Discussion: View Thread

In now rereading Louis Allen's book (I had his series of courses then too)
as well the "collection from my MBA days at the Univ.of Chicago was a real
shocker. I think the answers are substantially the same; perhaps, and I
do mean perhaps, the writing today is more user-friendly, but the message
seems the same to me. I do find implelmentation easier now, but that may
be the experience factor.

Anyone else of my vintage, or perhaps read his/her father's or
grandfather's library? If you found something really new, excluding
programming, please tell me what you beliee to be new and useful.

Don Scott

Don Scott's comments on "looking back" provide a timely theme for a
discussion of mgt. ed. in the 21st century.

For example, we've had three or four years to examine the impact of the
Internet on mgt. ed-what has it been and what will it be? Will we see
outstanding faculty- independent of any institution-- lecturing on Internet
II?

Will we be swinging the pendulum to e-business courses and
"MBA's in EBiz" over the next few years?

My own observation is that we will continue to see rapid growth of "corporate
venturing" in the broadest sense. That is, more spin-offs such as Agilent,
many CMGI type formations, resulting in continued growth of enrollment in
entrepreneurship courses (which may be in contrast to the '60's)

Chuck Morrissey, Pepperdine

I like where this is going. I am looking forward to expanded distance
learning, as part but not all of the education. I know Netmeeting is
great, but can one really learn to read body language, inflexion in voice,
and make up for the side remarks that are often critical by the ability to
be taught by the "best", wherever they may be?

Is this way of returning to the late 19th century (and still the case in
some places) concept of a brain being a "container" to be filled with
knowledge? Where does the experiential factor come in? Maybe I don't
know enough about distance learning. It would be well to also identify
both advantages and disadvantages, and see if this creative group can come
up with alternatives to overcome the places where distance learning falls
short? Will we need to dress for the camera?<g>

It would seem this is a wonderful opportunity to see how well the results
of going down the path we are going down, doing what we are planning to do
will surpass or fall short of the still dominant system, and where for
both.

I am concerned that anonymity can enbolden;den someone to act in a manner
other than (s)he would in a face to face situation, and I am not sure if it
could be better or worse. Would we still develop the bonding that takes
place in person-to-person situations? Where is the cameraderie? Would
the reunions every 10 years be over the Internet too?<g> I am truly an
agnostic, typically thinking progress is good, but how much of what we are
looking at happening is "progress?"

Don

At 11:41 AM 1/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Don Scott's comments on "looking back" provide a timely theme for a
>discussion of mgt. ed. in the 21st century.
>
>For example, we've had three or four years to examine the impact of the
>Internet on mgt. ed-what has it been and what will it be? Will we see
>outstanding faculty- independent of any institution-- lecturing on Internet
>II?
>
>Will we be swinging the pendulum to e-business courses and
>"MBA's in EBiz" over the next few years?
>
>My own observation is that we will continue to see rapid growth of "corporate
>venturing" in the broadest sense. That is, more spin-offs such as Agilent,
>many CMGI type formations, resulting in continued growth of enrollment in
>entrepreneurship courses (which may be in contrast to the '60's)
>
>Chuck Morrissey, Pepperdine
>

Concurring with Don's statement "I am truly an agnostic, typically thinking
progress
is good, but how much of what we are looking at happening is 'progress?'" and
reacting to Gregory J. E. Rawlins book "Slaves of the Machine : The Quickening
of Computer Technology" we should be concerned with undirected progress.

We could loose our humanity and become entangle as just one more part within
the system, or, we could direct the system to produce a meaningful progress to
enhance our humanity. Don's question hits the bull's- eye, is the current
progress
beneficial to humanity as a whole? Are we developing in a sustainable way? Are
we a vital organ or a cancerous growth? What specific issues we need to
incorporate
into our development and decision process to ensure a future we can live in?
Are
we going to develop with a purpose or are we going to get a purpose from our
progress?

Can we freely act to create the environment we want or are we bound to react to
the
environment we have? How aware and conscious are we of our current resolutions?
What drives our development, the desire of a world to be or the exploitation of
current
desires?

We should be concerned with ensuring that today?s progress does enhances our
humanity instead of merely advance exploiting today?s opportunities.

