What's wrong with "touchy-feely?" LO16833

Dutch Driver (ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu)
Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:12:26 -0600 (CST)

Several times a day, I read someone decrying the "touchy-feely" aspect of
this or that in training or in OD or in teams or in facilitation. I am
guessing that few of us have the benefit of training formal in logic or
would want to, my introductory course was quite enough, thanks. So, I
assume that there is a desire to focus solely on the logical/task aspect
of training, OD, teams, or facilitation (XYZ).

At any rate, I often chuckle to myself when there is a post against
"touchy-feely" on one side of the coin and on the other side the author
argues that participant/stakeholder/learner's "buy-in" is necessary for
effective XYZ. What are the participant/stakeholder/learner's "buying-in"
with? If pure reason were enough, the participant/stakeholder/learner's
"buy-in" would be self-evident and immediate. But it is not.

Could it be that the "touchy-feely" (i.e. emotional aspect of XYZ) is
needed and important to get the participant/stakeholder/learner's
"buy-in?" Moreover, if we eliminate or reduce the emotional aspect of XYZ
in favor of its logical/task aspects, aren't we only using a third of the
tools at hand? That would be 1/3 of the 10% remaining after the nonverbal
modes of communication (according to some respected communication
scholars) are eliminated from consideration.

I realize the lines are not that neatly drawn and many of you will attempt
to dispute my figures, (most likely without providing supporting figures
to the contrary) but with the "facts of the matter" comprising at 10% and
at worse 3% of what is being communicated/trained/relayed, I think that it
might be time for a renewed emphasis on the emotional aspects of XYZ to
see if there is some relationships that we are overlooking.

Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Abilene, TX
Hm. Telephone: 915.698.7217
mailto:ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu

-- 


Dutch Driver <ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu>


        Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
  Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>