Hello Friends!
I want to respond to several msgs that have raised details about the
operation of learning-org. I've arbitrarily linked this to Peter
Fullerton's LO22246.
Peter Fullerton wrote in LO22246 (replying to Art):
>The implication of your comment is ironic indeed: that this list is a
>conversation (set of written messages, if you must) ABOUT organisational
>learning, out there, but not something we actually pay attention to in
>here. Perhaps we have different views about what constitutes the "real
>issues".
I launched learning-org in 1994, have five years' observations and some
specific feedback on this. I believe that, in general, talk on the list
ABOUT the list is boring to most readers. On the other hand, periodically
it seems to need it's air time. As now, but I think this thread may be
winding down.
I generally decline proposed msgs that are about the list, especially if
they don't connect to the "real world." Most of the time, there aren't
very many. When I feel the time is right (ripe for learning and enough
interest), I'll let them flow, as now.
>I also think that the "rule of two feet" that works so very well with Open
>Space (where the people and movement in the system are visible to all)
>does not usefully translate here into the "well, just hit your delete key"
>approach. How present can this LO system be to itself, not least as part
>of our learning about LOs?
This is a dilemma... We want to be open to ourselves; that's one of the
very good approaches to learning. At the same time, there are 2000 people
"here"... That creates a LOT of potential relationships to be open about!
My judgement is that we need to take advantage of a few high potential
moments, but generally the content of the learning-org list should be about
learning out there in the world.
(By the way, in my work with groups and teams, my conclusion is exactly
opposite... the material within the group is much more learningful that
talking about what's going on outside. Someone recently mentioned a quote
on this by one of the great sages of our field.)
I'm happy to hear any views on this.
Terry Priebe wrote in LO22242:
>My colleague and I, here at DeSA, have been dismayed, as you so well point
>out, by the possible implications of applying constraints to the
>conversations that occur on this list. Our understanding of the learning
>process has grown tremendously because of the wide variety of expression
>so many of you have made. To curtail this variety would (may) have
>unfortunate consequences.
Thanks, Terry. I agree very much.
It may be important to mention again that I DO apply some constraints. In
particular (from my periodic "For Authors" msg):
>I review all msgs for relevance to the list and for tone consistent with
>the learning organization principles we are trying to live. In particular,
>msgs to the list must not reflect disrespect for any of the participants
>here.
I review for relevance because I believe that being selective is the only
way stay sane on the net. I decline when people want to use the list to
reach our wonderful group about things that don't relate to org learning
(e.g. worthy appeals). Part of my job is to enable you to be selective.
(By labeling this thread "...for this list", I hope people can more easily
skip it if they prefer.)
The second part is based on my belief (and experience) that respect is
part of openness to ideas and to each other and is a foundation of
learning. I welcome msgs that say, "I disagree!" if you'll say more and
engage. But, I don't distribute msgs that say, "That's stupid, how could
you think that?" This is a kind of "variety" that I AM constraining.
Thinking about my own actions a little further, I also decline msgs which:
- Only say "I agree" without adding to the discussion. (I worry that this
is eliminating some positive feedback... Any reactions?).
- Don't appear to be written for someone to understand (very avant garde
style or "stream of consciousness" writing). If I can't tell what the
writer is trying to say, I usually spare the readers. Yes, I know this
means I might be declining the next James Joyce.
- Repeat an earlier msg of the same writer.
Robert Bacal writes in LO22239:
>First, crap crowds out substance. That, for example, is why this is a
>moderated list - I don't think that' s really disputable.
and
>The bottom line is that where there are high volume long posters, there
>is a reduction in diversity...
Robert, I do agree with your assertions, but not your conclusions.
It's a dilemma, not a black or white thing. Yes, when a few peope write
lots of msgs or long msgs, it tends reduce msgs from others, reducing
diversity. But, constraining msgs to a certain style (e.g. short, punchy
interchanges) would eliminate diversity too. In my opinion, this is the
great disappointment in US television... All the major channels are the
same: 20 second sound bytes about the big issues that "everyone" wants to
hear.
No, I will not discriminate against thoughtful long msgs here. Yes, I do
look for "crap" and filter it out.
Now, just a little more detail about this:
People participate here in different modes. We have:
- 650 email subscribers who receive individual msgs
- 1060 email subscribers who receive the "Digest(s)" each day
- 300 or so who read on the web
Thus, roughly 950 can be selective with the "Delete" key or browser, based
on author and subject. The other 1060 get the long "digest" msg and have
to turn pages to skip blocks of content, unless they just delete a whole
digest. I have no way to know how much people are reading.
So, it's not as easy as it might appear for people to be selective.
I encourage everyone to learn how to be selective, using your email or
browser. (My personal approach is email with individual msgs, let Eudora
filter them out of my in-box and into a folder specific to the mailing
list, then read when I want to.) Whatever you do, please DON'T let the
learning-org msgs sit in your in-box where they'll prod and irritate!
Robert again:
>It takes time to reverse a trend on the list..usually months.
My perception is that it can be quite rapid. For example, I believe I've
noticed more first-time contributors and more new threads than usual in the
past couple of weeks. I think these discussions about diversity have
encouraged people who might have been reluctant.
Robert again:
>many non-posters on this list
>are completely intimidated by the posts of the few high posters and do not
>want to look stupid. Again, this is disenfranchising to many people
I encourage everyone to see this as one safe place to ask or say anything
about org learning. You won't be flamed here!
-=- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>