Saludos

Esteban

I think you have raised many provocative questions. I believe that there
would not be real progress in terms of quality of life, social justice, if
all we care about is faster computer, faster access and faster and bigger
profits. We need to inject some humanity and spirituality into our
increasingly digital culture. We need to recover meaning and purpose in an
increasing high-tech society. That is one of the reasons that motivate us to
organize the International Conference on Searching for Meaning in the New
Millennium. Those who are interested in taking part in a symposium on the
role of meaning and purpose in leadership, please contact me (wong@twu.ca).
For more details about the conference, please visit www.meaning.twu.ca.

-----Original Message-----
From: ESTEBAN TREVIÑO MUGUERZA
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 03/01/00 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: Reviewing my 1960s managment books: a pleasant surprise.

Concurring with Don's statement "I am truly an agnostic, typically
thinking
progress
is good, but how much of what we are looking at happening is
'progress?'" and
reacting to Gregory J. E. Rawlins book "Slaves of the Machine : The
Quickening
of Computer Technology" we should be concerned with undirected progress.

We could loose our humanity and become entangle as just one more part
within
the system, or, we could direct the system to produce a meaningful
progress to
enhance our humanity. Don's question hits the bull's- eye, is the
current
progress
beneficial to humanity as a whole? Are we developing in a sustainable
way? Are
we a vital organ or a cancerous growth? What specific issues we need to
incorporate
into our development and decision process to ensure a future we can
live in?
Are
we going to develop with a purpose or are we going to get a purpose
from our
progress?

Can we freely act to create the environment we want or are we bound to
react to
the
environment we have? How aware and conscious are we of our current
resolutions?
What drives our development, the desire of a world to be or the
exploitation of
current
desires?

We should be concerned with ensuring that today?s progress does enhances
our
humanity instead of merely advance exploiting today?s opportunities.

Saludos

Esteban

Esteban, I am much more optimistic. I don't fear progress; I lament the
wasted time & effort and misdirection that can occur if movement is
regarded as synonymous with progress.

At 12:29 PM 1/3/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Concurring with Don's statement "I am truly an agnostic, typically thinking
>progress
>is good, but how much of what we are looking at happening is 'progress?'" and
>reacting to Gregory J. E. Rawlins book "Slaves of the Machine : The
Quickening
>of Computer Technology" we should be concerned with undirected progress.
>
>We could loose our humanity and become entangle as just one more part within
>the system, or, we could direct the system to produce a meaningful
progress to
>enhance our humanity. Don's question hits the bull's- eye, is the current
>progress
>beneficial to humanity as a whole? Are we developing in a sustainable way?
Are
>we a vital organ or a cancerous growth? What specific issues we need to
>incorporate
> into our development and decision process to ensure a future we can live in?
>Are
>we going to develop with a purpose or are we going to get a purpose from our
>progress?
>
>Can we freely act to create the environment we want or are we bound to
react to
>the
>environment we have? How aware and conscious are we of our current
resolutions?
>What drives our development, the desire of a world to be or the
exploitation of
>current
>desires?
>
>We should be concerned with ensuring that today?s progress does enhances our
>humanity instead of merely advance exploiting today?s opportunities.
>
>Saludos
>
>Esteban
>

A computer ... and technology as a whole... are tools. To blame them for
the ills of society or direction of progress is tantamount to blaming the
hammer or stirrup (see Battle of Hastings; see correlation to technology in
"The Killer App: Digital strategies for market dominance") for the changes
they contributed to in society.

Certainly we are not suggesting that the Amish approach of staying stuck in
the agricultural age is appropriate? That we should stay stuck in
industrial age instead of continuing to progress into the knowledge age?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Wong" <wong@TWU.CA>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Reviewing my 1960s managment books: a pleasant surprise.


I think you have raised many provocative questions. I believe that there
would not be real progress in terms of quality of life, social justice, if
all we care about is faster computer, faster access and faster and bigger
profits. We need to inject some humanity and spirituality into our
increasingly digital culture. We need to recover meaning and purpose in an
increasing high-tech society. That is one of the reasons that motivate us to
organize the International Conference on Searching for Meaning in the New
Millennium. Those who are interested in taking part in a symposium on the
role of meaning and purpose in leadership, please contact me (wong@twu.ca).
For more details about the conference, please visit www.meaning.twu.ca.

-----Original Message-----
From: ESTEBAN TREVI�O MUGUERZA
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: 03/01/00 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: Reviewing my 1960s managment books: a pleasant surprise.

Concurring with Don's statement "I am truly an agnostic, typically
thinking
progress
is good, but how much of what we are looking at happening is
'progress?'" and
reacting to Gregory J. E. Rawlins book "Slaves of the Machine : The
Quickening
of Computer Technology" we should be concerned with undirected progress.

