[Paleopsych] Robust scientific dialog

Mon Feb 21 23:19:10 UTC 2005

Managers direct while leaders inspire.

Both Hewlett and Packard were hands on kinda guys who 
were always roaming the plant in rolled up shirt 
sleeves.  Fiorino chose to sashay her way in spiked 
heels....she is now in oblivion.

Gerry Reinhart-Waller
Independent Scholar

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Hovland" <shovland at mindspring.com>
To: <ldj at mail.sisna.com>
Cc: "paleopsych at paleopsych. org (E-mail)" 
<paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Robust scientific dialog

> Carly Fiorino's tenure was also flawed because
> she was a manager, not a leader.
>
> All she did was to call in the consultants and
> go with their standard recommendation to make
> a large acquisition.
>
> All the genius in HP's patents was essentially
> discarded.
>
> Steve Hovland
> www.stevehovland.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ldj [SMTP:ldj at mail.sisna.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:23 AM
> To: The new improved paleopsych list
> Cc: Steve Hovland
> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Robust scientific dialog
>
> Steve,
> thanks for this reminder. Of course, you are right.
>
> At the same time, the dilemma is why didn't mayors 
> before Guilani do that?
> They were not leaders, they were managers. It comes 
> down to vision and
> leadership. What the Mouse Cult book seems to argue 
> (based on my reading of
> the reviews on Amazon) is that Eisner's leadership is 
> fatally flawed.
> Eisner lacks the vision that Walt Disney had. 
> Instead, he wants to simply
> maximize profit. So what he inspects is the wrong 
> thing, namely how can we
> mazimize our profit? Walt seemed to have a vision of 
> entertainng people,
> educating them via his nature films, entrancing them.
>
> So a vital problem that David is raising is what 
> about leadership? Someone
> once said that it is not that power corrupts, it is 
> that power attracts
> corruptable people. Too often our organizations are 
> run by people who
> simply want power for its own sake, that is, for the 
> sake of their own ego,
> and not because they actually have a worthy vision 
> that serves the
> customer/stakeholder/citizen. I ordered the In Search 
> of Stupidity this
> mornng from Abebooks.com so I may speak too early, 
> but it appears that the
> failures he documents originate from the top 
> leadership, lack of vision.
>
> This message goes to you because I am at work and I 
> don't know how to make
> this mail program use my list name, 
> ljohnson at solution-consulting.com. So
> paleo will bounce it. If you forward it, you have my 
> appreciation.
> Lynn
> working to celebrate presidents
>
>
> ---------- Original 
> Message ----------------------------------
> From: Steve Hovland <shovland at mindspring.com>
> Reply-To: The new improved paleopsych list 
> <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
> Date:  Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:38:56 -0800
>
>>"You get what you inspect" may also apply here.
>>
>>Rudy Giuliani dramatically changed the output
>>of many agencies in New York by measuring
>>progress toward the results he wanted.
>>
>>He probably didn't change the culture, which is
>>very difficult, but he got a different result, which
>>was enough.
>>
>>Steve Hovland
>>www.stevehovland.net
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. 
>>[SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 9:17 PM
>>To: W. David Schwaderer; The new improved paleopsych 
>>list
>>Subject: [Paleopsych] Robust scientific dialog
>>
>>David,
>>Thank you for this inspiring question. I have been 
>>giving it some thought.
>>
>>My assumption is that we find true dialog 
>>threatening. Groups value
>>stability. Stability comes from shared meanings, 
>>shared norms, shared
>>values. We create meaning about the universe, and we 
>>are dismayed by
>>data that undermines our creation.
>>
>>So we started that particular project with a focus on 
>>group culture.
>>What is the norm about dialog? Clearly it had been to 
>>suppress debate.
>>Back-channel communications were common.
>>
>>I used an Appreciative Inquiry / Solution-focused 
>>approach, looking for
>>exceptions, times when dialog had worked. The idea 
>>behind that is that
>>we can change a culture by seeking positive examples 
>>of what is desired.
>>Fluctuations occur in all systems all the time. Even 
>>in a culture of
>>defensiveness and non-sharing, I assume there will be 
>>examples of times
>>when sharing did happen. If we discover those 
>>exceptions and talk about
>>them, the group members begin to re-view their 
>>concepts of the group.
>>New norms can be based on those exceptional times. 
>>Trust in the new
>>norms is improved by further dialog about them, mroe 
>>examples.
>>
>>We asked scientists:
>>"We all have experiences of direct, robust dialog, 
>>and we also have
>>experiences when we do not talk directly to others. 
>>We want to study
>>times when dialog was direct, to the point, and 
>>helpful. Please tell us
>>a time when that happened. What was going on? Who was 
>>involved? What
>>were you told? How did that help?"
>>
>>In retrospect, I should have trained three scientists 
>>to collect that
>>data, and each of them training three more and so on. 
>>I did too much of
>>the work. When the consultant does the interviews, it 
>>greatly reduces
>>the impact on the system, since the consultant is an 
>>outsider. Insider
>>collection of exceptional times is much more 
>>powerful.
>>
>>The senior scientist was quite pleased and felt that 
>>people were being
>>more open. We didn't have any actual data, though. 
>>Not  long after, the
>>VP of HR became ill and eventually died.
>>
>>I have much more to say. I wonder whether we ought to 
>>say this on list?
>>Would the paleo group be interested in this dialog 
>>between you and me? I
>>will forward this on to the group and see if we get 
>>interest. In the
>>mean time, David, please write back and tell me if 
>>this kind of story is
>>what you have in mind. I am interested in keeping 
>>this going.
>>
>>Lynn
>>
>>W. David Schwaderer wrote:
>>
>>>>I once consulted with a pharmaceutical research 
>>>>firm. ... but they
>>>>would not challenge each other.
>>>>
>>>>Divergent opinions are generally felt as 
>>>>threatening to the group, and
>>>>it takes sustained effort to legitimize divergent 
>>>>opinions. We came up
>>>>with "Robust Scientific Dialog" as a title for an 
>>>>organizational
>>>>intervention that had some positive impact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Lynn, I am *extremely* interested in this 
>>>phenomena - treatment of
> dissent
>>>and divergent opinion.  This is a key human 
>>>behavior....
>>>
>>>=> If you have *any* other thoughts on this please 
>>>let me know what they
>>>are.  Please.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> << File: ATT00005.html >>  << File: ATT00006.txt >>
>>_______________________________________________
>>paleopsych mailing list
>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>>
>
>
> _________________________________
> SISNA...more service, less money.
> http://www.sisna.com/exclusive/
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
> 