NON-INTRO 

David Boje & Robert Dennehy's
Managing in the Postmodern World
1st Edition 1993; 2nd Edition 1994;
3rd Edition April 2000.
For Free to you on the WWW.
You may copy for free and use in any teaching or training setting at no charge. You have our permission to copy. It was written as an undergraduate Intro to Management Text, but has been used at all levels, including in Management Training at Trader Joe's.

Consult Managing in the Postmodern World home page for more chapters as I get them done. There are also plenty of cases, syllabus copies, and additional  learning materials to go with this book - D. Boje 

(press here). 

:

AMERICA'S REVOLUTION

• Youth Gone Wild

• Since I was born they couldn't hold me down.

• Another misfit kid, another burned-out town.

• Never played by the rules!

• Never really cared...

• the writing's on the wall.

• We are the youth gone wild.

• Boss screamin' in my ear

• About who I'm supposed to be.

• Getcha a 3-piece Wall Street smile

• and son you'll look just like me.

• I said: "hey man, the's something

• that you oughta know.

• I tell ya Park Avenue leads to skid row."

-Excerpts From Skid Row by Bolan and Snake: Dolby, Atlantic.

PAGE INDEX

• Rebel's Postmod Glossary 
• What is planning, organizing, influencing leading, and controlling?
• Stewart Clegg's Foreword
• REVOLUTIONARY'S NON-INTRODUCTION
• What is Postmodern Management? 
• Mod versus Post Principles of Management
• Table of Contents
• Notes

Once in a while any enthusiast experiences the thrill of unexpectedly discovering a rare and special example of the genre that they collect. Occasionally, this has happened to me when I've turned up a rare jazz or blues record on Compact Disc in a specialist shop that I either didn't know existed or had never been able to track down. However, I'm not only a music buff but also an academic: I guess that's why I've been asked to write this foreword. The same pleasure that the discovery of a rare Billie Holiday or John Coltrane disc might cause one paralleled the pleasure of the text found in the volume you are holding now. It is not that this book is one with which one wholeheartedly agrees or which goes where no book has ever gone before - although it comes close to doing that. The pleasure is to be found in a book which is so refreshingly lucid about matters which are so frequently opaque.

The opacity is two-fold: there is an opacity of convention as well as an opacity of criticism.

The opacity of convention is a set of silences, absences, refusals, a general unwillingness, nay, even inability, on the part of mainstream organization and management theorists to engage with the vibrant strand of contemporary social theory represented by the discussion of postmodernism and postmodernity. Irrelevant, awkward, difficult, obscure: these are some of the epithets that one hears hurled against the emergent post-functionalist, post-Marxist, post-Cold War grammar of theorizing being developed in journals such as Theory, Culture and Society. In this way another opacity is instituted: the lack of transparency in some of the key texts of postmodernism being sufficient to condemn them to irrelevance.

Yet, the organizations and management fields are not impervious, despite that theoretical engagement between different research and scholarly traditions has only rarely been a feature of an area of work which has been characterized by more than a fair degree of paradigmatic partisanship, postmodernism is trickling into journals like Organization Studies and the Journal of Organizational Change Management at an increasing rate.

The problems are not just external to the postmodernists but are compounded by differences within the postmodern camp: a key question is whether the postmodern is an era or a style of theorizing, an issue which is central to the argument which this book addresses. It does so with flair and conviviality, engaging the reader in a conversation quite unlike exchanges which one has found represented in other relevant literature. The marketing skills of populism are combined with the theoretical agenda of radicalism to produce a book which no one can deny a priori because of its difficulty, impenetrability, etc. It is, simply, a good story, a strong narrative, in which many voices may be engaged, a genuinely pluralist text for postmodern times, one written from within a modernist consciousness which is displayed in the commitment to the story-line. Ultra-postmodernists may not accept this attachment to narrative but it is what gives the book its strength.

