Sorry, I had unsubscribed from the list. Mainly due to work pressure
which prevented me from keeping pace with the list.
== Quote ==
While respecting the "wisdom" of the board to
continue with "control", state the candidates need to prevent the
damage that appears to be imminent. If the other candidate is
willing to accept the idea and be an ally, then the candidate should
stay and provide the leadership from within as a change agent,
support the new CEO in modelling his behaviour over time.
EXACTLY - however, the control type feels threatened by the other
candidate's insightful knowledge and felt compelled to eliminate
he who really knew the truth!
>If not, the
candidate should look for a job elsewhere. Why stay, if you know its
going down the shute anyway.
You got that right too - what is the lesson here for an LO that we
might
share with the list? ...Keith
== end Quote ==
I had not thought of its lesson to the list. I tried to respond the way I
would if in a similar situation. I might now attempt an answer to your
query.
Learning Organisations are better geared to meet the challenges of the
organisations market place in a changing environment. The organisation is
eigther ready or not ready to embark on the process of 'enculturisation'
as a LO. The Board and the CEO are entrusted with the stewardship of
organisational purpose by its stake holders. These 'stewards' are probably
key to the existing system of the organisation. If they are not ready
there would hardly be any scope for making any dent in the system - as
they would be blocks to any change. I would not be able to handle that. I
don't know if this is an answer.
[Thomas P=B]
--"Thomas P Benjamin" <BENJAMIN@anand.nddb.ernet.in>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>