On 6 Jul 99, at 9:45, Vana Prewitt wrote:
> However, I was wrong. If nearly 2000 people are part of this virtual
> organization, and connected via their email systems, then those of us who
> do not contribute much or at all bear the responsibility for the emphasis
> on theory. Harking back to my youth, if we are not part of the solution,
> we are part of the problem, which brings me to my topic. Maggi and I
> tuned out and dropped off rather than taking responsibility as members of
> this organization to influence its culture. It is easier to be a passive
> participant and complain when we don't get what we want.
Vana et al...I rarely post now to this list, and rarely read the messages
with any degree of attention, have shared the frustration, and at times in
the past, have attempted to focus on this issue on the list. My conclusion
was that the "system" (ie. the list) existed in a way that precluded any
change, which is why I set up an alternate list for the discussion of more
practical learning issues.
(subscribe by sending email to:
worklearning-subscribe@egroups.com)
The reasoning behind that was in fact to stop complaining and provide an
alternative.
> The purpose of a deliberate organization development strategy is to set a
> goal and then orchestrate the actions of the players in such a way that
> the goal is achieved. Our purpose for having this list is as follows
> (excerpts):
>
> > We focus on practitioners, i.e. those working to build learning
> > organizations,
>
> ...snip...
>
> > we are conducting a dialogue about building learning organizations
>
> Among the many practical and applied topics I have seen on this list in
> the last 2 years were discussions about performance management, the
> balanced scorecard, mission and vision statements, 360 assessments, and
> how to build a business case for a LO. If people like Maggi (and me) are
> not contributing or leading practical discussions, then others like us
> will continue to tune out and drop off.
This is kinda complex....the issue is complex, because of various dynamics
at work on this list, like any other. First, high volume posters crowd out
low volume ones. Also high volume posters (even one or two) can come to
dominate a list, and establish a de facto "style or standard" for posts.
And, I think high volume posters tend to be on the more abstract side
anyway.
In addition the style of a list which is moderated is established somewhat
by the moderator (this is something Richard and I have talked about a
number of times privately).
But as food for thought, and to think about addressing this stuff,
consider what might be the result if posts were limited to 200 words
each...or posters restricted themselves to two posts a week.
My prediction is (with only minimal prodding), we would see a much
different list, with increased diversity and value. I'm not seriously
proposing these "solutions", but it would be a fascinating experiment if
only for a month.
Visit the Management Bookshelf and save time and money while finding
the best books on management. http://members.xoom.com/topbooks
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>