The book suggests that these postmodern times may well pass by America, that it will be stymied by the legacies of a post-industrialism in which a form of power/knowledge was institutionalized in corporate embodiments swollen with the bureaucratized complacency that defence-related contracting induced in organizations remote from competitive struggle in a consumer market-place. It is now clear that the post-industrial society was a knowledge-based society shaped by the requirements of the Cold War and the warfare state. It was these which materialized the shift in organizational social relations from an industrial epoch founded on exploitation to one in which value became increasingly fused within the unity of power/knowledge condensed within the global, bureaucratic, corporate frame. America won the Cold War but is clearly in danger of losing the aftermath, not to the old adversaries, but to nations which were not even admitted to the Cold War game as equal players: most noticeably Japan, but also Germany, the powerhouse at the center of the European Community, as well as the Newly-Industrializing Countries of East Asia. Statutorily, of course, the first two were not allowed to play as part of the Cold War settlement at Yalta. Exclusion spawned different strategies premised on structures which were and had always been institutionally distinct.

For as long as the old modernist orthodoxies of management and organization theory held sway the specificity of the differences represented in these overseas cases were hard to see and the institutional frameworks in which they were embedded remained unaccounted. The literature was thorough goingly modernist in its assumptions and could only make that kind of sense of the differences which were becoming apparent, too late and too wrong, in the case of Japan, as a cultural 'threat' at the dawn of the 1980s. Yet, as this book makes clear, 'It is not the Germans, Japanese and Koreans that are causing America's decline. It is mismanagement of {America's} own human and economic resources.'

What is to be done? Boje and Dennehy are quite clear: first, there has to be a realization that the recipes of modernism were epoch or era specific and may be past their use-by date in some areas of organizational life. Second, that for as long as the lenses through which we focus on organizational life are made to modernist specifications, so that they focus on variables such as formalization, standardization, centralization, etc., as the strategic focus for research and teaching, we will be condemned to doing the 'time-warp' over and over again, stuck in the modernist frame while the spectacle outside turns ever more postmodern. Third, that postmodernism offers an integrative focus which will aid us as teachers, students, researchers and practitioners in overcoming the excessive differentiation which has fragmented our intellectual and praxeological communities. Fourth, that in doing so it will serve to re-vitalize the study of management and organizations by opening it up to the cutting-edge of contemporary social science currents.

It is quite an agenda. Yet it is one which this remarkably lucid, open and engaged contribution advances considerably. Let me conclude this foreword with a pregnant thought from one of the now-neglected grandmasters of modernism, one who hardly figured in the modernist consciousness of management and organizations. Even as, by a logic of exclusion codified early in the intellectual career of the field, echoes and traces of Marx's subordinate and ultimately defeated modernist thought delineated the themes that did figure as the victorious current of modernism, this minor European post-Hegelian philosopher and political economist had enough savvy and style to get at least one thing right, and in so doing underwrites the audacity and importance of the project that this book represents, both in its theme and its accessibility:

People make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, and creating something that has never yet existed, precisely in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle cries, and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honored disguise and this borrowed language. (Marx: The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte)

If the hypotheses and argument that the authors advance are substantially correct, then we stand at one of those moments in history when the urge to resist and understand the limitations of the old slogans is critical. America's Revolution Against Exploitation: The Story of Postmodern Management achieves this resistance and this understanding sufficiently to reconfigure our grasp of the modern condition in which we have been while pointing us towards what we may become. One should salute the book as a contribution to one of the projects for the future, one which, because of its easy style, deserves to secure postmodernism a good name in management and organization theory circles.

Stewart R. Clegg  July, 1992

"America's Revolution Against Exploitation" is long overdue. We are a nation founded on rebellion and slavery. With all our prosperity, the gap between the haves and have nots is now a grand canyon. The prescriptions in this book are extreme. It is time to dismantle American "exploitive" management practices that are the same old victimizing games, but written up with more endearing labels. Empowerment is really exploitation. Cycle time is really time and motion study. Access to information is really surveillance. Managers are as exploited as the workers. Managers work in a system of discipline, obedience, surveillance, and prescriptions that keep them from doing much other than exploitation. Both will rise up and rebel against this system of exploitation that is being taught WITHOUT CRITIQUE in MBA programs and Colleges of Business Administration (CBA's). In fact MBA is not Master of Business Administration, it is Master of Bureaucratic Administration taught in Colleges of Bureaucratic Administration. This book is a rebel's guide for post-bureaucratic, post-exploitation, post-racism, post-colonialism, post-sexism, and post-complacency. "Postmodern Management!" is our revolutionary battle cry for breaking the shackles of these exploitations.

