Jan,
I really think you've uncovered something with your understanding of how
models are useful only when the people you're using them with agree with
your perspective and definitions. My thoughts on this are:
1) models are like roadmaps...they help guide us (the co-learning group,
which includes the "expert" and the client) through a process of
developing capacity for change.
2) dialog (or meaningful conversation) is an excellent way by which groups
can generate their own model or definitions (which have more meaning for
them than mine do) to provide them with the capacity to generate and
sustain significant change.
I first ran into this phenomenon you've described with groups working
through the values exercise shared in the fieldbook. I found that people
imbue value-laden words with definitions that reflected the values of all
the words that they eliminated in the exercise. It turns out that, rather
than eliminate those values (as required by the exercise), they distill
them into one word.
A "trust" model is very personal...and there will always be spirited
conversation over what that model looks like. The tacit wisdom I've found
in people encourages me to "trust" in them to construct the model
pertinent to their organizational culture and individual perspectives.
Finally, I like both models (that you and Michael shared).
regards,
Doc
------------------
"The salvation of the world lies in the human heart." -Vaclav Havel
Richard Charles Holloway -
P.O. Box 2361, Olympia, WA 98507 USA Telephone 253.539.4014 or 206.568.7730
Thresholds <http://www.thresholds.com>
Meeting Masters <http://www.thresholds.com/meeting.html>
--"Richard Charles Holloway" <learnshops@thresholds.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>