heh. I said "synergy"

[den]

I just wrote this paragraph in an essay.



Even within a company it is extremely rare to find one individual who possesses all the knowledge there is to know about the operation of that company. By forming a team of individuals who know different aspects of the company operation, the knowledge possessed by the team members can be combined and assessed to create a complete knowledge set. This combined knowledge can also generate new ideas that may be used to achieve the best result. (Anand, Clark, Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003.) It is quite possible these new ideas would be generated by an individual company employee eventually, but a cohesive team can, as a whole, out-perform an individual engaged in the same task because the synergy within the team can inspire its members to perform better and to generate new ideas faster, and the ideas can be assessed and accepted or rejected rapidly. (Bartol, 2001) This cohesiveness can develop quickly within a team when the members have similar experiences, but these carryover behaviours can also be a disadvantage when the team members are demoralised by a previous bad team experience. (Rad & Levin, 2003)



and now I need a shower.

Comments

[makovette.livejournal.com]

After that paragraph, I think my monitor needs a good washing too ;-P

Ah the joys of classwork :-D What's the title of that class?

CYa!
Mako

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

Organisations And Management. It's a required subject of the BInfoTech

[pipibluestockin]

A few more paragraphs of that and we can all play Buzzword Bingo. :p

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

You should try reading "Ethics & Technology" by Tavani. Everything is CyberBuzzwords.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Godfrey Daniels.

I'm a Systems Scientist and a Bucky Fuller fan. I use the word "synergy" a LOT... generally in its precise technical sense.

That sentence of yours essentially says "Synergy inspires synergy". You're describing the dynamic interactions within the team that produce the effects of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

I knew I'd have to rewrite it at some point to expand on the idea, and to clarify a lot of it. This is only the first draft and only an expansion of the plot-points.

[hafoc.livejournal.com]

Within any organization it is extremely rare to find one manager not suffering from an advanced case of cranial rectitis. However, with greatest and undue saphrogenic actuacity, it is necessary for management to achieve the illusion of utility in order to prove the necessity for copious compensation for management services. As a consequence, the individual who possesses all the knowledge there is to know about the operation of that organization must be added to a team of individuals of sub-optimal intellectual acuity, so that his complete knowledge set may be diluted, deflected, and defeated; otherwise solutions to problems may be discovered before it becomes necessary to employ the highly-honed skills of management. (Rogers, 2004). This combined knowledge and stupidity can also generate new digressions and dead ends that may be used to prevent the best result, further justifying compensation and bonuses for management. It is quite possible these new ways to waste time and resources would be generated by an individual company employee eventually, but a cohesive team can, as a whole, screw things up far better than any individual engaged in the same task because "stupidity adds, intelligence cancels" and "none of us is as stupid as all of us" (Rogers, 2004). Therefore, in order to justify the existance of management and continue the market for writers of books on management theory, it is necessary to form "teams" and "committees" on all occasions, lest solutions be implemented without proper (i.e. copiously compensated and deliberate) management acquiescence. (Rogers, 2004) This rigid insistance on perpetuating any problem to eternity develops instantly whenever there are three or more members, especially if any member is stupid, reads books on management theory or, optimally, is such a hopeless drooling idiot as to both read AND believe books on management theory. A further benefit of the synergy of groups is the carryover of such behaviors to every aspect of company operations; since as long as the problem is not solved, compensation for those who appear to attempt to solve it remains necessary. Also, paradoxically, failure to solve problems is taken as evidence of their difficulty and importance; therefore those who fail to solve problems are most likely to receive advanced positions and increased compensation. (Any large organization that has ever existed, 10,000 BC- 2004 AD).

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

You're just bitter.


(I might stick that on a seperate page after the references.)

[hafoc.livejournal.com]

Bitter? Maybe. More amused.

Every two years some numbnuts in Upper Management reads another management book, and we end up with another Management Buzzword of the Month. We hold a week or two of meetings to kick off our new Management Theory and hold Teambuilding Exercises.

I don't even know which one we're on now. I think we have had Minute Management and Matrix Management, although those were a long time ago now. We definitely had Management by Objective. Then we went over to Total Quality Management and Continuous Quality Improvement.

I'm a slow learner, but after four or five of these experiences I came to realize that the purpose of management books is to sell management books.

Three more facts really disheartened me: First, no matter what the Management Buzzword was, it came down to "We're going to build teams from the ground up. We're going to TRUST and LISTEN to line employees, and value their expertise, and we really really really REALLY mean it this time." Second, they never really meant it. Third, apparently the upper management, who get paid twice what I do and have been working here at least as long as I have, were apparently unable to recognize that we'd done the whole song and dance two years before, and two years before that, and two years before THAT, ad nauseum.

Now, I know they're not that stupid. I KNOW these guys. I can only suspect they're doing this yet again because they feel some need to muddy up the waters, just to appear to be doing SOMETHING, anything at all.

I might add, for your amusement, the three kinds of meetings. I've been to ten thousand meetings and each and every one of them was held for one of three reasons:

1. Somebody was too lazy to write a memo.

2. Somebody was too gutless to make a decision.

3. PARTY!

Of these, only the PARTY-- or teambuilding, if you want to give it a more dignified name-- is of any use whatsoever. And that, oddly, is worth quite a lot. It's amazing how much better things go when you know the other people in your organization, and know what everyone does. Then you know who to call for the info when you have some problem that needs solving.

Especially if it's the line worker you know. So you can ask directly without going up and down through management channels. Wouldn't want to disturb the poor dears while they're reading management theory books, after all. :D

Jargon

[ursuscal.livejournal.com]

In sociology, we call that "argot." It's invented language to make practioners of particular fields feel like they're apart from mere mortals. Doctors used to be the worst offenders, but now Internet geeks win the prize.

Ever play "Bullsh@t Bingo?" You start with cards bearing boxes (like BINGO cards) four down by four across. Each box has random jargon words like "Think outside the box," "Paradigm," and "Proactive." During boring meetings, each time some windbag uses one of the words on your card, you mark it with a sticky note (how appropriate). The first person who gets all four across, down, or diagonally shouts "Bullsh@t!" and is excused from the remainder of the meeting (or their employment, depending upon the company). }:xD

Re: Jargon

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

I like that game!