🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92303.174205MD2098A@auvm.american.edu>, MD2098A@auvm.american.edu (Milin M. Desai) writes...
>The past ideas and theories about groupwork seem to be changing along
>with time. Until now, a member of a group was expected to work on a single task
>with selected members, till the completion of the project.
> 
    May I suggest that you go back and reconsider this assumption.  I do
    not share your understanding that "until now, a member of a group was
    expected to work on a single task."

    Case in point (but by no means limited to these people) are Members of
    Congress.  They sit on several committees, the may be working on dozens
    of pieces of legislation, they are expected to keep up on the status of
    hundreds of pieces of legislation, and they do constant constituent
    work.  And all of this stuff goes on simultaneously.  I suggest that
    every manager at every firm also has multiple multiple simultaneous
    commitments.  I suggest that it is not a new concept to have a member
    of a committee sit on two or more subcommittees simultaneously.

>what confuses me is the evolution of new and more complex theories, which
>suggest that a member should work part-time on multiple projects. How can a
>member of a group maintain commitments and loyalties towards other groups and
>projects and still be expected to work efficiently ?
> 
    Could you cite one of these "new" theories?  We all balance several
    commitments - even if it is simple work life vs.  home life - and many
    of us are at least somewhat efficient.  I don't see where your
    questions are coming from.

===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932