Question:
BTW: i'm intrigued that applied anthro is used in organizational management... i'd always heard that was for psych majors!

Answer: I am not sure I've ever seen psych majors get work in this area, unlessyou are refering to behavioral science as applied to organizations. Inmy earlier post (yes, it was me and not John Acar (my networkadministrator whose name automatically appears in new software for somereason)) on this subject, I strongly emphasized my belief that this iswhere anthropology should be placing its major emphasis. This is, ofcourse, at odds, considering there is virtually no emphasis being placedhere (in comparison to everything else).

I work in a small consulting firm, doing organizational change work, bothinternally and for our customers (primarily the US govt, with somecommerical jobs thrown in). I use my undergrad training in anthropologyeveryday in my job. Just for the record, I also have a MS in CyberneticSystems, which I see as merely an extension of anthropology in aparticular direction (understanding and modifying organizations). Manyanthropologists, including Gregory and Mary Catherine Bateson, MargaretMead and others have employed cybernetics into their understanding ofculture. There are some organizational anthropologists (although I'verun across scarce few) that apply cybernetics to their understanding oforganizations.

In any event, both of these disciplines bring the same thing to thetable: a holistic view of a complex situation, one in which an outside, multi-perspective analysis can yield a very different and very USEFULunderstanding of the current situation than is present in the minds ofthose embedded in the system/business/culture. This outside, holistic,multiperspective viewpoint can allow the intervener to better defineprobem areas (that are usually defined as a complex "mess"), and come upwith comprehensive approaches to address these problem areas. A holisticviewpoint will come in with the false notion that THE problem will beidentified and solved.

Too often, business community trained people are looking for SINGLEcauses, that will lead to THE solution. This is a very simplistic way ofaddressing complex issues, one that rarely yields good results. The mostcritical aspect of any organizational change implementation involvespeople issues, not technology issues. Too often business trainedprofessionals look for ways of forcing solutions down on people, withoutever understanding the patterns of interaction which led to the problems.

I really and truely believe that this holistic perspective thatdisciplines like anthropology can bring are critical to the success ofmodern businesses. Cultural change over time is a poorly understoodphenomena in the business community. Anthropology's real strength,critical observations of external cultures, is both relevant and neededin this environment. Too often, people will not even realize the haveinternal assumptions of the way the world works which scew their results. When this is discussed, its almost in a comical way of stating, "Well,lets make our culture explicit, so we no longer have any of theseproblems." Or, "My first job as CEO was to change the culture from X to aY culture". Never is organizational culture in its current form everconsidered good.

Truly revolutionary change perspectives, like those of Chris Argyrisdepend upon interveners which have a good understanding of this holisticperspecitive. Good organizational modeling requires this perspective. Good group based facilitation requires this perspective. Good HRrewuires this perspective. Good management of information as a strategicresource (I think they call this CKO- chief knowledge officer, nowadays)requires this perspective. Good change implementation requires thisperspective. As Mary Catherine Bateson says, we are improvisationalbeings. To understand this at a societal level, I think the type ofperspective that disciplines like anthroplogy brings are essentially.

And as a side note, the pay for doing this type of work is pretty damngood.