We could loose our humanity and become entangle as just one more part
within
the system, or, we could direct the system to produce a meaningful
progress to
enhance our humanity. Don's question hits the bull's- eye, is the
current
progress
beneficial to humanity as a whole? Are we developing in a sustainable
way? Are
we a vital organ or a cancerous growth? What specific issues we need to
incorporate
into our development and decision process to ensure a future we can
live in?
Are
we going to develop with a purpose or are we going to get a purpose
from our
progress?

Can we freely act to create the environment we want or are we bound to
react to
the
environment we have? How aware and conscious are we of our current
resolutions?
What drives our development, the desire of a world to be or the
exploitation of
current
desires?

We should be concerned with ensuring that today?s progress does enhances
our
humanity instead of merely advance exploiting today?s opportunities.

Saludos

Esteban

> Certainly we are not suggesting that the Amish approach of staying stuck
in
> the agricultural age is appropriate? That we should stay stuck in
> industrial age instead of continuing to progress into the knowledge age?

The Amish are not stuck in the agricultural age. Last year, Wired had an
article about the Amish's use of high tech. I'm sure it can be found on
their website. I suggest you check it out.

Ed Brenegar

On 3 Jan 00, at 18:35, Conna Condon wrote:

> A computer ... and technology as a whole... are tools. To blame them for
> the ills of society or direction of progress is tantamount to blaming the
> hammer or stirrup (see Battle of Hastings; see correlation to technology
> in "The Killer App: Digital strategies for market dominance") for the
> changes they contributed to in society.

I agree that blaming a tool for something is rather futile, foremost
because the tool doesn't care, so it's hardly satisfying to berate.

However, tools, technology are hardly neutral in their effects.
Mostly they have positive and negative outcomes, some foreseen,
many NOT foreseen.

So, pretending that they are neutral is a dangerous error. Could
anyone have predicted in 1980 that hundreds of BILLIONS of
dollars would be spent on fixing technology?

The same for social effects of technology and tools be it the
hammer, the telephone, the tv or the computer. They DO have
impact upon our lives, some good some bad.

In short, technology changes people. You can't avoid it. Usually
some good, some not so good.

> Certainly we are not suggesting that the Amish approach of staying stuck
> in the agricultural age is appropriate? That we should stay stuck in
> industrial age instead of continuing to progress into the knowledge age?

Clearly the Amish prefer to keep the benefits and shortcomings of
the way they live rather than adopt the benefits and shortcomings
of another way of doing things.

As to the transition of ages, it's not within our control, and that's
the scary part of technology. If you want to live in mainstream
society, you either get pushed into a new world or you perish
(figuratively or literally, management wise). And with the gains
come loses.


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.

I heard about it .... and I would suggest that it demonstrates that the
Amish are no longer "Amish" in the definition of their ancestors ... so sad.
A culture does have a right not to evolve if it so desires.

I do agree with Robert that all advances are not good ... neither was the
way things were all good. All a mixed bag.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Brenegar" <edb3@MSN.COM>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Reviewing my 1960s managment books: a pleasant surprise.


> > Certainly we are not suggesting that the Amish approach of staying stuck
> in
> > the agricultural age is appropriate? That we should stay stuck in
> > industrial age instead of continuing to progress into the knowledge age?
>
> The Amish are not stuck in the agricultural age. Last year, Wired had an
> article about the Amish's use of high tech. I'm sure it can be found on
> their website. I suggest you check it out.
>
> Ed Brenegar
>

I didn't mean to trigger references to the battles of hastings-or attacks on
the poor computer-or whatever ills technology has created!!

Is anyone ? interested in discussing the future of mgt.ed.???

Don't we owe some observations -and recommendations--to our institutions??

The Amish want to maintain a certain perspective about technology. For
example, they have phones, but they are in boxes on the property line so
their neighbors can use them. They use tractors, but only on the farm.
They have gas tanks that fit on their buggies, which they take to town to
fill for the tractor. They use computers, but only for running their
milking/farm businesses.

I think they are open to the criticism that their standards are arbitrary.
But they have their reasons, and I think there is much we can learn from
their commitment to maintain community over against an individualism that is
sustained through technological innovation.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Conna Condon <gandolf@CYBERVERSE.COM>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Reviewing my 1960s managment books: a pleasant surprise.