Postmodern Management is a revolutionary blend of a critique of management traditions with skills to move America to a future without exploitation. We have acquired a new perception and with it new capacities. There are new frontiers of opportunities, risk and challenge. We live in an age of transition from the old "modern" factory-bureaucracy that took us beyond feudal guilds, but is not suited to the diverse workforce and complex world economy of "today," in our "postmodern world". As usual, management guru, Peter Drucker was ahead of his time in 1957 in his book Landmarks of Tomorrow when he used the term "postmodern" and went on to say that the postmodern lacks definition, expression, theories and concepts.1 Between 1957 and 1990, Peter Drucker recognized that we can now specify the "postmodern factory of 1999," but we can not build it yet.2 This is an important point because there are too many postmodern writers using postmodern language without realizing how resistant the modernist regime is to giving up control over the factory bureaucracy. Exploitation by another name is still exploitation. Postmodernist also exploit when their turgid writing keeps postmodern ideas inaccessible to the general public. An elite group of academics use jargon and prose that Socrates and Einstein could not fathom. Our task is to make postmodern management accessible to the common man. In fact, in this book undergraduate juniors and seniors have done postmodern studies of everyday organizations.

Garfield echoes Drucker in his book Second to None where he identifies the era of uncertainty that exists while corporations undergo an extraordinary transformation in attempting to meet challenges.3 These changes may appear random and chaotic but they are part of a larger pattern whose scope we are just beginning to discern. Garfield calls this new pattern the "new story" of business. We, too, will provide the new story -- the postmodern view of organizations.

Vaclav Havel, the President of Czechoslovakia, reflects that the fall of communism is a sign that modern thought-based on the premise that the world is objectively knowable, and that the knowledge so obtained can be absolutely generalized-has come to a final crisis.4 From an era of systems, institutions, mechanisms and statistical averages, he proposes the task of finding a new, post-modern face. It is not that we should simply seek new and better ways of managing society, the economy and the world. The point is that we should fundamentally change how we behave.

Drucker, Garfield, Havel: three revolutionary voices that call for new stories in today's world. In this book we eagerly take on the challenge.

Table 1: "The Revolutions of Management"

════════════════════════════════════════

Pre-modern Management Revolution: Before the industrial revolution, people for many centuries apprenticed in crafts and became so skilled that they did not need a lot of other people to tell them how to plan, organize, and control. They knew what to do. On the other hand, slaves, serfs, and indentured servants were exploited to make wealth for masters and kings. Drucker (1992) places the revolutionary transition from the pre-modern era in the 1880s, when American began regulating its unrestricted markets, railroad barons, and in general, wanted to get some control over the emerging industrial revolution.

Modern Management Revolution: Two trends combined in the industrial revolution to become "modern management." First, the industrial revolution model of factory production yielded more products and cheaper costs than the feudal crafts and guild system. Second, bureaucracy was seen as a way to resolve the exploitation of feudal lords and barons by implementing rules, procedures, specialized positions, and layers of administrators. The factory and the bureaucracy fused together in the modernist era to give us the modern factory-bureaucracy. With this machine age, people began to be treated like machines, made to perform very routine, boring, repetitive, and very, very specialized work (like oiling the machine). People did not think for themselves and so they needed great pyramids of managers, layer upon layer of managers, to put all the cogs (people) together again.

 

Post-modern Revolution: This revolution is only beginning. Drucker (1992), for example dates the beginning as 1968-73, when the great "oil shock" and student rebellions across America voiced the pain. Are we are beyond the machine age, beyond the time when people at work had no skill, beyond the time when they are treated like dependent children, and beyond the need for managers at all? In management, will people, once again, be highly skilled? Does working in autonomous teams, in a flat and global network of relations make people more empowered, more self-controlled, and less exploitable? Does serving the customer through a lean and flexible service system move us beyond a mass consumption society? Are managers and bean counters going to serve the postmodern network by keeping it configured in ways that meet worker and customer needs? Or, in this postmodern revolution, have the forces of darkness learned to substitute words like "total quality management," "sociotechnical systems," "empowerment," and "flexible manufacturing systems," for the modernist command and control words or even the pre-modern torture and sovereignty words? Are management textbooks keeping their 1950's principles and prescriptions in tact, while using more politically correct words like: diversity, multi-cultural, workforce 2000, and substituting minority for white-male photographs? Will the postmodern revolution become a maniacal nightmare where the ills that brought on earlier revolutions pale by comparison. Just because an organization will be flat, speedy, global, and customer-driven does not mean that workers, managers, and customers will be unshackled from exploitation, drudgery, and abuse.

