Discussion: View Thread

I am interested in doing research in the area of acceleration of time - in
particular, organization effect/response. I would appreciate any leads to
current research or theory in this area. Thanks in advance for any
information you can share.

Deb

Deb,

I'm not sure what you mean by "acceleration of time - in particular,
organization effect/response," and I can imagine different interpretations,
so perhaps you could tell us more about what you want to do?

If you are refering to the time lag between stimulus events and a particular
organization's response to those events, then you would need to be specific
about which events, which types and kinds of organizations, the importance
any particular organization attaches to both the events and responses to
them, which responses, etc. that you are most interested in. For example,
if the event is a raging fire in an office building during normal business
hours, then the response of alerting the fire department will probably be
quite swift. But if you are refering to, say, product deficiencies and how
long it takes an organization to hear about them, discuss them, or do
anything about them, then any of these responses might take months or years.

"Time" is merely an artificial unit of measure and, when you think about it
deeply, it can even be seen as a rather superficial and meaningless concept.
For example, getting a car repaired "quickly" in northern Scotland can mean
something very different to the Scottish mechanic than most of us think of
as "quickly" if we were on vacation there. But we have nothing better to
rely on as a conceptual tool that will "freeze" the continuum of life and
measure movement along some more meaningful axis.

In any case, please say more about what you have in mind. Thanks.

Best,

Larry


Larry Pate
University of Wisconsin-Madison


At 12:35 AM 05/03/2000 EDT, you wrote:
>I am interested in doing research in the area of acceleration of time - in
>particular, organization effect/response. I would appreciate any leads to
>current research or theory in this area. Thanks in advance for any
>information you can share.
>
>Deb
>

See David Harvey on time/space compression in his book The Postmodern
Condition.

Or, a more popular management style account see Blur by Stan Davis.

David Jaffee
Director, Office of Faculty Enhancement
Associate Professor of Sociology
University of North Florida
4567 St.Johns Bluff Road, South
Jacksonville, FL 32224
904-620-1447
djaffee@unf.edu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Deb Bennett-Woods
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 12:35 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Acceleration of time
>
>
> I am interested in doing research in the area of acceleration of time - in
> particular, organization effect/response. I would appreciate any leads to
> current research or theory in this area. Thanks in advance for any
> information you can share.
>
> Deb
>

Deb,

Read any and all issues of Fast Company. They've done your research, found
your subjects (with e-mails listed), and looked at it from many angles.

They balance being fast with getting a life. The last issue has an article
about reducing turnover at Ernst & Young by slowing down and not taking work
home.

At another level, time is compressing because change is accelerating, in
every facet of life. Books that describe change will deliver your
foundation.

Gary
----------------------------
Dr. Gary Lundquist -- The Scientist-Marketer
Author of: TECHNOLOGY AND THE AGENTS OF CHANGE
The power of marketing to change companies and change lives
Garyl@market-engineering.com
Market Engineering International, Inc.
The Bridge Between Science and Marketing
www.market-engineering.com
303-840-9929, FAX: 303-841-6636
12006 N. Antelope Trail, Parker, CO 80138, USA

Larry,

Thank you for responding. I direct several UG and Grad programs in health
care administration and management. This research is in response to what I
consistently hear from students, colleagues and my advisory boards regarding
primary challenges faced in health care.

Acceleration of time may not be the best label - perhaps compression is a
more apt description. It certainly involves the increasing pace of change
but is also more. The health care environment has been hit particularly hard
by the increasing pace of change - new technologies, new delivery systems and
models, new reimbursement models, rapidly changing regulations in an already
highly regulated industry, new organizational models, etc. But the
complexity and sheer magnitude are equally at issue. They are not just
adapting to the speed of a few changes but the complexity of change on every
possible front with less and less time to absorb, understand, synthesize and
respond systematically. Many significant changes are going literally
undetected or ignored because there are too many to respond too and too
little time to do so. This is also coupled with other elements related to
the increasing pace of the business environment itself - faster
communications, increased efficiency, reduced time for decision making,
increased access to information, customer expectations, etc. Health care is
further challenged by the nature of its business - it does not produce stereo
equipment or tennis shoes but deals minute to minute in the life and death
issues of its customers - high stakes.

