Jyotsna wrote:
Other memorable messages dealt with "how-to" and gave direct,
implementable tips on ways to deal with hostile or uncomfortable
situations. During my first few days in this list, I thought that there
was something wrong with me, because I simply couldn't relate to a lot of
the conversation going on. But now I know that there is someone else who
thinks along the same lines! If I might be so bold as to add, the abstract
theorising and philosophising takes away a lot of power from this
conversation.
The most powerful messages I heard were direct sharings about how things
worked for certain people. For example, I still remember someone(Ben ?
Robert ? Michael ?) sharing about how he defused a situation in which many
members of a team showed open hostility to another person on the same
team.
Other memorable messages dealt with "how-to" and gave direct,
implementable tips on ways to deal with hostile or uncomfortable
situations.
_______________________________________________________
Jyotsna:
The potential problem with focusing exclusively on specific
examples is the "one size fits all" syndrome. Not only are individuals
"different sizes," but as individuals we wear different clothes for
different situations. i.e. What works in one situation may not work for
another. To extend this metaphor, it is just as absurd to expect my niece
to wear my business suit as it is for me to wear it on a hot beach! The
value of a good theory (and I use the term to mean a proposition that has
stood up to scrutiny, not an hypothesis which lacks this test) is that it
helps explains why a particular method works or not. Without an
explanation of why a method works or not, it 's easy to use it
inappropriately.*
I propose your own dilemma as an example of the power of the
interrelationship between theory and practical application. According to
some data from the Meyers-Briggs instrument, most of the population (70%,
if my memory serves me correctly) tends to pay more attention to
particular examples and "hands-on" application as you and Robert do ("S"
for sensors). Others tend to pay more attention to broader, overarching
theories or principals ("N" for intuitives). N's tend to want to
synthesize and extrapolate from what they perceive. I suspect that the
folks on this list are mostly N's for at least the following reasons: 1)
As you mentioned, the emphasis in this groups' discussions has generally
been in the realm of abstractions and ideas rather than specific examples
and methods. 2) Who is more likely to believe in something that Senge has
described basically as non-existent -- a process rather than a result --
an S or an N? I am, therfore, assuming that most of the participants in
this group are N's and that you and Robert(?) are S's.
If my hypothesis is correct, this theory of personality traits
helps explain why you feel somewhat incompatibile in this discussion
group. If this were a discussion group that focused on Generally Accepted
Accounting Proceedures or computer programming where the emphasis is more
application oriented and detail-specific (i.e. lots of "S's,") I think you
would probably feel more comfortable with the issues and manner of the
discussions.
But please don't quit the group, there is a need for many ways of
thinking here! As things stand, there is no map to a Learning Organization
yet. In fact, there's not even a road that every organization can follow,
each must blaze their own trail. To improve this situation, we need to try
to make some generalizations about how organizations may move closer to
being learning organizations. This group can and does serve as a means of
dialogue about what works and doesn't work. It is an efficient means of
scrutinizing the generalizations (hypotheses). In this process, we're
generating the best approximation of truth. This, in my way of thinking,
is a very powerful conversation. But then, of course, I am an N. ;)
* (see p.16 in 5th Discipline Fieldbook or the MIT's Learning
org website, "Guiding ideas,":
http://learning.mit.edu.pra/tool/ideas.html)
--Reed A W Altman, Institute for Systems Leadership Coordinator A&EE, 117 Ricks Hall, Box 7607, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7607 Email : altman@amaroq.ces.ncsu.edu Phone : (919) 515-2819 FAX : (919) 515-1965
/ '', / / ' , ________________________________ ---<@ ) >>>>>>> { ---[You only fail if you stop trying] \ --------------------------------
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>