On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:20:40, Pat Gantt wrote:
>Subject: Very stimulating debate
>
>Dear all,
>
>I happened to be married to a P.E. In TN. TN and other states
>if you use the term engineer or any other derivative
>in a context of advertising yourself as such or claiming
>expertise in engineering of any kind, you
>and your firm (institution) etc. can be fined
>heavily.
>
>Instead of usurping, why not make the engineer part of the
>management team?
That's fine with me. But why equate the role with the title? Many people
can do engineering without being engineering professionals. Also,
engineering professionals typically have little credentials in engineering
people-based processes. So let's be alert for those who have the
appropriate KSA's regardless of their title or certification.
>
>So why not have engineering professionals teach in B schools?
That's a good idea. And why not have B-school professors teach in
engineering schools. Unfortunately, it has been my experience with several
universities over the last several years (and still is), that such
crossovers are not acceptable to the ASS-based culture.
--- snip ---
>We all know profit takers in the stockmarket game.
Well, I have not experienced much profit, personnaly, <:(= but I am glad to
know you are one of the "they" who are interested in profits.
--- snip ---
>> 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.
>
>Hah hah! I likes it. Hmmm a kind of internship for profs. eh?
><giant smile>
Only if they want to become practitioners rather than just professors.
But it is not really an internship (who there is qualified to "intern"
you?). Rather, it is more like your laboratory for testing your
hypotheses. (I trust that you do warn your students that you are only
promulgating hypotheses.)
>> 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?
>
>I *do* human resource development. I don't *do* management ed.
How can improving the capabilities of humans NOT be management ed? Do your
graduates become hermits? I assumed you were interested in Management Ed.
because this ListServe is about Management Ed.
Anyway, how do you measure the relevancy of what you do to students?
>Have heard horror stories.... I am firmly on the poor
>peons side <giant smile> afterall am one myself.
Sounds like you are stuck in the we-they, management-labor, have-have nots
paradigm. This is America. Darn near every manager came from "labor."
Every leader serves labor. What in the world do you teach?
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah, my favorite in OJT. Why not take the classroom to
>the job?
That's a start. Of course the "classroom" is the wrong paradigm but the
idea of getting outside of Descarte's Temples is the right direction.
>Tell me more about your group techniques. I know what
>my strategies are.
I would like to hear more about them.
Do you help them understand, BY DOING, such things as learning styles,
issue resolution, synectics (or equivalent), quality ethic, focus on
results (rather than activities or personalities), a decent process and
project planning system, competency development for effective, open
communication, and delegation of authority to where the results are
supposed to happen [empowerment]?
>
>> A more basic proposal is: let's address the question of whether Management
>> Education should be left to B Schools.
>
>Ah... I think I answered that. See above.
No, I did not discern an answer. Sorry if I am too dense.
The more we hear about management and leadership the more it seems to me
that the missing KSA's are in the Humanities and Arts. John Gardners'
thoughts on Self Renewal are quite pertinent, here.
I tell my engineer friends that they did not become engineers because they
wanted to be. In fact, they did not know what an engineer was or did.
Rather, they became engineers simply because it was the classroom
fartherest down the hall from literature and debate! That was okay in the
era of simpler problems but now we are in a complex, dynamic world
situation that will be met only with group decision techniques and, guess
what,that takes dialog and co-learning, instead of accounting, "the theory
of the firm," or how to manage the "they's" on the payroll.
>
>> But now that people can vote with their keyboards,
>Hmmm sounds like just-in-time, just-enough! Gee whiz
>a human resource idea! U Ree Kah!
Pretty close. But as long as you view humans as resources rather than the
reason for being in business, you are in a self-made rut.
>
Okay, I don't know but I won't ask who is Payton Manning. The more
pertinent question is: who is Pat Gantt?
>
>Been nice and stimulating. Like the ideas put forth above.
We agree on yet another point.
and while we are here, consider the following:
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 18:28:06 EST, Tom Bryant wrote:
>Subject: What can we do?
>
>The Entrepreneurship division of the Academy, under Randy Carlyle and Jerome
>Katz, last year put out a very useful guide to the development of "adjunct"
>or clinical faculty members. It shows numerous ways that practice can be
>brought inside the academic setting in an effective way.
I hope they come to see the advantage of not bringing things inside the
academic setting but, instead, to take the academic process to the real
world situation.
Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143 USA
602-488-4615
Fax) 602-488-4616