> I heard about it .... and I would suggest that it demonstrates that the
> Amish are no longer "Amish" in the definition of their ancestors ... so
sad.
> A culture does have a right not to evolve if it so desires.
>
> I do agree with Robert that all advances are not good ... neither was the
> way things were all good. All a mixed bag.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Brenegar" <edb3@MSN.COM>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 6:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Reviewing my 1960s managment books: a pleasant surprise.
>
>
> > > Certainly we are not suggesting that the Amish approach of staying
stuck
> > in
> > > the agricultural age is appropriate? That we should stay stuck in
> > > industrial age instead of continuing to progress into the knowledge
age?
> >
> > The Amish are not stuck in the agricultural age. Last year, Wired had
an
> > article about the Amish's use of high tech. I'm sure it can be found on
> > their website. I suggest you check it out.
> >
> > Ed Brenegar
> >
>

On 3 Jan 00, at 22:57, Charles Morrissey wrote:

> I didn't mean to trigger references to the battles of hastings-or attacks
> on the poor computer-or whatever ills technology has created!!
>
> Is anyone ? interested in discussing the future of mgt.ed.???
>
> Don't we owe some observations -and recommendations--to our institutions??

Charles, it's been a bit hard to follow conversations because of
holiday time lags, but I think that technology, it's use and
application and effects should be something that is part of
management education.

I think, far too often, managers look to technology to solve
problems where it isn't a good fit. One example is the
computerization of feedback systems for performance management
and appraisal. More managers are looking to this technology to
solve performance problems when it is the real people to people
feedback that is essential.

I could probably kick in another ten examples of how technology is
misused by managers who have mistaken ideas about its use. I
certainly think this SHOULD be part of management education.


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.

I am also intersted in whether the use of technology is impacting on how
managers make decisions. I refer in particular to performance of staff,
If managers are not aufait with the technology and level of technology
being used how difficult does it then become for appraisal to take place at
the proper level. I work in Higher Education and it is clear that even
with training and a basic knowledge of use of computers, there is still a
wide gap between the knowledge of the people at the coalface and those
making decisions. This causes quite a deal of frustration between people
when trying to 'manage' areas of diversity. I was wondering if there had
been anything written on this particular area. I have read Senge's recent
book on change managements and feel he touches on a few issues - and
recognises the difficulty faced by management in managing change.
Comments on this particular area would be most welcome.

At 10:29 PM 1/3/00 -0600, you wrote:
>On 3 Jan 00, at 22:57, Charles Morrissey wrote:
>
>> I didn't mean to trigger references to the battles of hastings-or attacks
>> on the poor computer-or whatever ills technology has created!!
>>
>> Is anyone ? interested in discussing the future of mgt.ed.???
>>
>> Don't we owe some observations -and recommendations--to our institutions??
>
>Charles, it's been a bit hard to follow conversations because of
>holiday time lags, but I think that technology, it's use and
>application and effects should be something that is part of
>management education.
>
>I think, far too often, managers look to technology to solve
>problems where it isn't a good fit. One example is the
>computerization of feedback systems for performance management
>and appraisal. More managers are looking to this technology to
>solve performance problems when it is the real people to people
>feedback that is essential.
>
>I could probably kick in another ten examples of how technology is
>misused by managers who have mistaken ideas about its use. I
>certainly think this SHOULD be part of management education.
>
>
>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.
>
>
Regards Catherina

c.wallace@bendigo.latrobe.edu.au
Catherina Wallace, MEd(T&D)
Office of Enterprise and Promotion.
La Trobe Uni. Bendigo.
PO Box 199,
Bendigo 3552.
Phone 03 54447932
Fax 03 54447555

At 07:50 PM 1/3/2000 -0800, Conna Condon wrote:
>
>I do agree with Robert that all advances are not good ... neither was the
>way things were all good. All a mixed bag.
>

i, for one, believe that all changes are good. In stating this, however, i am
saying something about myself, not about the events or the changes themselves.
There isn't one thing that happens to us from which we can't learn and grow. If
we so choose.

Some years ago, i read an article in the NYTimes about a high school
valedictorian headed to Princeton that fall. Throughout most of his life he had
lived homeless on the streets of NY with his mother and siblings. When the
reporter asked him how he was able to surmount such great difficulties, he said
that he really didn't know. On further reflection, he stated that one thing he
had noticed was that most all of the things that his fellow students considered
bad and which always stopped or limited them, he took as a challenge.

i wish i had saved the article. i would then be able to put a name on the best
management "theory" i have ever heard.

tom
king