LOers:
Robert Bacal in LO20468 wrote:
> It is hard for me to
> conceive of a manager who would not throw someone out on their ear at the
> first hint of the kinds of language used here.
>
> For example:
>
> > How do they do it? For example, some of them dogmatise their model
> > into a fixed version. It means in terms of the essentiality liveness
> > ("becoming-being") that they take the 'becoming" out of the model.
> > Others assume that their model, based om a small part of reality,
> > can be applied to a much greater part of the whole. It means in
> > terms of the essentiality wholeness ("associativity-mondaidity")
> > that they deny the associative pattern in jumping from the part to
> > the whole.
I think for the purposes of argument we have to assume one of two things
here. 1) This individual is not real secure in his belief system and
therefore has to 'Baffle them with bull' or 2) Is not speaking in his/her
native language and has to translate as the conversation and thought
process proceeds.
A 'water cooler' discussion a few days ago concerned this type of
information exchange. The persons involved were upset because a class
they were in was taught in the lexicon of the speaker's professional
standing. This led to a lot of misunderstanding and resentment by the
students. Why will a lecture be given in this manner?
Several reasons:
1) The instructor is uncomfortable about being in front of students.
2) The instructor is showing off.
3) The amount of information to be given is too large NOT to use technical
shortcuts
4) The students are not in the correct class for their level of
comprehension.
5) The instructor does not really care if the students understand or not.
I think the same happens in the board room for the same reasons. Every
profession has its own language. This is a given! The meanings of the
language is only derived from education and utilization.
To indoctrinate or learn through deductive reasoning is difficult without
a solid background. This task becomes even harder as we start crossing
cultural, language and education barriers. This medium, Computer Mediated
Communication (CMC), Is both a boon and a bane. The boon is the
tremendous opportunity to exchange and explore a vast sea of knowledge and
thought processes. The bane is the crossing of the language and culture
barriers. On another list I was watching a thread dealing with education
of K-12 students. A question was asked by a lurker who, by the syntax and
grammar, was not communicating in his native tongue. Several contributors
attacked the intelligence of the person because of these errors. The
intolerance of these people was discussed and when no apology was forth
coming they were asked to leave the list. The reason I bring this up is
for clarification of the quoted conversation. Was this person trying to
communicate in a language they were not familiar with, to a cultural base
they were unfamiliar with, about a subject not understood by the audience
or possibly the speaker?
> If the things we are trying to explain to managers MUST use this kind of
> language, then there isn't much hope. If we can translate them into
> language that is familiar to those we work with, then there is a chance.
Then we must accommodate our clients by NOT speaking the lexicon of the
profession but a truncated language that is understandable by the client.
Bruce W. Jones
Organizational Development Specialist
Northwest Texas Healthcare System
Amarillo, Texas
brucej@nwths.com
brucewj@amaonline.com
http://www.scenemaker.com/anon/495/cover.dhtml
--"Bruce Jones" <brucej@nwths.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>