I am just now beginning to examine the fascinating bodies of literature on
the nature and theory of time in the various disciplines - psychology,
sociology, philosophy, anthropology and physics. I agree with your point
that time as we think if it is a fairly recent social construction derived in
large part from the evolution of an industrial (assembly line) economy. I am
interested, eventually, in examining alternative models of time as they might
apply to a more fluid business environment. However, for now, my research is
limited to examining, using qualitative methods, the effect of acceleration
(as I have begun describing it above) on organizations - the effects it is
having and any response and/or coping mechanisms that are evolving to deal
with the various challenges. Burnout and low morale are HUGE issues in
healthcare underlying many other issues (nursing and other caregiver
shortages at the top of that list). I hope that research in this area may
help address these issues in terms of more resilient, adaptive and supportive
organizational cultures and structures.

I would be most interested in alternative ways of framing these issues if
there is a better framework than acceleration.

Deb

> research in the area of acceleration of time - in
particular, organization effect/response. I would appreciate any leads to
current research or theory in this area.

Come to the Academy of Management meeting in Toronto in August! Time is the
theme and pace and acceleration are key topics in a number of symposia and
presentations. The Academy is the parent organization of the Management
Education and Development Division that is one parent of this list. For more
info, http://www.aom.pace.edu/

- John N.

Alright, let me be the curmudgeon on this theme.

My thesis is that relative time, i.e., our capacity to deal with change, is
CONSTANT. Some events may appear to be happening faster, but our tools to
deal with them have matched pace. The limit is, and has always been, our
capacity to deal with change, and my argument is that this species has
always tried to maximize that. We operate in exactly the same
comfort/discomfort zone as our earliest ancestors. The only thing that has
really changed is the power of our tools -- telecommunications, databases,
knowledge systems, thinking skills, etc.

Take a look at any period of history. Some people are enjoying the pace of
change, surfing along merrily, seizing opportunities, building fortunes,
creating the future. Some are struggling, some are complaining. And some
are clearly withdrawing from the frantic leading edge, or sailing along
well behind it. This year is no different from last year or 1990, or 1900,
or 900 in those senses.

Look at this issue another way. If time is accelerating, and has been
since the beginning of time, what now is the slope of the curve? What
happens when it becomes vertical -- does the world end? Didn't someone
2,000 years ago think it was nearly vertical? But it wasn't, hindsight
clearly tells us. Is it nearly vertical now? And when do we think the
world will end in this coming era of instantaneous everything? Over the
long sweep of history, it is very hard to argue for an acceleration theory
since we keep violating the asymptotes by surviving and coping, more or
less the way our ancestors did. The better model of time, IMHO, is that of
a constant phenomenon, not an accelerating one.

So there! I'm the challenger on this thread.

The interesting management issues seem to me to lie in both the propagation
of coping strategies (i.e., changing the incidence of stress), and in the
development of new coping tools (changing our stock of abilities).

And, like John Naman, I'm looking forward to seeing many of you in Toronto
in August. Should be a great gathering, with lots of food for thought on
these topics and others.

Best regards,

Tom Bryant.


.....................................................
Prof. Thomas A. Bryant, Ph.D.
State of New Jersey Chair in Entrepreneurship and Small Business
Director, Entrepreneurial Management Programs
Rutgers Business School
111 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102-3027, USA
Tel: (973) 353-1062; Fax: (973) 353-1664
tabryant@andromeda.rutgers.edu

On 4 May 00, at 14:59, Tom Bryant wrote:

> Alright, let me be the curmudgeon on this theme.
>
> My thesis is that relative time, i.e., our capacity to deal with change,
> is CONSTANT. Some events may appear to be happening faster, but our tools
> to deal with them have matched pace. The limit is, and has always been,
> our capacity to deal with change, and my argument is that this species has
> always tried to maximize that. We operate in exactly the same
> comfort/discomfort zone as our earliest ancestors. The only thing that
> has really changed is the power of our tools -- telecommunications,
> databases, knowledge systems, thinking skills, etc.

I agree. There's a biological component to all this, which is
interesting, in that our brains are actually information reduction
devices, to reduce the processing loads on what is ultimately a
limited capacity "machine". More in a sec.

While our tech. tools are improving, there is probably no evidence
to assume that our brains have evolved to better deal with change.

> The interesting management issues seem to me to lie in both the
> propagation of coping strategies (i.e., changing the incidence of stress),
> and in the development of new coping tools (changing our stock of
> abilities).

