Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  MG-ED-DV Digest - 11 Feb 1997 to 12 Feb 1997

    Posted 02-13-1997 16:39
    On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:32:46, Pat Gantt wrote:
    >Subject: What can *we do*?
    >
    >Not even a flicker, debate over opinion here.
    >
    >> It struck me that youall seemed to equate administrivia with business.
    >
    >Sorta' granted but not totally.

    Thank you. I don't need "totally."
    >
    >> I suggest that Academia is far more polluted with Administratium than is
    >> business and that government is in between. The only way that B schools,
    >> and especially MBA schools, can help the situation is by
    >
    >
    >Illegal -> re-engineering <- are you a Professional Engineer?

    Whether I am a PE is irrelevant because I do not intend to re-engineer B
    schools. If "professors" need the help of "PE's" to figure out (to expand
    on Ray Vegso's message) What should be taught, How/When/Where, by Who and
    to Whom then I suggest you get their help. The point was (and will
    continue to be regardless of obfuscatory maneuvers) that B schools have not
    been meeting the test of "relevancy along with in-built processes to
    sustain relevancy" that businesses have to meet every day in order to
    survive. The fact that most businesses do not meet this test is most often
    traceable to overdoses of administrivium. But let's not lose sight of the
    question of whether B schools meet the test. Or, better yet, let's address
    the question of whether Management Education should be left to B Schools.

    >We need to cut upsurping another people's disciplines and
    >do a better job of our own.

    Or we need to admit that the cutting of the pie into disciplines which can
    be staked out into academic empires is exactly the wrong model for how
    enterprises should be architected and people taught to manage them. If
    form follows function, then the ASS (Academic Senate Syndrome) method of
    allocating permission to profess may well be the central problem.

    >
    >> Businesses are focused on the near term because their stockholders want it
    >> that way and the majority of stockholders are employees, at least
    >> somewhere.
    >
    >Oh? I'll play the where's your scholarly site, devil's
    >advocate on this one ;-)

    Why the notion of a scholarly site? It doesn't take a scholarly site to
    ascertain who the stockholders of a company are and what percentage of them
    are employed (there or elsewhere). Ask the SEC, ask the Census Bureau,
    write a grant proposal and rediscover the data.
    >
    >>So don't blame the focus on short term profits.
    >
    >Sorry "they" are still part of the problem.

    There is the famous old "they" that are the roots of so many problems (as
    in "they" made me do it). Exactly who do you mean? Can you be more
    specific? Are you saying that stockholders do not want short term profits?
    If so, does "short term" mean quarterly, yearly, biennially, or what?

    >
    >> Instead let's focus on the inability of managers to manage,
    >
    >You got the nail on the head on this one.

    Then we may be able to build on this congruity.
    >
    >> Donald Schon's book, Educating the
    >> Reflective Practitioner, has several good prescriptions along this line.
    >
    >Great cite. I believe in reflective practice. I am
    >very solution-oriented.... so let's not just reflect
    >and contemplate our navels.... and stop there.

    That is what the "practice" part of reflective practice is all about. And
    it is quite different from "profess."
    >
    >What can *we* *do*?

    One proposal is to encourage professors to become practioners; both
    practioners in creating educational experiences and practioners in managing
    -- not as the CEO of a business but rather as a line manager in a business.


    One of the fundamentals is learning how to measure relevancy. How do you
    measure the relevancy of the management education process you run at UTenn?

    Another proposal is to recognize that much of management learning is tacit
    rather than explicit, thus is done more effectively *in situ*. This goes
    beyond the kind of distance learning that amounts to bringing the
    "classroom" to the site. It calls instead for creating a learning room
    (better yet a co-learning room) and integrating it with the work room.

    Another proposal, if you must teach in classrooms, is to teach workgroups
    rather than individuals. The power is in the interrelationships, not in
    the individual KSA's.

    A more basic proposal is: let's address the question of whether Management
    Education should be left to B Schools.

    But I ramble unnecessarily because, of course, those who built temples to
    Descartes cannot possibly allow such heresy. Prevention of discipline
    gerrymandering to suit the masses is more important that whether the masses
    are being educated.

    But now that people can vote with their keyboards, I believe that Drucker
    had great foresight when he said that people will go to the sources of
    information and learning that suit their needs and will pay handsomely,
    regardless of accreditation.

    What does that mean to your long term ability to pay your mortgage there in
    VandyLand?
    >


    Jack Ring
    Innovation Management
    32712 N. 70th St.
    Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143 USA
    602-488-4615
    Fax) 602-488-4616


  • 2.  MG-ED-DV Digest - 11 Feb 1997 to 12 Feb 1997

    Posted 02-14-1997 02:56
    Following the information that followed my question about developments in
    computer based training I have recieved a few responses privately. I will
    post all the replies on a web site this weekend. If any of the private
    replies object to this please let me know. http://www.dobedoe.demon.co.uk
    Thank you
    David

    david@dobedoe.demon.co.uk
    Edinburgh Scotland