Replying to Sheila (LO19506), Artur (LO 19547), and others
As the innocent who started this latest round of Uncon Com debate, my
hearty thanks to you all. It has helped to move me from Con Incom toward
Con Com. My developing thoughts took a turn(sic) from Sheila's driving
example (LO19506) of Uncon Com -- Autopilot! Do it without thinking (20
miles along the motorway-how did I get here?). As implied, this is
dangerous (perhaps learning to control a skid might be a better example,
but not as humorous), hence the need for EITHER seeing Con Com as
preferable to Con Incom OR a 5-stage model as discussed in later entries.
Artur (LO 19547) uses the example of the basketballer to make the point
that internalizing a skill is necessary (Con Incom above Con Com). However
while necessary, it is not sufficient. To become a better basketballer you
need to internalize skills sure - to make them reflexive - but you cannot
stop there. The further development of skills requires reflection, which
introduces Com again and we are back where we started ..... or are we.
Uncon Com, without effective reflection, puts us back in the Uncon Incom
state. Hence, rather than a 5-stage model, I suggest the four stage model
spirals.(I'd draw it, but that would get Rick onto me about formatting).
>From the level of Uncon Com one moves to either Uncon Incom or Con Incom.
The determinant is effective reflection or the feel for double-loop
learning (of Argyris), and through the loop you go again, perhaps missing
the occasional element. Perhaps the measurement of individual learning
could be defined as your spiralling speed! Perhaps that would be an
effective measure for a LO also, but that would be another thread!
PS I have a sneaky feeling the real reason why we use Con and Uncon is
that we can't spell conshusness .... is that right? :-)
--"John SCOTT" <jls@mngt.waikato.ac.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>