Rol and At have started something interesting (again). I wonder if it's
related to a puzzle I struggled with for a long time until I saw it work
(but I'm still not sure I could describe to someone else how to replicate
it). A few years ago, I was intent on moving a group towards
self-direction and towards the use of certain 'action science' techniques
(I was their manager). Chris Argyris writes somewhere that part of the
ethical application of action science involves not using closed (coercive)
methods to create an open environment. He seemed to argue on two levels,
one ethical and one pragmatic. On the pragmatic level, the argument seems
to be that you'll not eliminate coercion from an environment if you use
coercion as the tool to purge it.
I liked the philosophy, but I didn't know what to do next. It seemed to
turn out that I really didn't need coercion; a lot of discussion about
each of our values and about the job and business and ... --- mutual
advocacy and inquiry, so it seems --- got us to a good spot.
At any rate, that ethical component of action science seemed related to
Rol's and At's comments about manipulation.
Comments?
Bill
-- Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co. R&D Engineering Processes Lake Stevens Division domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330 phone: (425) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road fax: (425) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>