Pre-modern is craft-based management, modern is pyramid-based management, and postmodern is network-based management. But, postmodern is not just a system of managing a flat network form of organization, postmodern is also a method for detecting, and challenging forms of exploitation.5

To provide a framework for our book, we provide metaphors of Pre-modern, Modern and Post-modern. The Pre-modern represents the crown of the master but also the crown of the skilled artisan. The Modern represents the bureaucratic organization chart inside the pyramid with the General Manager at the top with the other managers and employees cascading down to the bottom.

There are several candidate-metaphors for postmodern. One is Peter Drucker's (1990, 1992) image of the modernist firm as the "battleship" and the postmodern image of the "flotilla." Flotillas are small groups of ships that can be reconfigured to cope with changing circumstances. Gareth Morgan in personal communication has suggested the postmodern image of a termite mound. The idea that each termite is so interrelated with his brother mites to nurture, build, and protect the mound. Lyotard (1984: 17) uses the metaphor of a conversation in contrast to the bureaucratic institution:

From this point of view, an institution differs from a conversation in that it always requires supplementary constraints for statements to be declared admissible within its bounds. The constraints function to filter discursive potentials, interrupting possible connections in the communication networks: there are things that should not be said. They also privilege certain classes of statements (sometimes only one) whose predominance characterizes the discourse of the particular institution: there are things that should be said, and there are ways of saying them. Thus: orders in the army, prayer in church, denotation in the schools, narration in families, questions in philosophy, performativity in business. Bureaucratization is the outer limit of this tendency.

The conversation is a loosely coupled network where people join in and detach from the dialogue. The rules of the conversation shift as rapidly as the topics and where the conversation will lead is often unpredictable.

TAMARA. Our favorite metaphor for postmodern is a mansion with conversations happening simultaneously in many rooms. In the play Tamara, instead of one story, one stage, and one plot, told in a linear act by act way to a stationary audience, the stories of multiple characters each unfold as that audience chases actors and actresses from room to room in a reconstruction of an Italian Villa. Tamara is a true story taken from the diary of Aelis Mazoyer and is Los Angeles' longest running play. If we assume that there are a dozen stages and a dozen storytellers, then the number of story lines an audience could trace in their networking as the "wandering audience" chasing a multiplicity of "wandering discourses" is 12! or 479,011,600 paths in the Tamara organization. In Tamara, there is no correct, single story, told as one voice as is the case in the modernist organization. Every choice is valid. Every whim or dedication rewarded in its own way. You choose the play you wish to get. Thus the concept of Tamara represents today's diverse, simultaneous, team-based, flexible organization that challenge us to find many new ways to view the world.

Our Voices. One of the freedoms of postmodernism is to own up to your "voice" and stop writing so impersonally that you have no voice. We are Boj and Bob, using our voices, telling our story.

Bob: Dave, besides getting rich and famous, why did we write this book?

Boj: We were at some convention talking with book sellers and started joking around. We have this book idea about telling stories to teach management. You know. Tell the feudal stories of slavery to get at control.

Bob: Textbooks summarize Taylor in two sentences, highlight Gilbreth, condense Fayol, but never tell the whole story -- and a really exciting story too.

Boj: I was taught never to write from my own voice. It took me years to use the "I" word in my writing. And, I think we wrote the book to give a voice to other voices not being heard, like the voice of the worker, feminist voices, anti-racist and anti-exploitation voices. In management, as taught in the USA, all you get is one voice... bureaucracy.

 

 

Bob: I'd like to tell the story of the pre-mod slaves, serfs, craftsmen and artisans. But, I'd also like to tell the story of the bureaucracy, the factory, the mill, the office as well as the story of the postmodern organization with images of Tamara, termites, and the flotilla.

