Shaun Coffey wrote:
> One way I like to look at these things is that any exchange really should
> involve gain-gain. I find that it is not always possible in one encounter
> to "win". Rather both parties compromise OR shift position when given
> additional information (learnings). If we all "gain" along the way to our
> ultimate objective then we find real achievement. In my experience W/W,
> W/L, L/L are situations which in many ways devalue the quality of the
> dialogue and relationship.
Shaun--thank you. "Win-win" brings all of the connotations to me of
transactional analysis, and reminds me (bizarre as it may seem) of Dr.
Dolittle's strange animal friend, the pushme-pullme (or was it
pushyou-pullyou?). Why? I don't know.
Exchanges can be transactional, devaluing either or all parties; or they
can be transformational. What appeals to me about learning organizations
is that they can be transformational, enhancing the relational experience
of all involved. I don't remember why the thread changed (where was I?
what was I doing?) So, against the advice of my inner self, I'll offer
another piece of jargon to our overburdened language--"learn-learn."
Doc
--Richard C. "Doc" Holloway, Thresholds--Human Development and Networking P.O. Box 2361, Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: (360) 786-0925 Fax: (360) 709-4361 mailto:olypolys@nwrain.com
" This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one . . . the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy."
-George Bernard Shaw
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>