<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On using overly-simplistic language to describe complex organisational issuesâ€¦</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.connectioneconomy.com/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.connectioneconomy.com/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues/</link>
	<description>Blogging about Tomorrow&#039;s world Today</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anj</title>
		<link>http://www.connectioneconomy.com/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-2607</link>
		<dc:creator>Anj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 06:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmtd.biz/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607</guid>
		<description>Maybe it&#039;s the futility of trying to &#039;fix&#039; something that&#039;s on its way out - the corporation. There are a slew of books out there on &#039;how to&#039; - lead, motivate, sell, change etc. There are numerous &#039;speakers&#039; out there who offer the instant panacea. There are workshops, conferences, seminars etc. And yet the same dilemmas keep raising their heads.

The model of manager, worker, director, shareholder worked really well (and made many obscenely wealthy). But things have changed, consciousness has changed, needs have changed, priorities have changed - so why not the corporation. Perhaps the challenge is not to help the corporation to &#039;work&#039; better, but to find a new kind of corporation which is not an old model dolled up, but an authentic organisation which focuses on the people it attracts and is tuned to the subtle changes in mindset and nature and can organically adapt and grow to accomodate this.

The old mindset is to constantly &#039;find the average&#039; - make everyone move up to the average, and if they&#039;re really smart and bright then bring them down to the average. And then let&#039;s find some really smart &#039;tools&#039; so we can measure average and enforce average. And if everyone takes this model and applies it to all the problems they could encounter, then it&#039;s plain sailing.

But that&#039;s the easy way out.

What&#039;s a little harder is to treat each employee and customer as an individual with a voice. And to constantly be on your toes so that your organisation is pro-active instead of re-active. Learn to listen to them and intuit what it is you&#039;re needing to do - to keep both employee and customer happy.

The power games in suits and shiny briefcases needs to make way for a more caring way of doing business which is authentic and sustainable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe it&#8217;s the futility of trying to &#8216;fix&#8217; something that&#8217;s on its way out &#8211; the corporation. There are a slew of books out there on &#8216;how to&#8217; &#8211; lead, motivate, sell, change etc. There are numerous &#8217;speakers&#8217; out there who offer the instant panacea. There are workshops, conferences, seminars etc. And yet the same dilemmas keep raising their heads.</p>
<p>The model of manager, worker, director, shareholder worked really well (and made many obscenely wealthy). But things have changed, consciousness has changed, needs have changed, priorities have changed &#8211; so why not the corporation. Perhaps the challenge is not to help the corporation to &#8216;work&#8217; better, but to find a new kind of corporation which is not an old model dolled up, but an authentic organisation which focuses on the people it attracts and is tuned to the subtle changes in mindset and nature and can organically adapt and grow to accomodate this.</p>
<p>The old mindset is to constantly &#8216;find the average&#8217; &#8211; make everyone move up to the average, and if they&#8217;re really smart and bright then bring them down to the average. And then let&#8217;s find some really smart &#8216;tools&#8217; so we can measure average and enforce average. And if everyone takes this model and applies it to all the problems they could encounter, then it&#8217;s plain sailing.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s the easy way out.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s a little harder is to treat each employee and customer as an individual with a voice. And to constantly be on your toes so that your organisation is pro-active instead of re-active. Learn to listen to them and intuit what it is you&#8217;re needing to do &#8211; to keep both employee and customer happy.</p>
<p>The power games in suits and shiny briefcases needs to make way for a more caring way of doing business which is authentic and sustainable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dragon</title>
		<link>http://www.connectioneconomy.com/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-2594</link>
		<dc:creator>Dragon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmtd.biz/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues%e2%80%a6/#comment-2594</guid>
		<description>If there isn&#039;t a one-size-fits-all solution, is there a way to break them down into categories that will more likely fit a given company or organization?

If morale cannot work from incentives (re #7) due to the short term nature of its benefits, what kind of change is needed for the leadership? A pat on the back for workers? More recognition? A combination of all of the above? More face to face contact between management and worker? Less perceived differences by workers between what management says and does?

It seems this article raises more questions than it answers -- which I take to be at least one purpose of it -- as well as a challenge to others to figure out what The Answers are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there isn&#8217;t a one-size-fits-all solution, is there a way to break them down into categories that will more likely fit a given company or organization?</p>
<p>If morale cannot work from incentives (re #7) due to the short term nature of its benefits, what kind of change is needed for the leadership? A pat on the back for workers? More recognition? A combination of all of the above? More face to face contact between management and worker? Less perceived differences by workers between what management says and does?</p>
<p>It seems this article raises more questions than it answers &#8212; which I take to be at least one purpose of it &#8212; as well as a challenge to others to figure out what The Answers are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeanc</title>
		<link>http://www.connectioneconomy.com/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-2593</link>
		<dc:creator>jeanc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmtd.biz/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues%e2%80%a6/#comment-2593</guid>
		<description>Zurrod, I agree. What a pity that people are willing to miss out on the potential wonderful value of a coaching relationship just because they are afraid of taking a risk. Of course, like you say, it is easier to sell packaged programmes because it gives the decision-maker in the client-organisation more security when buying. I&#039;ve just come to a point where I am so sick and tired of running through meaningless structured programmes that I&#039;d rather do less work but focus my work on clients that are willing to take the risks immenent to change and growth. It certainly is less financially viable, but it is also certainly more rewarding.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zurrod, I agree. What a pity that people are willing to miss out on the potential wonderful value of a coaching relationship just because they are afraid of taking a risk. Of course, like you say, it is easier to sell packaged programmes because it gives the decision-maker in the client-organisation more security when buying. I&#8217;ve just come to a point where I am so sick and tired of running through meaningless structured programmes that I&#8217;d rather do less work but focus my work on clients that are willing to take the risks immenent to change and growth. It certainly is less financially viable, but it is also certainly more rewarding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zurodd</title>
		<link>http://www.connectioneconomy.com/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-2592</link>
		<dc:creator>Zurodd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tmtd.biz/2006/03/30/on-using-overly-simplistic-language-to-describe-complex-organisational-issues%e2%80%a6/#comment-2592</guid>
		<description>Great article!  It accurately models the challenge in selling a coaching service or similar intervention designed to develop an organisation through developing its people.  (The irony of the comment in relation to the article is unavoidable, sorry!)

Ideally, the best coaching program for any person / team at a period in time will exist once and can never be repeated.  But I find that coaching clients are sadly more likely to buy coaching when it is neatly packaged as a set of tools and processes that have been proven with previous clients.

In my coaching experience, clients who gain the most from coaching engage with a coach thinking &quot;let&#039;s trust that what emerges from our conversations is what will best help me achieve my objectives&quot;.  So it&#039;s a pity many people reduce their decisions-making to simple models like an ROI equation or expect a &quot;proven&quot;, paint-by-numbers process to guarantee future success.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article!  It accurately models the challenge in selling a coaching service or similar intervention designed to develop an organisation through developing its people.  (The irony of the comment in relation to the article is unavoidable, sorry!)</p>
<p>Ideally, the best coaching program for any person / team at a period in time will exist once and can never be repeated.  But I find that coaching clients are sadly more likely to buy coaching when it is neatly packaged as a set of tools and processes that have been proven with previous clients.</p>
<p>In my coaching experience, clients who gain the most from coaching engage with a coach thinking &#8220;let&#8217;s trust that what emerges from our conversations is what will best help me achieve my objectives&#8221;.  So it&#8217;s a pity many people reduce their decisions-making to simple models like an ROI equation or expect a &#8220;proven&#8221;, paint-by-numbers process to guarantee future success.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