Boj: I think management texts are way behind the times. In fact, I was talking to a textbook salesman. He used the words: "instructor proof." You don't need instructors anymore, except to pick out the multiple choice questions from the test bank that is provided, pick the overheads from the overhead book, and pick the exercise from some manual. The student can read the book, do the pre-test, post-test, read the little inserts and there you have it -- fast-food learning.

Bob: What a disappointment. How dull! How boring! Where are the stories? Where's the excitement? We want our book to include the management functions: planning, organizing, influencing, leading, controlling. But we want these topics viewed from the pre-modern, modern, and postmodern perspectives. How can we extract the best from the pre-mod and set the stage for inclusion in the postmodern. We have some exciting possibilities.

 

Boj: To me the pre, mod, and post are competing conversations. You know, competing discourses that are each in play today, each in struggle with the other. In my life, I am part bureaucrat, part lord of the classroom, and part rebel postmodernist.

Bob: Our task is to rebel against the modern management texts and really provide new life for business education. Stories, history, and competing roles provide the framework for a much more exciting exploration of business today.

Boj: Right, and we have to rebel against the postmodernists too. The stuff is great, but they make it so hard to understand what they are saying. Managers and a lot of students turn off to it after a few sentences.6

Bob: That's right, one of our challenges is to make the postmodern message accessible to our students, but we also have to be circumspect about the postmodernists. The message can easily be diverted into a new form of modernist techniques. We cannot be enamored that postmodernism is nirvana. The message is powerful, but how can we provide some skepticism.

 

Boj: I just can not teach the old stuff. It is bureaucratic, it does not face the truth. America has a lot of MBA programs and textbook publishers making a lot of money teaching the sacred texts. Even though, Americans know that companies are leaving for other countries, the education system is in shambles, the homeless are everywhere. America is pyramid-bound, pyramid-dependent, and prefers to be blind to the postmodern revolution.

Bob: Students have been conditioned by other textbooks and classroom procedures. Our approach asks them to reconsider their education as we lay out our story and as we ask them to lay out their story. Reevaluate the present state of business in light of contributions from the past. We are asking them to cooperate in this venture to make business come alive.

Boj: Texts are a-historical and even abuse history. Management textbooks do not talk about exploitation, about slavery, about sexism, and racism. There is a mandatory ethics chapter, but basically the books are bland, encyclopedias of scientific-sounding vocabularies. They mask the real message, that the white male pattern of organizing by product, by functions, by aerospace technology that combines functions and project in a matrix of a thousand teams will make it all go away. A matrix organization is just bureaucracy squared. Two bureaucracies instead of one. Some texts change the photos and put in a case about a poly-centered form with a multiplicity of management hierarchies around which the teams get distributed. The same old formula, tweaked here, stretched there, with new rhetoric, but still feudalism and bureaucracy. We have to take a different track.

Bob: Let's take the topic of organizing. We will not use this hackneyed approach in our book. Rather, we will look at the historical development of organizing. Since organizing will be different in the year 2000 than it is being practiced today, we will examine how organizing got to be the way it is, and where can it go from here. In short, instead of looking at organizing as a science of variable relationships, we will look at organizing as a response to the conditions and movements of American society and the global economy. What will it take for America to be competitive in 2001?

 

Boj: All students are doing is memorizing lists and playing non-sense exercises. Memorizing laundry lists is not teaching students to critique. They are taught to be little docile cogs in the cookie cutter organizational machine. And, we are the cookie cutter monsters.

Bob: The organizational reality of the 21^st Century will be too diverse, flexible, dynamic, and turbulent for simple cookie cutter cogs to keep America competitive in the 21st Century.

Boj: I want students to get how stories are a part of the discourse that is pre-mod, part of the discourse that is modernist-bureaucracy, and part of the critical and skeptical discourse that is postmod.

Bob: There is no truth in a story, it is the teller's point of view, based on his or her experience.7 For the postmodernist, the storyteller's voice is as valid as the voice of any textbook author. Certainly the student's voice is equally valid. Our story and writing are not any more truthful or valid than anyone else's story.

