David and Other Colleagues--
As a former manager and, now, current educator, I have to say that I
think that much of what managers are seeking is a pipe dream--relief
from the pressures of overwork (how can I do things more efficiently?),
from the constant barrage of other people's problems and misbehaviors
(how can I motivate them?), from the need to play politics (how can I
deal with my ___ boss?), from accountability without control (how can I
restructure this crazy organization so that it works?), from the
uncertainty that is an inextricable element of most of our decisions,
and so forth. Our society has taught to rely on rationality uber alles
(with the exception of romantic and mother-love!) and, so, we think that
we can and must manage the unmanageable. Furthermore, we see other
managers around us who seem to have it easier going and we wonder why.
Instead of investigating the accuracy of our attributions, we tend to
think that they know something that we don't. We don't investigate
because, at heart, we don't want to know that they feel beleaguered,
too. We desparately hope that there is a magic bullet out there that
will make our lives easier. (Why do you think that most CEO's read so
many management books, and that many of the great ones read philosophy
and classics instead?) Both the perception and the hope are in vain.
(Who was it who said that most of us live lives of quiet desparation?)
I think that the sin (arrogant idiocy) is in our thinking, saying and
acting (insofar as we do) as if what we have to offer in the classroom
(knowledge and skills) will solve their problems. Certainly, we can
give them some pointers about ways to think that may be new to them and
that may help put things into perspective or help them figure out for
themselves how to work things out. But we don't really have "the
answers", at least, not the ones that they need (usually the consulting
firms that they hire for the same reason that they go back to school
don't either--just look at the staggering rate for recidivism in Big
Five OD programs). They have to find the answers for and within
themselves. We don't want to tell them that and they don't want to hear
it!
So, what we can do to help them? And, are we doing it? How often do we
ask our students what their issues are, what they want to know, what
problems are keeping them up at night? And, if we do, how often are we
willing to revise, or even scrap, our curricula and teach, in the form
of a joint inquiry, to that? The answer, I think, is "rarely". We--and
I certainly include myself in this--cling to the notion (tradition) that
it is our job as professors to define the scope of the inquiry, itemize
the body of knowledge that it encompass, and hustle students along the
course of what we call learning. Is that the right thing to do? Are we
really the "experts"? If not, then what should be our role?
It is axiomatic that we all teach to our own style. In my view, that
goes beyond what we tend to think of as learning styles to encompass
content. In short, most academics teach to future academics, not to
practitioners. We design our courses and their content for the small
percentage of our students who will go on to another degree. I find
myself questioning the wisdom of this. People who follow the path of
getting more degrees have a strong intrinsic drive to learn--they are,
to use Peter Vaill's term, "learners as a way of being". Some are even
true scholars. With or without our help they are like sponges: they are
intrinsically motivated to seek out learning environments and take care
of their own learning needs. I think that what we should be focusing on
is helping students who can't/don't make breakthroughs on their own,
helping them learn to develop a sense of joy and satisfaction in
inquiry.
No apologies for the polemic. You touched a nerve. I just hope that if
you've read this far, you don't consider it a complete waste of your
time! :-]
Ruth
"Fearon, David (Management)" wrote:
>
> There is in a nutshell, folks. Travis Bradberry says, "The world of
> academic research provides important innovation and fuels my thinking as I
> consult, but I find that I often have to switch hats before I bring ideas to
> the client because they only tend to respond to information when it is
> "quick and dirty."" We teach about management. We teach "to" managers or
> managers-to-be. We talk to each other about "hard" and "soft" side elements
> of leadership and management here, and write lines of text to each othe rin
> the trillions about management. And they want it "quick and dirty" once
> they are out there doing it! Does anyone wonder what's their rush that
> makes us have to put what we know on the head of a pin? I suspect, from
> having spent a lot of time out there with our "product" that they want it
> fast and simple, because they are drowning in the effluents of badly managed
> situations. There's simply no time for slow and clean reflection. Today,
> after another week of being as effective a management educator as I can
> figure out to be, I have to think that we are either miserable failures or
> they are. Or are we both? Or, should I just meander back over to the sunny
> side of the street and let "quick and dirty" be good enough for piece work?
> David
>
> David S. Fearon, Ph.D.
> Professor of Management
> 467 Vance Academic Center
> Central Connecticut State University
> New Britain, CT 06057
>
fearon@ccsu.edu
> 860 832 3280 Fax 860 832 3289
> Cell 860 983 5779