Responding to Rick Karash in LO24759
Rick summed up the situation this way:
>I am now receiving a few msgs a week saying, "The LO dialogue is too
>distant, too theoretical, and long winded; a few people are monopolizing
>the air-time! I want to read more practical pieces, about creating
>learning in organizations like mine, and it's harder to find them."
That pretty well sums up my view, too.
>I, too, am concerned about the current state of our dialogue. I also have
>great worries about trying to change it! As creator and host of
>learning-org, I know that I cannot determine the flow of discourse here.
>
>But, I have learned that my actions and policies as host DO influence the
>flow.
I appreciate your recognition of the limits of control and I also
appreciate your obligation as the host to channel discussions along the
lines consistent not just with the whims, fancies and inclinations of the
list members but also the stated purpose of the list itself. There is a
reason for the LO list and I don't think you meant it to be a completely
open forum. You are well within your rights to channel the discussion on
this list.
>Now, at the sixth anniversary of this learning-org dialogue, I have
>decided to take some actions, and I will ask all of you to take some
>actions as well.
>
> 1. It's a problem when a few individuals take too much of the "air
>time." Therefore, I ask that At de Lange and every author send no more
>than a couple of msgs a day to the list, especially if any are long. I
>will also ask the most prolific writers to pause in order to leave room
>for others to respond first to new inquiries. (In parallel, I ask all who
>have been wanting to write, please seize this opportunity!)
Pausing is a really good idea. Some of the longer stuff is important but
it's not quickly digested and probably requires more in the way of
questions than comments in response. Without that interaction, keeping up
with the discourse is impossible. On my part, I haven't read the LO
digest at all for weeks now. I open the digest, scan the message list and
promptly delete the whole thing.
> 2. The balance of our conversation has shifted too far away from the
>practical. I ask everyone, PLEASE SAY WHAT YOU WANT. Ask questions, say
>what is uncertain for you. If you cannot formulate a good question,
>describe the questions you would like others to ask. And, please write
>about your practical experiences in trying to advance organizational
>learning! Many of you have written me saying you'd like more practical,
>applied discussion here. In order to have that, you MUST speak up! Please
>say what you want!
That's probably good advice, Rick, but for me it's difficult to follow. I
was getting ready to unsubscribe from the list when you sent out this
message. I typically don't try to impose my expectations or requirements
on a list. If the discussion goes down a path that I don't care to walk,
I withdraw and go elsewhere. I view myself as a participant in the LO
list, not as a leader and certainly not the leader. Frankly, I'm glad to
see that you, the host, are taking some action. As a participant, you can
count on my support.
> 3. There is room for artistic pieces along with conventional discourse,
>but here on learning-org the connection to organizational learning should
>be made in clear text. I ask that Andrew Campbell and anyone else
>authoring a creative piece provide a plain-language introduction. Further,
>I may place the artistic piece itself on the web and distribute only the
>introduction in our message stream. (This opens the possibility of
>formatting, graphics, and illustrations which have not been possible here
>to date. Andrew, I hope you'll show us some of your paintings!) I'll
>announce details later.
What an absolutely wonderful and generous way to not lose what Andrew has
to say!
> 4. There will be differences amongst us! I ask all readers to notice
>which authors and subjects are a "fit" for you and delete msgs from those
>which are not. There is absolutely no expectation that you read every msg!
>And, unlike other internet spaces, it is perfectly OK to ask a question
>that has appeared in the past... It will be different since it comes in a
>new voice and from a new context. (If it's really a repeat, I'll privately
>give you a pointer to the prior writings.)
The same is true of subject lines. One of the reasons I got into the
habit of opening and then promptly deleting the LO digest is that I could
monitor the threads/authors and, choosing not the follow them, deleting
the digest was my almost certain response.
> 5. Tolerance and diversity are especially important here! We will learn
>about creating learning organizations by creating one here! I have learned
>much from the writers who initially seemed distant and difficult to me.
>But each reader has to make this decision for themself. Until you are
>ready, just use the "delete" key and don't let those msgs frustrate you!
I appreciate the spirit and intent of this comment but, in my usual
rational-analytic mode, I wonder if we will really learning about creating
learning organizations (i.e., in the companies and organizations where we
work, consult, etc) by creating one here in cyber space or whatever we
choose to call it. Seems like a big transfer problem to me.
> 6. Feedback is essential for a healthy system. There is a special danger
>in a dialogue like ours where many readers do not write. At ANY TIME,
>please write with your comments. There are three options: to me privately,
>to the list publicly, and to the list anonymously. (Just make sure it's
>clear to me which you intend.)
Anonymous postings to the list? What's the point of that?
>7. In my role as host, I operate with a number of other principles which I
>intend to hold unchanged. (e.g. msgs must not reflect disrespect for
>others in the dialogue, msgs must be related to org learning, no
>duplicates or repeats, short commercial notices are OK, etc.) For more
>complete details, see
> http://www.learning-org.com/LOinfo.html
>I wish to add one more thought: There are no winners or losers in this
>change, and this is not a slap on the hand for anyone... I just think the
>balance has drifted a bit from where we want it to be. I have named At and
>Andrew specifically here, but my policies apply to all. To At and Andrew,
>I have enjoyed your contributions and have learned much from you... and I
>am one of those who finds your writing difficult. I do hope you'll stay
>with us!
I hope they'll stay on too. I've learned a lot from At de Lange (but,
darn, it's hard work). Andrew scares me a little; I sometimes think that
if I ponder too deeply what he's saying that I'll get in touch with some
things I'd prefer to leave dead and buried.
>** Now, please reply to this message with any comments **
>** on our dialogue, my assessments or my planned actions! **
I think they're on the mark, I support them, and now that you've taken
what seems to be reasonable action, I'll happily back your play in any way
I can.
--Fred Nickols The Distance Consulting Company "Assistance at A Distance" http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm nickols@worldnet.att.net (609) 490-0095
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.