From Robs points (and others) I would like to contribute to this discussion.
Even though I agree on the disturbing loss of impact from the arts in
various environments, I tend to argue towards a change of paradigm for
people like us. If we can't cope with this challenge and constantly panic on
the decline of business', politics' etc. understanding of the arts, we are
not creative enough, not taking our own medicine.
In my opinion the answer is not "as much art as possible in whatever form in
management" - and to be completely frank: those who argue for this have not
understood the value of art in general. The job legitimizing the presence of
aesthetic thinking is a never ending state of mind - art must constantly
challenge the established truths and myths - even in our community.
Please understand the two different approaches, I am using in my effort to
understand the new field of artistic possibilities:
1. Inspiring organisations and leaders with the means of Philosophy & Art
2. Changing paradigms among musicians like a Trojan horse in the castle of
the music industry
(the latter is the most difficult part)
In Denmark, Holland and the UK this works pretty good after some years of
concept development and the tendency is definately not lack of interest from
people of power.
In between these two principles meet in very happy moments, where business
experience, insight, knowledge and musical performance emerge in surprising
new contexts, and the learning potential flourish for everyone present in a
non-strategic, aesthetic release of force. A piece of art itself.
The clue is that artists and academics must change just as much as the
business and politicians, we tend to critisize. We must stop "deliver" art,
inspiration (whatever we call it) and enforce the learning ability instead.
Let us start killing frases like "Art & Business" - a completely false
polarity, and "Creative Industries" - a contradiction above all as
creativity never can be industrialised. Let us admit that most of what we
have done so far, when arts are integrated in academic conferences or
management development, is pure entertainment - although sophisticated.
Best regards
Peter Hanke
Centre for Art & Leadership, CBS
Exart Performances
www.exart.dk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Austin" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: 2006 Academy Arts
>I think this move by AoM, while perhaps not unpredictable,will nevertheless
>prove startlingly shortsighted in retrospect. The logic in these letters
>reminds me of the justifications for killing off investment in the IPTO
>office at ARPA in the 60s (where the Internet originated), and the
>rationale behind Xerox's antangonism toward PARC.
>
> I fear this is part of a larger pattern in the US at the moment. When I
> spoke recently to a group composed of many public school arts educators
> (at a fabulous conference at Columbia Teacher's College in NYC), I told
> them that the most important class their students were taking were arts
> classes, the one's that teach kids about creative and artistic process.
> But I got a lot of push back on this point from these art teachers (Pierre
> was there and may have some impressions of this as well).
>
> These public school teachers work in a system that increasingly emphasizes
> "accountability" and "governance" and "performance measurement," which
> pushes their subject to the periphery. It is a system that prepares
> students for the economy we are leaving rather than the one we are moving
> toward. But I expect this'll be realized too late.
>
> I have become convinced that part of the problem is that the arts make
> claims about relevance to management that are often too timid. In
> experiences I've had in conjunction with regional "creative economy"
> workforce planning groups, I've occasionally been shocked to hear artists
> make arguments along the lines of the following: the reason we should care
> about the arts in business is because the CEO of XYZ Corporation is an
> expert piano player and this must mean something. That's not nearly an
> ambitious enough claim. The recent "Gifts of the Muse" report had this
> same problem, leading the Wall Street Journal to conclude (in a review
> written by a composer) that if this is all we are getting from the arts,
> we probably don't need them (or something like that).
>
> I think it's time to kick up the claims we are making several notches. The
> economy of the future will be about creating value by creating novel and
> appropriate forms, and no one knows more about processes for doing that
> than artists.