I'll be the challenger on this, and a pessimistic one at that. Given
that we are talking about biological reactions, I believe (but can't
substantiate) that it will not be possible to change the incidence of
stress or to develop new coping tools that are constructive as the
incidence of change increases (if that happens).

As rates of change increase, more and more people will simply
shut down or gate out change, as the prime coping strategy (I
believe we are seeing that now).

...just hypothesizing though.


Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.

Let me congratulate you for undertaking this project. It is a most
valuable, yet monumental task. You have spelled out the changing and
challenging context very well. Being in the health care field myself, I
see and feel the effects you describe. Burnout, over commitment,
turnover, and rising costs are but minor issues compared to the threat
to the lefe/death decision making processes you refer to.

While I cannot recommend any resources to you at this time, I will keep
my eyes open and refer them as I can. Please keep us informed on your
progress.

Bob Carr
Wake Forest University School of Medicine

Deb Bennett-Woods wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> Thank you for responding. I direct several UG and Grad programs in health
> care administration and management. This research is in response to what I
> consistently hear from students, colleagues and my advisory boards regarding
> primary challenges faced in health care.
>
>
>

Those interested in time compression/acceleration or whatever you choose to
call it will doubtless profit from reading Chapter 1 titled "On Tools" in
Joseph Weizenbaum's 1976 book, Computer Power & Human Reason: From Judgment
to Calculation (W. H. Freeman & Company).

Weizenbaum, then professor of computer science at MIT, was examining the
ways in which tools shape their users. He cites Lewis Mumford in naming
the clock, not the steam engine, as "the key machine of the modern
industrial age." According to Mumford, the clock "disassociated time from
human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of
mathematically measurable sequences: the special world of
science." (Mumford's book, by the way, is titled Technics and Civilization
(Harcourt-Brace, 1963).

The relevance to this thread, I believe, ties to what Weizenbaum calls the
"rejection of direct human experience" as "one of the principal
characteristics of modern science."

I live and work in the same world most of the rest of you face. I believe
I am surrounded by as much change and time pressures as anyone else. But I
don't seem to feel them the same way many others do. Indeed, I am quite
comfortable in the midst of turbulence. Why? Well, to be honest, I don't
really know. I know only that I refuse to succumb. I measure time by my
experience of it, not by the passage of artificially constructed minutes,
hours, days and so on. I greet deadlines with good humor. How else could
I maintain my sanity? After all, many deadlines I've encountered were
ludicrous, insane or a combination of the two. I refuse to schedule my
time or to make any conscious attempt to set priorities. I work on what
takes my fancy or on whatever suits my purposes (and that sometimes entails
working on what is due next). I do not try to crowd every "unforgiving
minute with 60 seconds worth of distance run" and I hold only two pursuits
dear: educating and entertaining myself.

In short, I am guided mainly by my direct experience of the world. I
refuse to "manage" myself (and I usually manage to successfully oppose
others' efforts to manage me).

Despite all that, I have enjoyed what many would term a very successful
career, including the respect and regard of my peers, clients, colleagues
and associates. To be honest, there has been a "superior" or two of mine
who took a dim view of my philosophy but they, as the saying goes, "are
history."

Lest you think I am being too cavalier here, I do not for a moment believe
that everyone or even many people could or perhaps should adopt my
philosophy in relation to time and time pressures. To quote Weizenbaum,
"Our current view of time is so deeply ingrained in us, so much 'second
nature' to us, that we are virtually incapable any longer of identifying
the role it plays in our thinking." Yet, if we are not to be crushed by
the acceleration or compression of time, we must not just identify the role
it plays in our thinking but examine and perhaps alter that role. As Tom
Watson of IBM once remarked, "Philosophy comes first."

Part of the solution to the problem Deb wrestles with no doubt ties to the
affected individuals' philosophy of time. If you think that's a snap, try
articulating your own.
--

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095

Colleagues,

Tom Bryant wrote: "If time is accelerating, and has been since the
beginning of time, what now is the slope of the curve? What happens when it
becomes vertical -- does the world end? Didn't someone 2,000 years ago
think it was nearly vertical? But it wasn't, hindsight
clearly tells us. Is it nearly vertical now?"

First, this whole discussion needs to be reframed. Time is a background
constant.
Change is accelerating.
Accelerating change seems to compress time.

About the slope of the curve: If we measure change in terms of human
experience, then change has been virtually flat since our evolution from
earlier species. Just two generations ago, you could learn by age 15 all
you needed to know to make a living, whether by farming, carpentry,
soldiering or any of a number of professions. Lawyering and doctoring took
a bit more learning, but not life-long learning.

