Replying to LO24759 --
At 10:25 PM 06/05/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>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."
>
>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.
I have mixed feelings about the perceived problem and the proposed
adjustments.
If shared vision emerges from personal vision, and we have a group of
people who regularly share their personal vision and many who either a) do
not or b) do so infrequently, the shared vision will/does reflect the
personal visions expressed. I think this is as it should be.
Is that shared vision everything it could be? In response I suggest that
the regular contributors and the infrequent contributors and/or lurkers
share a similar duty to the whole.
The regular contributors, mindful of the shared vision of the whole,
actively seek the participation of the reluctant and the silent. If they
wish to be stewards of the whole, they have to look beyond themselves.
The infrequent contributors or lurkers, mindful of the shared vision of
the whole, actively seek opportunities to engage themselves. If they wish
to be stewards of the whole, they have to look beyond themselves.
We (as a list) do a pretty good job of discussion. In the quest for the
best view, I find it common that some people regularly step forward, some
occasionally show themselves and others remain in the shadows. I for one,
do not frequently feel I can write as eloquently as many and am
intimidated by the depth of the mastery of a number of people on the list.
In short, I feel that my contributions tend to be perceived as trivial or
underdeveloped.
Can we shift to dialogue? Try to establish the broadest view rather than
the best? In dialogue I think I would worry a lot less about whether I had
the one best view or not. Any contribution could add to the broadest view.
In the end my contribution may have broadened the view a little bit or a
lot - in either case I can take satisfaction in my participation.
In summary, while [changes in] structure and rules will alter behavior, it
would appear to be the imposition of one personal vision. (Not meant
personally or critically, Rick; offered here only in the context of
personal vision and shared vision.)
Do we not have an opportunity to change our collective shared vision by
taking [potentially difficult] steps in our personal visions? Is this not
what personal mastery speaks to? If I want people around me to behave
differently, don't I first have to change myself?
Could I not have said, to At for example, "At, you lost me, bring that
down to earth for me. What does that really mean in simple terms?" I would
have contributed to broadening the view, not debating the one best view.
Whether I'm right, wrong, off to one side, or just different is moot - I'm
engaged.
I don't need a change in rules to do that. Just a clear personal vision
and the willingness to contribute. That's always been available to me and
to everyone else.
Bill Braun
--Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>
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.