>
>
> Rob Austin
> Technology and Operations Management
> Harvard Business School
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:01:56 +0100
> Stephen Linstead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear Chris and All
>>
>> I think that this is not unpredictable and that there have been some
>> people who have been not too secretly embarrassed by the existence of
>> AcademyArts in the past. It hardly seems possible that either the Fringe
>> (the Board clearly do not share the view of Fringe that the Edinburgh
>> festival might) nor AA was such a drain on resources that the viability
>> of the Academy was placed in jeopardy, nor does it seem the major threat
>> to democracy implied.I thought that AA and to a lesser extent the Fringe
>> were a new departure in that they were intended tor each everyone, not
>> just those who would consider themselves members of a group interested in
>> these things and whose identities were really elsewhere. Art is supposed
>> to be a space where everything is up for grabs, or at least for
>> reflection, and submissions to AA came from all over the Academy, not
>> just the "luvvies".
>>
>> In most areas of the study of management the US does lead the world. In
>> qualitative studies, critical management and the arts it doesn't - that
>> role falls to Europe, including the UK. The existence of the workshops
>> that Pierre and Antonio run, the group at EURAM and streams at EGOS, the
>> Art of Management conference ... indeed all the stuff that we hear about
>> on this list on a weekly basis confirms this, but also that there is lots
>> of important work with scholarly credibility going on all over the world.
>> Globally there is a need to mobilise our resources in all these areas if
>> we are to strengthen the hand of those people working in our disciplines
>> at the heart of Babylon (in the US and UK - and I believe to some extent
>> Australia - there is currently a severe attack on qualitative research
>> methods from within funding bodies - no sums, no money) .
>>
>> I guess the first step is to see how many AaCORNers are members of the
>> Academy, and for us to ask those who aren't perhaps to be willing to join
>> for the purposes of lobbying. We then have something to bargain with. We
>> can then either approach another interest group or division in order to
>> incorporate our efforts within theirs - and if we bring numbers to an
>> established group, this automatically brings money from the Academy to
>> that group, so we are not taking away. My guess is that the group that is
>> most likely to be able to accommodate us is Critical Management Studies,
>> and they will be delighted to have the extra numbers in their bid for
>> full division status.We can negotiate a degree of autonomy in the
>> handling of submissions etc I'm sure. We could perhaps negotiate on the
>> Fringe to have certain focus events within this space they are going to
>> create, but my feeling is that the space needs to be managed, as we
>> originally conceived it. It would be good to do some monitoring of
>> numbers/ attendance and get feedback from this year's fringe events
>> alongside a "save the fringe" campaign. After all, if AoM are so
>> concerned about democracy, have they consulted the membership as to
>> whether they want the Arts or the Fringe to survive? Will they accept
>> that the point was to provide somethng for everyone, not just an interest
>> group? Will they allow us to poll the membership? If not, will we do it
>> anyway?
>>
>> I think that we could produce a bid for an interest group that did meet
>> the Academy criteria if we so wanted (some of us I know recently went
>> through this process with CMS and I'm sure we'd get help and advice from
>> that quarter) - but whether we would want to is a different matter. Maybe
>> this could be a President's initiative?
>>
>> Let the dance go on....
>>
>> Steve.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Aesthetics, Creativity, and Organisations Research Network on
>> behalf of Chris Poulson
>> Sent: Mon 11/04/2005 18:15
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Fwd: 2006 Academy Arts
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi fellow Aacorns
>>
>> Boje's email is correct. In the interest of
>> completeness I am forwarding the formal notice I
>> received from Ken Smith regarding the future of
>> AcademyArts. Perhaps this will help in developing
>> individual responses. Following this is a forward
>> of the notice received regarding the Fringe Café
>> (which I have taken the liberty to add to the
>> discussion.) As you will see that there are
>> differences in how the future of each is seen by
>> the AOM Board.
