My original post was a combination of seasonal musings but indeed brings
up a significant aspect of organizational learning. But first, a preface:
The posts and contributors from this past year point to the possibility
(if not existence) of personal mastery. Not that this goal of "mastery"
is ever complete but that individuals are diligent. Some of my personal
favorites this year have included the posts on intrinsic motivation,
(July) AM de Langes wonderful post concerning any individuals "free
energy" curiously under a discussion of "What is Democracy" (November)
and the contributions by many in the hi-tech field, where resistance to
change is futile. As a "knowledge base worker" in this arena, it is
wonderful to get others perspective.
However, my impression of organizational learning is that there is
inherently some planning given to the mastery process. Obviously, "stuff
happens" and we learn often through the unforeseen. However, in all other
parts of LO, there is attention paid to cause and effect. From my
perspective, there is so much wisdom in this list that I doubt that it all
was an accident. <wink>
I also do enjoy personal examples since they often have a sense of
conviction and with clarity at least in the context of the example.
Personal anecdotes do tend to be a real launching point for discussions of
all kind and as such, helps us to check our intellect and theory against
the social/ business lab often called the workplace.
Ben Compton wrote:
>Take a simple instance: My wife
>asks me what I want for Christmas. Simple. Everyone knows what they want,
>right? Well I want a new PDA . . . a US Robotics Palm Pilot. But I know
>that my wife wants to buy me new clothes, and perhaps a few books. I went
>through quite a period of time where I was deeply frustrated because I
>couldn't get the courage to say, "What I want is a new PDA."
>This is a very simple example. But it demonstrates how easily we can learn
>to separate our true desires and feelings from our cognitive desires and
>feelings. . .how we can adopt someone elses desires as our own so we can
>be loved and accepted.
Ben's posts to this list have been reflective of his "growth" this year.
There is a time and place for each of us to break out of another layer of
fear. There is enought savvy within this group to know when to take
discussions off-line.
I also agree that too much a focus on personal details will not be
received well. As Steve Eskow mentions, there is a tendency for people
bear their souls in perhaps more detail than the intimacy of such a forum
would dictate. I certainly believe that a more generic discussion might
prove profitable.
So then, the real question for personal mastery becomes: Is there a
process component of personal mastery that is transferable? Would there
be benefit to others in attempting to describe ones mastery process or
techniques in this forum? I know this does happen in more personal
circles.
Perhaps the following might serve as an non-threatening yet beneficial
example. A simple tool that I acquired and modified to my own mastery
purposes was originally a career planning tool. The exercise was
originally intended for those considering career moves in a hi-tech
company where reorganizations and layoffs were imminent. The concept was
to have a person arrange 40 cards into 5 categories based on whether the
concepts printed on the cards were:
Very important
Often important
Somewhat important
Seldom important OR
Never Important
The cards contained concepts that are listed in personnel studies as
important to people in their jobs. Simply put, this was a simple values
clarification exercise. However, it has become a useful tool and paradigm
shift for me. I reflect on these values when I make long term plans about
how I want to shape the organizations I work with. Does it reflect my
values?
As an example, when I was designing training last, my values were
consciously built into the training plans. Consequently, I used quite a
bit of small group work, humor and some exercises included real customer
service interactions. The results were quite good for two reasons:
structurally, the training was good. Secondarily, I was totally engaged
with it since I knew it reflected me.
Your's for the contemplation.
--Stephen Weed sweed@easystreet.com
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>