In LO20693, I wrote...
>>I'm a firm believer in the notion that language shapes thought and
>>thought shapes
>>behavior. The label placed on a problem, for example, invokes a frame of
>>reference that constrains and restrains the problem solver's efforts to
>>solve the problem. So, I guess I'm more inclined to explore the
>>"linguistic constructions" of problems than you might be.
Gene Taurman responds...
>It is necessary to define the problem and come to agreement on the
>problem. That definition helps focus energy of the team all in one
>direction. Unless there is agreement on the problem each person runs off
>in their own direction. Without a problem definition and agreement on it
>unified action and support is not likely. A problem definition serves the
>same purpose as a mission statement. It unifies the energy of the team. It
>also helps them know when a solution has failed.
There was a time when I would have agreed with the statement above.
However, I have since come to believe that what is essential is agreement
regarding the solved state, that is, the set of conditions you are trying
to bring into existence.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>