Psychological aspects of LO's LO26334

From: Gavin Ritz (
Date: 03/12/01

Replying to LO26331 --

Hi Winfried

Winfried wrote:

> Hi Gavin,
> thank you very much for your mail. I take it as a request for some
> meta-communication, ok? (Specifically based on: "This has been going on
> quite some time with you and me. What is specifically bothering you about
> my messages? I am rather curious.")
> There are several ways in which I participate in this wonderful space
> called LO-list, for example browsing, knowledge sharing, skipping, idea
> sharing, enjoy reading, questions asking, studying, exploring while
> writing, connecting threads in my mind...
> For me, your mails play a quite unique role in this spectrum of diversity.
> It is not agreeing or disagreeing or wanting to understand deeper. It is a
> flow of thoughts which usually start while reading and I try to condense
> this flow in a sketch of sentences, raw as they will be.
> There is one special temptation, which I hardly can resist: Sometimes when
> I read you mails, especially replies to mine, I think: "It sounds as if
> Gavin is talking about my walk, but it looks as if he as walking his talk
> self." Let me take this mail to which I reply now as an example. You
> wrote:
> > Did I mention any point of wisdom, or maybe this is your interpretation.
> The direct answer could be: Well, I refered to your
> >>I have reached the limits of organisational theories and have realised
> >>their frailties in application, method and soundness. Once one sees the
> >>underline pattern and association with most business models then one has
> >>reached the place where I have to say I don't know. And I don't know, but
> >>I don't get fooled anymore by slick talk nice saying and cute theories.

Let me interpret my message for you, what it was meant to mean, firstly I
was talking about direct business theories like, VSM, EKS, SST, TOC, SSM,
ST, SD etc. I have studied and used then with varying successes.

Then I say that after having read all these and applied them I still don't
know the answers to business all problems.

Then I said I don't get fooled by slick models etc meaning for example the
Balanced scorecard, Baldridge benchmarking, theory X and Y, etc

Also having used these models and theories I can pick out ones that are
really just yuck, the ones based on flimsy or fluffy theory.

> and yes, I interpret this as a point of wisdom. This 'I don't get fooled
> anymore...' reminded me again of Hosokawas pottery and modesty. I brought
> it in again mostly because we had a "non-western-leadership"-thread before
> and this thread "psychological aspects of LO's" seems to me to deserve a
> brush stroke of that colour too, so I added it. When I reread, I felt that
> contrasting your writing with the quoted paragraph was totally out of
> proportion. So I ended with
> > > Just wondering what you may be doing, now that you have reached this
> > > point of wisdom ;-).
> meant as a joking apology for the misfit of proportion. At least I hoped
> that the smiley showed that I didn't mean it as a serious question. So far
> the direct answer to your

Well I'm on to biological theories and models, CAS and if I can apply it I
will attempt to integrate At's Seven Essentialities.

> > Did I mention any point of wisdom, or maybe this is your interpretation.
> Now the example of how I think that you are walking this talk: I read your
> question
> > What is specifically bothering you about my messages?
> and I think: "bothering? why does Gavin write 'bothering'? What is he
> reading in my mails? How does his interpretation work? Wait a moment.
> Interpretation. Didn't Gavin use this word? Let me see, where was it - ah,
> here: did I mention any your interpretation." And the
> temptation is nearly unresistable to play with this discovery. I could
> answer for example: "Did I mention any bothering, or maybe this is your
> interpretation? Gavin you seem to really read into things in a rather
> interesting way and interpret messages that are not there...." mirroring
> your words back. It is a game and hopefully obvious enough not to be
> unfair. Yet I can imagine that such a reaction might reenforce exactly the
> interpretation which is rejected on the surface: "This Winfried must
> really be bothered by my messages - this guy must be taking everything
> personal."
> > I said organizational theories this does not include social, technical,
> > material, psychological, linguistic, semantical, spiritual, scientific
> > theories and a thousand others etc.
> For the sake of wholeness, missing of any of the other theories in
> organizational theory would indeed be a weakness.

Well most organizational models just brush some of these aspects. Good
point, that is what I was meaning most have weaknesses.

> > Winfried you seem to really read into things in a rather interesting way,
> > and interpret messages that that are not there. This has been going on
> > quite some time with you and me. What is specifically bothering you about
> > my messages? I am rather curious. There is nothing personal in my messages
> > I speak about models and theories and my interpretation of them. If an say
> > certain models has weakness that is because of my experience and use of
> > them this has nothing to do with anyone on a personal level. I am not my
> > model or my theories they exist outside of me. I use them as tools only.
> I like the way your messages make me think, provoke me, excite me, may be
> bother me, confuse me, all but bore me. You make me learn. (Should be a
> compliment, not statement of what you do ;-).) Not learn by information
> but learn by creating interpretations rich in entropic forces and creating
> messages as entropic fluxe.

Well thank you.

As you are one of the few that has done EKS, do you know that EKS is
modeling LEC (energy) and the process- structures (LEP).



Gavin Ritz <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.