Dear org-learners:
>>At 03:22 PM 9/29/98 -0400, Anne Hall wrote ( quoted from Gene message -
see above) :
>>>I am curious about your experiences with conflict in the learning
>>>organization. My assumption is that in order to learn quickly, we need to
-------------------------------------
>>>raise conflicts quickly, challenge each other's mental models and be able
-----------------------
>>>to do that without the defensiveness and posturing that stiffles effective
>>>dialogue.
There is something that I find very interesting in this message : "In
order to learn quickly, we need to raise conflits quickly". Let me put it
in a different way : in some cases, we need to stimulate conflit, not to
avoid it ( my words, not hers...). I find this ideia interesting because
it is counter-intuitive. Let me develop it a bit further.
At 21:08 02-10-1998 +0100, Gene wrote:
>>Replying to LO19373 -- was: Intro -- Anne Hale
>>
>>First remember culture . We want an organization that learns not a
>>learning organization. We should be talking about an organization with a
>>culture that encourages learning by
>>
>> Promoting effective communication
>> Actually knowing process results -- SPC is best
>> Good feed back systems
>> Candor between managers
>> Candor between departments
>> Promotes experiments to improve and accepts failure
These are very good points, that address what I think is the main problem:
develope a "culture that encourages learning". In what concerns the...
>>"experiences with conflict in the learning organization"
>>
>> Promotion based on who you know
>> Meetings that reward the person whose idea is selected rather than
>>the best idea -- that is when powerful personalities dominate and get
>>their way consistently
>> meetings that are one way
>> Judgement used to decide if things are running ok without good
>>measures
>> Boss accepting anecdotes about how good it was with out knowing
>> Implementing with out knowing how to measure the outcome or good
>>definition of the expected outcome
>> When trying results in failure and that is reason to be eliminated
>>from consideration for promotion
Gene refers to problems that the majority of us have also found in
organizations we have worked with. But, interestingly, all of them are
about "negative conflits". I wonder if one could not find also experiences
of "positive conflits", I mean, conflits of ideias and mental models,
where a positive outcome would arise.
Let me change now for what seem to be a different problem : in his
introduction to "the *deemster* problem" At wrote :
>In other words, even when we get the gut feeling that we are very sure
>of the macroscopic (complex) nature of the "deman" of the other
>person, let us still avoid "judgement" and rather promote the
>"dialogue".
>
>The quantum physicist David Bohm, senstive to wholeness and what it
>entails, encouraged "dialogue" without "judgement" very much. Some
>even begin to refer to it as "Bohmian dialogue". I hope I have
>succeeded in giving you a new perpective on David Bohm's dialogues in
>terms of the "deemster" problem.
I am sure that At always try to "avoid judgement"; I also think that this
is the dominant attitude in this list and generally within many LOs. And
I find it is ok. But sometimes I wonder if with that attitude we are not
avoiding positive conflits, and doing the contrary to "raise conflits
quickly". I wonder if with that we are not loosing an opportunity to learn
quickly. I wonder if we are not loosing an important tool to learn when we
systematically avoid words like "criticism", "discordance",
"disagreement", etc.
Even if I am not a specialist there ( and At can correct me, if he wants)
I would think that conflits played an important role in the evolution of
species. And that they play an important role in all the processes of
emergence. Can't we be loosing an important way to promote emergence, and
becoming whit the attitude of always avoiding conflit and "judgement" ?
Thank you for having followed this message until the end, avoidind your
judgements about the "language barrier", and the fact that it is probably
"politically incorrect" in the LO context.
Waiting for your comments, judgements and criticisms...
Regards
Artur
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>