Hey Dannemiller. At least no one's calling you Jabba the Hutt... Very sorry to hear about your physical ailments. Is this why no holiday card this year?
Regarding the lack of dialogue about "systems theory"--maybe on the one hand, those of us lurking out hear are members of the choir. What more can really be said about systems theory than has previously been written? It truly makes sense. On the other hand, most organizations I'm aware of don't truly recognize the full extension of systems theory and instead think that they can control organizations (human systems) simply by listening to each component of "the system." In doing so the implication is that the system is more closed than open. What I mean is, organizations are constituted by humans who are continually trying to make sense of their lives through communication both within and outside the organization. Organizations then are composed of multiple overlapping human systems that are changing daily in our attempt to make sense of our chaotic lives through communication. As Weick puts it, "how can I know what I think, until I hear myself say it" [extravert???]. He argues that more often organizational strategic planning sessions are simply symbolic rituals that allow the justification of prior actions. If this is so, how does the gathering of a "representative" sample of system components do much more than provide a temporary snap shot of certain individual's voices during that moment of time? Would their voices remain the same 3, 6, 12 or more months later? I really wonder. . .
Another question (you did ask for dialogue didn't you?). Are you involving "representatives" from corporate stockholders in your large scale change interventions? It seems to me that they are indeed a part of any publically traded organizational system. Critical organizational scholars (i.e., Stan Deetz, George Cheney, Linda Putnam, M. Scott Poole, Charles Conrad etc.) might suggest that the real problem with organizations is that the interests of workers, management and stockholders are inherently in contradiction. What do you think?
Rick