Today, we all expect our jobs to change totally several times in our
lifetimes. (I realize I'm speaking to those in a protected environment,
university education, yet even you face change.)

If we look at technological change, the line was virtually flat until around
1850 when a number of key inventions were made. That curve has accelerated
ever since. You do recall Toffler's Future Shock don't you?

Another of you mentioned tools. We humans are pretty good change agents in
ourselves, yet when we add tools, we juice up change again. Consider the
tool I'm using now that allows us to share our ideas with strangers around
the world.

Communication accelerates change. Sharing of ideas changes the way we
think.

And population growth accelerates change. Just one example: The number of
scientists and engineers has grown slowly in the last 100 years, as a
percentage of population, but the sixfold growth in population means we've
got perhaps 100 times as many inventive minds out there changing the way we
live.

Change is accelerating and won't stop. The current issue of Fast Company
relates a story of two people chatting. One complains about the Internet
raising chaos in his industry. He asks, "When will this Internet thing
settle down." His partner answers, "It won't." I agree, and so do you.

We do have to worry about the slope.

CRITICAL CONDITION: If the slope of the curve of change gets higher than
our abilities to learn, we as a human race are in trouble. Our learning
curve is high when we are young, then lower as we grow older. Young people
have no trouble with the current pace of change. People my age do.

If the rate of change goes so high that even young people can't keep up, our
species is in trouble. If an eight-year old child can't recognize his/her
environment a year later, we will fail as a civilization.

Gary

THE WAY OF CHANGE. I've been working on this book on change for several
years. It is a philosophy, not a business book. It is complete in
pre-publication form, though I know of some changes I will make in another
edit.

I will share this book electronically with anyone willing to do a review of
it. If you wish to participate, please respond directly to me, not via the
listserv. I will need your full name, organization, title, contact
information, and an indication that you will actually complete a review.
The only payment I can give you is access to my thinking and a complimentary
copy when published.

G

----------------------------
Dr. Gary Lundquist -- The Scientist-Philosopher
Author of: THE WAY OF CHANGE
Change will never, ever again be as slow as it is today.
Garyl@market-engineering.com
Market Engineering International, Inc.
The Bridge Between Science and Marketing
www.market-engineering.com
303-840-9929, FAX: 303-841-6636
12006 N. Antelope Trail, Parker, CO 80138, USA

I agree with almost all that you said except for the following:

On 4 May 00, at 17:49, Dr. Gary Lundquist wrote:


> We do have to worry about the slope.
>
> CRITICAL CONDITION: If the slope of the curve of change gets higher than
> our abilities to learn, we as a human race are in trouble. Our learning
> curve is high when we are young, then lower as we grow older. Young
> people have no trouble with the current pace of change. People my age do.

I don't think you can equate individuals hitting a learning ceiling
with society. The reason is quite simple, and reflects what we have
seen for years, and that's specialization, combined with, I think, an
opt-out "turn a lot of it off" mentallity, the latter we will see more of.

This probably has some profound effects on issues related to
democracy and politics and other areas, but I don't believe it
threatens the human race.

>
> If the rate of change goes so high that even young people can't keep up,
> our species is in trouble. If an eight-year old child can't recognize
> his/her environment a year later, we will fail as a civilization.

Nobody can "keep up" now. And in fact, it's been a slogan that
schools, for example, will have to shift away from factual learning to
learning to learn things.

IMHO, we've already hit the wall in many of these issues...it's not
something new that is "coming".




Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.

Colleagues,

Robert Bacal wrote, "I don't think you can equate individuals hitting a
learning ceiling
with society. The reason is quite simple, and reflects what we have
seen for years, and that's specialization."

Excellent! That is a key strategy for dealing with accelerating change.
We've specialized since tribal days.

But specialization also accelerates change. While I'm doing my thing to
change the world, Robert is doing his. And six billion others are doing
theirs.

I think of technical disciplines like facets on an ever expanding surface.
Sometimes facets break into parts, creating sub disciplines. Sometimes they
merge, creating new disciplines. In any case, the number of disciplines
keeps growing, and the knowledge in each discipline keeps expanding to the
point that real expertise requires specialization.

A question for the group: What strategies can we use to manage accelerating
change?

