Artur wrote:
>>I wonder if we are not loosing an important tool to learn when we
>> systematically avoid words like "criticism", "discordance",
>> "disagreement", etc.
And Charlie took "a bit of tacit knowledge and spit it out" (I like this
formulation):
>They (Harvard Negotiation Project) warned to not
>assume a "position" that is based on the judgement you make. They
>proposed that conflict arises when people take positions based on their
>assumptions (judgements) and are then compelled to defend their choice
>of positions.
..snip
>turn possible immergences into emergent learning by avoiding the
>positioning behaviors that become obstacles to dialogue.
This reminds me of two ideas, one by de Bono and one by Senge, which I
would like to add to this picture:
de Bono calls the attitude to first take over a position and then to use
all of ones intelligence to defend this position "the trap of
intelligence".
Senge proposed a two step approach: first dialogue to get an as rich as
possible picture and then, only after having commonly examined the various
perspectives, to go into discussions as a second step to create a
consensus on the issue on topic.
I think that the discussions we had here on the list on breaking the cycle
of hurting is at the heart of this exchange. I personally have nothing
against "criticism", "discordance" and "disagreement" and in fact they can
help to jump into new perspectives not available before (metaphor: new
geological formation with less tension after an earthquake). But make sure
not to fuel the cycle of hurt (not only intentional but also in the
outcome).
>my hope is that I am not simply restating the obvious...
Me too. I know, the obvious is easier said than done.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>