>>
>> Regards
>> Chris Poulson
>> Chair AcademyArts 2002, 2004, 2005
>>
>>
>>>Delivered-To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: 2006 Academy Arts
>>>Sensitivity:
>>>To: Chris Poulson <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Cc: Qing Cao <[log in to unmask]>, "Jimmy Le" <[log in to unmask]>,
>>> [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
>>> [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
>>> "Tom Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>From: Ken Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:40:20 -0500
>>>
>>>Dear Chris Poulson,
>>>
>>>As you know, the AcademyArts is to scheduled to operate at the Honolulu
>>>meetings in 2005 with a budget of $1,000. We thank you for all your
>>>efforts in organizing this event. This letter is with reference to
>>>AcademyArts in future years.
>>>
>>>At a recent meeting of the Executive Committee of the Academy of
>>>Management, we discussed the current structure and organization of our
>>>national meeting. As you may know, each year the Academy experiments
>>>with
>>>new ideas for enhancing the program. Groups such as AcademyArts, Fringe
>>>Café, Practitioner Series evolved from these experiments.
>>>
>>>As a general rule, these experiments tend to continue overtime without
>>>much
>>>additional consideration. In fact, many of the experiments seem to
>>>automatically become institutionalized into the program even though they
>>>are the personal initiatives of an individual program chair. This
>>>probably happens because the new Program Chair picks up right where the
>>>last Program chair finished. The Program Chair¹s job is significant, and
>>>therefore the challenge is often to replicate the prior year¹s program
>>>without additional deliberation.
>>>
>>>At our Executive Committee meetings, we discussed how a number of
>>>groups,
>>>include the Academy Arts, Fringe Café, Practitioner series have become
>>>ongoing features of the annual meeting . These groups now appear on the
>>>program almost automatically, when in fact the original intent may have
>>>been to simply experiment. These groups have access to important member
>>>resources including premium space, program time and financial support but
>>>are not part of the current academy democratic structure, with division,
>>>interest groups and subject themes. . In addition, there is no mechanism
>>>for performance evaluation.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, this creates a governance problem in that some groups of
>>>members have access to member resources without proper oversight and a
>>>place on the program that falls outside of our structure and is not
>>>available to others. The goal of the AcademyArts was to provide a
>>>³venue
>>>for artistic expressions of art, poetry, and performance.² We
>>>appreciate
>>>the efforts of the group managing Academy Arts. However, in the future
>>>(after Honolulu), AcademyArts will no longer be provided space or budget.
>>>If AcademyArts is to continue within the Academy, it may have two
>>>alternative paths: 1) it may seek sponsorship of other divisions within
>>>their program time and space allotment; or 2) file for interest group
>>>status.
>>>
>>>Of these two alternatives, we believe that Academy Arts may have the most
>>>success with seeking joint ventures with other divisions. Achieving
>>>interest group status is quite a difficult process and the current goals
>>>of the AcademyArts do not appear to be consistent with the research and
>>>professional development goals of an interest group.
>>>
>>>We hope you understand the basis for this decision. Please contact us if
>>>you have questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>We look forward to seeing you in Honolulu in August. Thanks again for all
>>>your efforts.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>Ken G. Smith Tom Lee
>>>Honolulu, Program Chair, Atlanta, Program Chair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ken G. Smith
>>>Dean's Chaired Professor of Business Strategy
>>>Management and Organization
>>>Robert H. Smith School of Business
>>>4538 Van Munching Hall
>>>University of Maryland
>>>College Park, MD 20742-1815
>>>301-405-2250 TEL
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu
>>>
>>>Robert H. Smith School of Business
>>>Leaders for the Digital Economy
>>From: Ken Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:36:28 -0500
>> X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on
>> smtp1-notes/Bmgt(Release 6.5.3FP1|December 15,
>> 2004) at
>> 01/26/2005 08:36:36 AM
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.45
>> X-Spam-Flag: NO
>> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.000 required=4.500
>> tests=USER_IN_WHITELIST_FROM
>> X-Spam-Checker-Version:GEE Whiz GAS (Gee Anti Spam) v1.4.10
>> X-Spam-Level:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear David Cowan and David Barry,
>>
>> As you know, the Fringe Café is to scheduled to operate at the Honolulu
>> meetings in 2005 with a budget of $1,000. We thank you for working so
>> hard
>> to organize this event. This letter is with reference to Fringe Café in
>> future years.