Gary
----------------------------
Dr. Gary Lundquist -- The Scientist-Philosopher
Author of: THE WAY OF CHANGE
Change will never, ever again be as slow as it is today.
Garyl@market-engineering.com
Market Engineering International, Inc.
The Bridge Between Science and Marketing
www.market-engineering.com
303-840-9929, FAX: 303-841-6636
12006 N. Antelope Trail, Parker, CO 80138, USA

Fred,

I appreciate your reply and envy your approach to personal time. I fully
believe that there are alternate ways of constructing and experiencing time
and that we are, to some extent, victims of our own willingness to have our
definition of time imposed upon us as well as our experience of that time. I
agree that it is deeply ingrained with overt and subtle effects that we fail
to even detect. Yet, it would seem a bit irresponsible for me, as a
healthcare manager, to advocate that my caregivers experience time entirely
on their own terms while leaving patients to fend for themselves. Deadlines,
as well as approach to structuring organizational time, may be a bit
different in my particular framework.

Organizationally, I wonder if time is perhaps a field within or overlaying
the organizational culture and structure. You can walk into one health care
setting and feel a sense of restful, quiet and caring. You can walk into
another and immediately sense the tension and chaos. I think much of this
has to do with the way time is experienced and managed. It's more than just
having a busy day or being short staffed. It is a way of being in the
organization and, as you suggest, it permeates all activity.

Deb

Gary and Robert,

Specialization also increasese complexity and decreases our individual
ability to understand the greater whole. The more and smaller pieces and
parts we break the world into, the more we have to fit back together to grasp
the big picture and the consequences of actions within smaller spheres on the
larger sphere. This seems to me to be a central concern. The problem is not
just the pace of change - the complexity created by specialization coupled
with the speed at which the enterprise is moving prevents most managers from
grasping anything resembling a coherent picture of the whole. There is no
space (and I use that word specifically instead of time) in which to reflect,
to understand, to synthesize, to connect the dots.

Deb

On 4 May 00, at 22:35, Deb Bennett-Woods wrote:

> Gary and Robert,
>
> Specialization also increasese complexity and decreases our individual
> ability to understand the greater whole. The more and smaller pieces and
> parts we break the world into, the more we have to fit back together to
> grasp the big picture and the consequences of actions within smaller
> spheres on the larger sphere. This seems to me to be a central concern.

Absolutely! (Big emphasis). I see this almost every day on
discussion lists, and I think what you mention is a major factor in
moving us towards a "half-truth" society. Just a couple of
examples. One one list someone who is certified in the
administration of the DISC tool made an extremely inaccurate
statement regarding the concepts of reliability and validity re:
testing, and was adamant and somewhat abusive when challenged.
He'd been "certified" and they'd mentioned the concepts, and he'd
taken a few hours of statistics.

The problem is that to understand something of even moderate
complexity requires a framework of cognition and knowledge that it
is getting hard to get in one person (I dunno if that's clear, the way
I've put it). But worse (and I see this more and more) people are
learning fragmentary things and BELIEVE that they've grasped the
entire concept or issue.

One problem, in my view is not that people don't know, or even
can't know things outside their immediate specialization but that
they are unconsciously incompetent, and don't realize they don't
know.

> The problem is not just the pace of change - the complexity created by
> specialization coupled with the speed at which the enterprise is moving
> prevents most managers from grasping anything resembling a coherent
> picture of the whole. There is no space (and I use that word specifically
> instead of time) in which to reflect, to understand, to synthesize, to
> connect the dots.

I agree (mostly). I think, though that in some senses there IS
space, except for getting back to what I mentioned in an earlier
post. That there is a limited ability to continue to process
information, and that limit may be biological...and that when that
limit is surpassed for an individual, they go into various shut-down
mechanisms, and use rationalizations and defence mechanisms to
justify that they "know enough".



>
> Deb


Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.

In a message dated 5/4/00 9:45:24 PM Mountain Daylight Time, rbacal@ESCAPE.CA
writes:

<< I agree (mostly). I think, though that in some senses there IS
space, except for getting back to what I mentioned in an earlier
post. That there is a limited ability to continue to process
information, and that limit may be biological...and that when that
limit is surpassed for an individual, they go into various shut-down
mechanisms, and use rationalizations and defence mechanisms to
justify that they "know enough". >>

I was with you until the last part here. Am I interpreting your comment
correctly? There is a biological limit to our ability to process information
regardless of how much time or reflective space we have in which to process
it. If so, is that limit based on amount of information, complexity of
information or speed at which the information is received and processed?

