Dear Colleagues,
I'm going to attempt a bit of weaving here, so not sure the thread holds,
but it's an area of inquiry that's been on my mind. And if anyone has
comments on how to weave more effectively here, please share it.
Here's what set me in this direction:
Malcolm wrote in LO23611:
>Robert (and others), I'm coming to the conclusion through my experience
>with this conversation, and with that in my work setting, that it almost
>seems there's a fundamental preference dichotomy between those who gain
>and benefit (as apparently you do) from a "point/counterpoint" and debate
>approach to considering disparate ideas, and those who learn better from a
>more inquiry-focused approach. I find myself to function best in the
>latter. (And before anyone responds too quickly, I do not mean to suggest
>a mutually exclusive approach, but rather a preference continuum).
I have been organically moving away from the fixed personality approach to
orgs/groups/ind, and more toward, as Malcolm said, the preference
continuum. This has led me to put more value in systems like Debono's six
hat thinking, where actors can consciously take on an approach -- black
hat: critical, white hat: positive objective, etc., rather than an MBTI
type instrument, which, while structured as _preferences_ tends to get
applied as fixed type. And --
Roy wrote in LO23613 --
>Frameworks are a useful tool to try and make some sense of the world and
>one way they do this is by simplifying the world. The danger is that we
>then project this simplification on to people. In my view, sexism and
>racism are examples of frameworks being projected on to people.
Roy's post is why I like to move more in the direction of the "flexible
roles," whether it be Belbin's team roles, or Debono, or Hershey's
situational leadership -- diversity will only become the norm when we
learn to experience and project many styles. And right around the corner
is the implementation of Avatars -- kind of online personalities -- that
will transform this type of dialog totally (see
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vu/1999-11.asp about Avatars).
And finally,
in LO23614 -- Max offered:
>thank you for pointing out different learning styles. I, too, don't see
>these as conflicting but as fertilizing each other. One of the great
>things about this string is the diversity of background, communication and
>thinking styles. Some of the conflicts might come from the fact, that we
>don't sufficiently value the difference, and point out to each other what
>we learn from each other. This can act as a catalyst for trouble, if you
>think of conflict as an unconscious tendency towards establishing more
>differentiation.
This is the direction I want to go in with my work. The need is to be both
accepting and fearless in pointing out the differences and establishing
dialog across all the boundaries. I don't see conflict as trouble, but as
a rich field for learning. Overcoming our reluctance to give up comfort
and avoid pain is the main inhibitor; and working with a variety of
styles, both our own and others, puts us into that uncomfortable realm
that Edgar Schein has termed "learning anxiety." We have stay on the
diamond edge of that in order to progress.
Best,
Dori Digenti
digenti@learnmaster.com
--Dori Digenti <digenti@learnmaster.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>