>>
>> At a recent meeting of the Executive Committee of the Academy of
>> Management, we discussed the current structure and organization of the
>> annual meeting. As you may know, each year the Academy experiments with
>> new ideas for enhancing the program. Groups such as Fringe Café,
>> AcademyArts, Practitioner Series evolved from these experiments. As a
>> general rule, these experiments tend to continue overtime without much
>> additional consideration. In fact, many of the experiments seem to
>> automatically become institutionalized into the program even though they
>> are personal initiatives of an individual program chair. This probably
>> happens because the new Program Chair picks up right where the last
>> Program
>> Chair finished. The Program Chair¹s job is significant, and therefore the
>> challenge is often to replicate the prior year¹s program without further
>> deliberation.
>>
>> At our Executive Committee meeting, we discussed how a number of groups,
>> include the Fringe Café, AcademyArts, Practitioner Series have become
>> ongoing features of the annual meeting These groups are given important
>> member resources including premium space, program time and financial
>> support but are not part of the current academy democratic structure,
>> with
>> division, interest groups and subject themes. In addition, currently,
>> there is no way to evaluate their performance.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this creates a governance problem in that some groups of
>> members have access to member resources without proper oversight and they
>> have a place on the program that falls outside of our structure and is
>> not
>> available to others. The original goal of the Fringe Café was to provide
>> an open space for dialogue about important management ideas (Originally:
>> Democracy in a Knowledge Economy). Of course, we believe this is very
>> much
>> consistent with the entire purpose of the Academy Meetings. As such, it
>> is
>> our intent to establish a meeting place, with tables and chairs at each
>> of
>> the Academy venues in the future. This is consistent with the original
>> goal of the Fringe Café.
>>
>> However, in the future, this space will be provided at each meeting
>> without
>> budget and there will be no formal need to staff this venue with
>> volunteers. If the existing members of ACORN or Fringe want to meet,
>> they
>> can, of course, do so informally and use the provided public space. If
>> they need additional resources, they must seek formal sponsorship from
>> one
>> or more of the divisions.
>>
>> We hope that you understand the purpose for this decision. We also note
>> that if ACORN or Fringe were to grow and develop a research and teaching
>> agenda, it may be possible to file for interest group status. In which
>> case, the group would be operating within the current Academy structure.
>>
>> We hope you understand the basis of this decision. Please contact us if
>> you have questions or concerns.
>>
>> We look forward to seeing you in Honolulu in August and again thank you
>> for
>> your work.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Ken G. Smith Tom Lee
>> Honolulu, Program Chair, Atlanta, Program Chair
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken G. Smith
>> Dean's Chaired Professor of Business Strategy
>> Management and Organization
>> Robert H. Smith School of Business
>> 4538 Van Munching Hall
>> University of Maryland
>> College Park, MD 20742-1815
>> 301-405-2250 TEL
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu
>>
>> Robert H. Smith School of Business
>> Leaders for the Digital Economy
>>
>> --
>> ===========================
>> Chris Poulson
>> Professor of Management and Human Resources
>> California State Polytechnic University Pomona
>> Pomona, CA 91768
>>
>> Mail: P.O. Box 339, Claremont, CA 91711-0339
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 909-869-2415 office
>> 909-869-4353 office fax
>> 909-624-0874 home
>>
>> http://www.csupomona.edu/~cfpoulson/
>>
>> "Seeing Time" Photo Essay as exhibited at the Academy of Management 2000:
>> http://www.aom.pace.edu/meetings/2000/art/seeing_time_title.htm
>> =====================================
>>
>>
>
> Robert D. Austin
> Technology and Operations Management
> Harvard Business School
> 617-495-8084
>
>
|