Deb

On 5 May 00, at 1:03, Deb Bennett-Woods wrote:

> << I agree (mostly). I think, though that in some senses there IS
> space, except for getting back to what I mentioned in an earlier
> post. That there is a limited ability to continue to process
> information, and that limit may be biological...and that when that
> limit is surpassed for an individual, they go into various shut-down
> mechanisms, and use rationalizations and defence mechanisms to justify
> that they "know enough". >>
>
> I was with you until the last part here. Am I interpreting your comment
> correctly? There is a biological limit to our ability to process
> information regardless of how much time or reflective space we have in
> which to process it. If so, is that limit based on amount of information,
> complexity of information or speed at which the information is received
> and processed?

I'm afraid I'm at my limits on the cognitive science/information
processing disciplines of psychology, so it would be foolish for me
to answer..in other words, haven't a clue.

Perhaps this is an example, though of what I'm talking about. I
used to be somewhat "functionable" in these areas..but as I've
gotten older, there is more to learn and assimilate from life in
general, and so I can't "keep up". So, what I do on a personal level
is start limiting areas of learning or experience. Sometimes even
intentionally.

For example, although I have always been up on current events,
and a CNN news junkie, I rarely listen to news shows, watch them
or read the newspapers, because it's just way too much
stimulation. That's a significant personal change for me which has
something to do with this.

...quite simply, my head feels "too full",


>
> Deb


Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.

Deb envies me my "control your own time" philosophy and then writes:

>Yet, it would seem a bit irresponsible for me, as a
>healthcare manager, to advocate that my caregivers experience time entirely
>on their own terms while leaving patients to fend for themselves.

I don't know that choosing to experience time on your own terms leads
necessarily to ignoring the environment, including others in it who need
tending or ministering to. It seems to me that choosing to focus on
patients and giving administrivia the back seat might be one example of
adopting a different view. Let me give another example of my individual
philosophy at work. Many people I know will take the last train from the
NJ area into NYC for a meeting there. They dash to the NJ station, they
dash for a cab or the subway, and they dash up the elevator. (Frequently,
they are late.) Then, they dash out of the building, back to Penn Station
and down the escalator to catch a train back to NJ where they dash off to
another meeting. I prefer a more leisurely pace. I take extra time in
traveling and I use that to my advantage (great reading and reflection
time). I'm never late, almost always a little early and I hardly ever feel
rushed. Yet, I meet my obligations. What I don't do is take on more
obligations than I can possibly meet and then kill myself trying to meet
them. (Nor do I let anyone else load me up.) So, I'm not advocating
irresponsibility.

>Organizationally, I wonder if time is perhaps a field within or overlaying
>the organizational culture and structure. You can walk into one health care
>setting and feel a sense of restful, quiet and caring. You can walk into
>another and immediately sense the tension and chaos. I think much of this
>has to do with the way time is experienced and managed. It's more than just
>having a busy day or being short staffed. It is a way of being in the
>organization and, as you suggest, it permeates all activity.

That was my point. I work solo most of the time so I focused on my
individual philosophy. Let me give you another instance of how it applies
organizationally and can affect organizational culture.

About 10 years ago, I was senior VP for systems and operations at a
financial services firm. I had been consulting there and the new CEO asked
me to join the firm, which I did. Not too long afterward, the officers
were in a staff meeting and the CEO remarked roughly as follows:

"I note that many of you are here when I arrive and are here when I
leave. I also note that many of you are taking home large briefcases,
presumably full of work to be done at home. It might be the case that you
think I view that as a sign of your dedication and hard work. I do
not. Instead, I view it as evidence of a failure on your part to be on top
of your job. If you are on top of your job you should be able to get done
what you need to get done during regular working hours. If you can't, come
to me and I'll help you figure out how to do that."

The culture, climate and pace of that organization changed overnight.
--

Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095

"Specialization also increases complexity and decreases our individual ability
to understand the greater whole", that is unless we have an understanding of the
behavior of objects at different levels which the chaos theory property of
emergence and object oriented design implies we should have.

Cordialmente,

Esteban

To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
cc: (bcc: ESTEBAN TREVIÑO MUGUERZA/Monterrey/Cen/Cemex)
From: Deb Bennett-Woods <DebBWoods@AOL.COM> @ INTERNET
Date: 05/05/2000 02:35:26 AM
Subject: Re: Acceleration of time

I always have a choice to stand strong without getting drawn into a game I do
not care to be involved in.