Boj: It is easy, as authors, to hide our own voice and story, by masking our "I-ness" behind sterile rhetoric, encyclopedia lists, and the like. I would like to be bold, and come out from behind the dispassionate, privileged third person. We want to de-privilege the author's voice. Let the student skip around, read the book in the middle, skip to the end, read every third page. Treat their own stories of management as valid and truthful as any they read in our book. We will give our interpretations to these stories, but our interpretation is only our viewpoint. As students, they can generate equally valid viewpoints. Some students may even find their own voice.

 

 

Bob: We will define lots of terms, but there are always more than one definition. They can define terms in their own way, based on their own stories. By taking this approach, we are sharing power and ownership with our students. To be empowered, to interpret, and to tell their own stories!

Boj: It's tough, we are asking students to critique traditional principles of management that have been taught as scientifically validated facts. Management principles are history-bound. With each new management revolution, the principles get recreated to fit that time period. Then when the economy, culture, and politics changes, a new set of principles is seized upon as scientific and valid. Its not scientific, it is just more politically expedient to teach people truths instead of historically convenient recipes.

Bob: We have proof. We can show you that before pyramid, bureaucratic (modernist) management, there were other principles that textbook authors do not talk about anymore. That weakens the modernist's grip on how planning, organizing, influencing, leading, and controlling should be done. We can show that by the 21st century, the world will be a very different place than it is today. I think it is reasonable to assume that we will seek out some principles that fit the postmodern historical epoch (our future).

 

 

Boj: You know what, management principles of Modernist Machine and Service Bureaucracies are the exact opposite of the management principles which our book proposes for Postmodern Management and Organization.

Table 2: MODERN VERSUS POST-MODERN PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT

Bob: Opinions vary, but what is clear is that the principles of management of modernist-bureaucracy and postmodern self-management are opposite.

 

Boj: The U.S. Department of Labor has conducted a study that makes the search for alternative principles of management an American agenda.8 Our book plans to address this agenda.

Bob: In the next few pages, we can summarize the book by telling the grand stories of the three epochs of management: Pre-modern, Modern, and Post-modern.

Boj: You think that students will get the fact that while we lay them out as historical time periods, all three are very much a part of your life in everyday organizations?

Bob: Yes. We have evidence from past experience with students that they can struggle with different discourses. They can observe the artisan of the pre-mod period, with the assembly line worker of the mod period, and network of workers in the postmod period. Not only do they observe these situations, but they recognize how their own lives reflect these situations. Thus, they become more invested in entering into the struggle. Does that make sense?

Boj: Makes sense to me, Bob.

NOTES

1. Drucker, Peter F. Landmarks of Tomorrow. N.Y: Harper, 1957.
2. .Drucker, Peter F. "The Emerging Theory of Manufacturing." Harvard Business Review, May/June 1990: 94-102. See his 1992 book: Managing for the Future: The 1990's and Beyond. New York: Truman Talley Books/Dutton. Drucker uses the term "post-business society" and lays out an era or paradigm-shift approach to postmodernism (pp. 1-11).
3. Garfield Charles. Second to None. Homewood, Il.: Business one Irwin, 1992.
4. Havel, Vaclav. "The End of the Modern Era". N.Y. Times, March 1, 1992.
5. Parker, Martin 1992 "Post-Modern Organizations or Postmodern Organization Theory" Organization Studies. 13/1: 1-17. Parker makes the distinction between postmodern forms of organization and postmodern methods and critique which he terms "epistemology."
6. See, for example, Rosenau, Pauline Marie's book Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.1992: 4. She reviews a lot of the disciplines that are writing textbooks and holding conferences and teaching, but charges economics and psychology as slow learners.
7. Other important books on postmodernism that have influenced my writing are:
8. Clegg, Stewart. Modern organizations: organization studies in the postmodern world. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991;
9. Harvey, David The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Blackford, 1989.;
10. Jameson, Fredric 1991. Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press ;
11. Boj: One of the writers on postmodernism who influenced me most was Foucault, Michel, especially his book Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison 1977. I read the English translation by Alan Sheridan, Discipline and punish 1977, New York: Pantheon books.
12. Ibid Rosenau, p. xiv.
13. SCANS Report, 1991. "What work requires of schools: A SCAN's report for America 2000." The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. U.S. Department of Labor (June). ISBN 0-16-035853-1. p. 2.

return to index
 

MOVE BETWEEN Gameboard SITES