Replying to LO24795 --
Chuck Saur asks a very important question:
>... I am constantly asking, and will ask again: In our world of
>education, does the word learning really mean control?
Chuck, thanks for your note.
First, I see no danger of me controlling the learning-org dialogue. By
control, I mean "reliably determine the outcome." I assure you that it is
very clear in my six years' experience with learning-org that I cannot
reliably determine the outcomes here! I am very conscious not to try to do
so.
Influence is another matter.... Should I be trying to influence the
dialogue here? That, I do attempt. I think I do have some influence, and I
try to use it in a variety of ways.
I see a genuine dilemma in your question. A genuine dilemma is one in
which choosing one thing or the other is NOT the right course. In a
genuine dilemma you have to create a balance or a breakthrough.
The genuine dilemma I see in your question is this:
- Control, and attempts to control, are devastating for learning.
- Boundaries, however, are necessary for learning.
How to have effective boundaries without controlling?
What's the role of boundaries? I believe boundaries create the possibility
of being selective, and that being selective is the key to staying alive
and fresh in this modern age. I think getting the right boundary is an
important and subtle skill. In this public on-line dialogue, the boundary
determines who is present.
--- pause ---
I'll state the same dilemma in another way:
- All learning is collective, and variety is essential for learning.
- To maintain the collective, it's essential to have something in common.
How to have a maximum of exciting variety... and still have the essential
"something in common" that keeps the collective together? (Now, I'm not
saying we need to bind individuals in the collective. I'm saying there
needs to be enough in common so the collective continues to exist. This
commonality must be conserved as specific people come and go... and as
the group evolves.)
Practitioners of "Dialogue" (like Isaacs) talk about the importance of a
"container" in which the dialogue occurs. I believe the boundaries and the
commonality are aspects of the successful container for a public, on-line
dialogue.
Our commonality is our interest in organizational learning. My purpose in
creating and hosting the learning-org dialogue is to support the
world-wide community of those interested in organizational learning. We'll
know we have the right boundary when the commonality of interest is clear
in our dialogue.
Chuck also wrote:
>Please support our learning and leave the control to reside beneath the
>DELETE button on the individual's keyboard. I cherish this list and the
>rainbow of opportunity it provides.
I assure you that I will continue to leave much of the "control" with the
DELETE button on each reader's keyboard.
Over the years, I too have found this a "rainbow of opportunity." I've
learned much from our dialogue here. That's why I've been very slow to
make changes.
My very best regards to all...
-=- Rick
p.s. In case anyone is not aware, I'll summarize my operating principles
for the learning-org dialogue.
My principles are to distribute any writing from anyone which meets
these criteria:
- it's about organizational learning
- it does not reflect disrespect for others in the conversation
- if commercial, it is short and includes web/email for "more"
- it is not a violation of copyright
- it has not already been distributed here in the recent past
- it's for an English-speaking audience
And, I try to refuse anything that does not meet the above criteria.
For example, I refuse
- appeals for worthy causes not related to org learning
- msgs which disrespect others here
- announcements which include a long registration form
- obvious copyright violations
- 2nd copies of announcements, msgs repeating the same argument over and over
(There is also a "learning-org" dialogue in Spanish hosted by my friend
Mauricio Cardenas, see http://www.egroups.com and look for aprendizaje-org
)
How tightly to draw the boundary? I hope all readers will agree that I
have been using a "loose" definition, not a "tight" one, in deciding what
is org learning and what is not. I intend to continue to use a "loose"
definition.
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.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.