If we follow the trend of technology evolution I would pose that instead of
diverging it is converging. Tools that best serve our needs tend to be simple to
use, because, complex artifacts tend to be replaced by simpler ones. Someone
will find a way to simplify tools and their use and eventually the new
inventions dominate the market. Look at the evolution of VCR, certainly now it
is much easier to program them. Also take a look at the evolution of the remote
controllers they have gone from a few primary functions to include all possible
functions back to a simplified design that access all functions with a few
functions.

I observe a shift in developments from "we can make it work" to "it is simple to
use". Additionally I see that the individual questions each one has to answer
are constant. The form may be changing but the content is still the same. As
Gary states, we may consider to have discovered something new when in fact it
may be just new to us.

Have a great day...


Esteban

To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
cc: (bcc: ESTEBAN TREVIÑO MUGUERZA/Monterrey/Cen/Cemex)
From: "Dr. Gary Lundquist" <garyl@MARKET-ENGINEERING.COM> @ INTERNET
Date: 05/05/2000 03:11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Acceleration of time

Deb and Robert,

Deb wrote: Specialization also increases complexity and decreases our
individual
> ability to understand the greater whole.

Complexity is another accelerator of change. The constant mixing of
knowledge and lack of knowledge both teaches and misinforms. Whichever way
it goes, complexity creates change.

One fun part of complexity is that we both create it and discover it. Our
science isn't really learning something new. It's just new to us. We
discover what exists in the universe.

On the other hand, we create our own version of complexity. In no other
place has society become exactly what we are here on earth.

The complexity of our lives makes having a life truly difficult. And it
will only get worse.

I do believe that we have biological limit to our abilities to learn fast
enough to keep up with change and complexity. In fact, it is quite
remarkable that evolution provided us with a brain advanced enough to manage
this much change. The Homo Sapiens brain would seem to be a leap ahead, not
just the incremental changes of previous evolutionary steps.

Nevertheless, the acceleration of change will push us beyond our limits. As
Robert says, we all now filter information. We choose to focus in certain
professional and life areas, not because we wouldn't like to be more broad,
but because we just don't seem to have the time.

One last thing. Anything we do to help us manage our fast paced lives will,
in itself, accelerate change. An efficiency tool, any time management
system, any reliance on technologies.

We don't have a choice. We need to deal with change. Yet in so doing, we
contribute to the problem.

Gary
----------------------------
Dr. Gary Lundquist -- The Scientist-Philosopher
Author of: THE WAY OF CHANGE
Change will never, ever again be as slow as it is today.
Garyl@market-engineering.com
Market Engineering International, Inc.
The Bridge Between Science and Marketing
www.market-engineering.com
303-840-9929, FAX: 303-841-6636
12006 N. Antelope Trail, Parker, CO 80138, USA



G

Even if we can master our own behavior and response to the time/change
pressure, think of how we may be potential victims of others' failure to
handle the same. Deb made reference to her own experience in the health
care field. Here are a few clips from a BBC news article posted today.
I'm sure the same applies in the USA and other countries as well.

Thursday, 4 May, 2000, 23:19 GMT 00:19 UK
Patients 'don't reveal the full
story'

Many consultations are unsatisfactory
Poor relationships between doctors and their patients
leave many people reluctant to reveal their true fears,
say researchers.

They are concerned this could mean that patients are
not receiving the right treatment because doctors are
failing to get to the bottom of their problems.
<snip>
Lead researcher was
Christine Barry, of Brunel
University.

She said: "There are some
indications that neither
doctors nor patients are
open to the presentation of
fuller agendas, the doctors
perhaps lacking confidence
to deal with complex
agendas and seeing them
as overly time-consuming,
the patients worried about
what is appropriate to
communicate and about
wasting the doctor's time.
<snip>
Dr Ian Banks, of the Doctor Patient Partnership, said
the main problem was that GPs simply did not have
enough time to spend with their patients because of
pressure of work.
<snip>
See the whole article
at:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_736000/736404.stm
Bob

Deb Bennett-Woods wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> Thank you for responding. I direct several UG and Grad programs in health
> care administration and management. This research is in response to what I
> consistently hear from students, colleagues and my advisory boards regarding
> primary challenges faced in health care.