Donald P. Austin wrote:
>
> In response to the following:
>
> >What I'm wondering about is what words do we use to describe the
> >observations >that we are making when we see something that is real but as
> >you say, "not >precisely measurable"? (ed.)
>
> >It seems to me that if we can find meaningful words it will allow us to
> >more successfully promote what we value. What do you think?
>
> >Chet
>
> You and I have always been more or less on the same track, I believe Chet,
> and yet we often get into these sorts of discussions. I think that points
> out the complexity of what we and everyone else here is trying to do. Part
> of that is that we are trying to find meaningful words to enable what we
> are trying to do, together, and that is very valuable.
>
> The underlying discussion here is about framing, I believe. Framing these
> words in the scientific paradigm, when we are trying to describe human
> phenomenon, does not work. As you know, I was a successful electrical
> engineer (and a well grounded one, scientifically) for 25 years. I know
> the power of the scientific method, etc. It rarely, if ever, applies to
> human individuals, or groups, however. That is my confirmed opinion. So,
> let's stop chasing our tails, in the name of management science, etc.
>
> Now, on the other hand, re Rick's comment:
>
> >You lost me on the notion that teams can't be measured. I shared
> >one method we use to measure team performance. No one on a team
> >has complained that the results did not reflect the team
> >performance. We even meausre ROI for soft skills
> >training...(mentioned on another thread)..so what gives?
>
> >Thanks,
> >Rick Corcoran
>
> I don't find any problem with this approach, at all. The intent is
> apparently to measure results, according to what has been determined to be
> valuable to the organization. As long as one is reasonably confident that
> they know what is valuable to the organization, then why not measure to
> what extent it is being achieved by a team?
>
> I don't see this as a reliable characterization of what the team is or what
> it is capable of in general, though. Should that be a problem? Not in
> relation to producing results. It is a problem, however, if this is used
> in defining the character and nature of the team!
>
> Don Austin, Ph.D.
> _____________________________________
> Department of Organizational Behavior
> Case Western Reserve University
> Cleveland, OH 44106 (216) 932-8421
> _____________________________________
> Creating Appreciative Dialogue.
>
> Researching how small groups
> create valued organization.