On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:54:51 -0500 (EST), learning-org-digest wrote:
>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.
...snip...
>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.
I agree with your sentiments here Dutch, and suggest that the search for a
holistic view, maybe even the "unified field theory" is more important
than seeking the lost side of a polemic (ie. soft "touchy feely" verses
hard "logic").
Your arguments strike a chord with me. To add to the point, first, the
philosophically inclined will claim that "hard" logical arguments (of
which I am particularly fond) are built at some level on unsubstantiated
assumptions. Secondly, polemic/binary logic is Newtonian (erk passe') in
that the offending action is sustained by its "equal and opposite
reaction"; third, diametric views can be resolved at a higher level of
abstraction (Hegelian dialectic).
stop yawning. I present to my clients a triadic view of human effort.
In this context effort is defined as time, energy and expertise. The
triad includes the:
means (materials, tools, equipment) - technology view
modes: the ways (conditions, practices, relationships) - business
process view
meanings: the ends (values, power and identity) - organisation (OD)
view
the alliteration is pretty cool don't you think? These form one side of a
table, with "things, ideas and people" on the other side. the purpose of
the table is to enable the client to consider how things, ideas and people
fit together in the doing of their business. How each contribute to the
means, modes and meanings of their enterprise. NOTE: if you want to use
this model, just go ahead and then send me heaps of money if you like it
;->
The purpose of my intervention is to facilitate the client guestimating
and then trying to validate the application and impact of each element
<represented by a cell in the matrix>.
As a mental model it is fairly easy to grasp, it is fairly high level, a
crude "theory of everything" and as such it will inevitably be incomplete
but it yields good results (whew).
How does it add to the issue here you ask (impatiently)? The "touchy
feely" side of things is incorporated within a coherant model. It has a
place. The model provides details which can be observed. Insofar as a
team can self-observe (through dialogue) the construction of shared
meaning: as represented in formation and transformation of values, power
and identity. This does not necessarily imply a scientific observation,
but a form of observation which is satisfying to the client. I'm see
myself as helping all parties find satisfaction rather than Truth.
I don't treat the numbers seriously, and actively discourage number
crunching because it has arbitrary validity. Some interesting
observations emerge however: most hiring decisions are made on criteria
derived from the "means" component of the triad while most firing
decisions are made on criteria derived from the "modes and meanings"
elements of the triad. Most effort is consumed in the technical "modes"
element, while the "meanings" element is most often reported as the most
critical in the market, ....
cheers, Neil
Kelly Consulting Pty Ltd Development Strategies
PO Box 5769 Tel 617 3844 8077
West End Q. 4101 Fax 617 3255 0360
AUSTRALIA email nkelly@uq.net.au
--"Neil Kelly" <nkelly@uq.net.au>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>