Who needs managers for anything but
change? (My formulation, not his.)
The old fashioned inherited managed was one of control of the
machine. Given that machines don't evolve, grow, learn or change or
their own accord, the management was supervision and "driving horses"
(excuse me, people).
But it's unlikely that managers manage change either. They have to
manage (or manage *in*) systems which are living - that is, human
beings and their institutions. They are also part of the systems and
part of the change.
I suggest that management's job is attention and intention (focus)
and that what is to be managed, if that term has any relevance, is
conversations and other linguistic phenomenon. What is to be worked
with, rather than managed, is various structures that create
environments and maintain focus.
I suggest that managers should be looking at "attractors" which will
influence those independently living phenomena which they are
responsible for.
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus
--Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>