Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
A few days ago a pop singer gave in public the editor of a journal a blow
against the head because of what he think was an unfair review of one of
his shows. In all the letters which appeared in the press since then
Afrikaans speaking South Africans seem to be in three camps.
(1) The pop singer acted correctly while the reviewer acted wrongly.
(2) The pop singer acted wrongly while the reviewer acted correctly.
(3) Neither physical violence nor verbal abuse will help to solve the
problem of improper criticism.
This made me wonder how Afrikaans speaking South Africans would have
reacted twenty years ago during the hey-days of apartheid. Perhaps it is
wishful thinking, but I suspect that there would have been more of (1) and
less of (3) with (2) staying about the same. In other words, there might
be some migration from (1) to (3) as a result of the dismantling of
apartheid. Daan, Chris, Alfred and others who have followed the incident
may correct me here.
This brings me to the problem of Improper Criticism (IC). Such IC may even
be perceived but not be the actual case. How will we handle such IC should
it occur on our LO-dialogue? But first we have to establish whether IC is
a problem or not. I think it is for the following reasons:
(a) It divides people into two camps, bringing LEM (Law of Excluded
Middle) into operation -- for example, the (1) and (2) above, but not the
(3).
(b) It destroys the spirit of tolerance while flaming judgemental
attitudes.
(c) It lowers the capacity for authentic learning by falling back on rote
learning.
Obviously, our host Rick decided in the past whether he will allow such
ICs or not. I do not know how many such ICs he had to withhold from the
LO-dialogue and whether he will do so in future. Nevertheless, we all work
in organisations where such ICs occur sporadically. Thus we need to know
how to handle them effectively. I think that the reasons (a), (b) and (c)
given above make it very difficult to solve the problem of ICs.
[Host's Note: My policy is I decline to distribute msgs which show
disrespect for people involved in our conversation. I actually decline a
very small number of messages on this basis, only a handful a year. I
will continue to do so. ..Rick]
Fellow learner Daan Joubert might see in this the problem another reason
for having Normative Management (NM) based on the Golden Rule (GR) "Do
unto others ...". But it is for him to say. I think that ICs will not be
avoided with NM. It is a problem going deeper into the very nature of
learning. But then, I do not know how much Daan has explored NM into the
very nature of learning.
What I perceive in the IC (actual or perceived) is its destructive
outcomes. For example, I can give a factual summary of the work or
behaviour of a person, organisation or even any other situation in which
people are involved. But when that summary contains too much destructive
facts, even though the case, it may easily be perceived as an IC. In other
words, the very load of destructive facts spooks with the mind so that the
factual summary becomes an IC.
Furthermore, when the destructive facts are presented in a judgemental
manner, the summary becomes a sure recipe for disaster. The same applies
for a summary which emphasise most destructive facts and neglects many
constructive facts. These last two cases, namely "judgemental criticism"
and "negative criticism" are examples of an actual IC rather than a
perceived IC.
I am now convinced that the more the destructions, the less the learning.
That is why ICs, actual or perceived, inhibits learning. The less the
learning, the more the ICs occur. Thus people may easily be caught into
the evil cycle of destructive creativity. It may happen to a person as
well as most of the members of an organisation. It may even happen to an
organisation as large as an international corporation or even a nation.
I think there are two ways to break out of the evil cycle. The one way is
to learn systematically what the difference is between destructive
creativity and constructive creativity. The other way is for organisations
to operate as LOs, whether tacitly or formally. One key feature of the LO
is that it provides for every member in it an environment conducive to
learning.
Of these two ways I prefer the second. The reason is that far more LOs
(even tacit ones) existed in the past than individuals trying to explore
systematically the difference between constructive and destructive
creativity. Collective actions have far more power than individual
actions. This is the very reason why organisations are formed. Collective
learning bears far more fruit than individual learning. This is the reason
why OOs (Ordinary Organisations) emerge into LOs.
But the great danger to collective learning as with individual learning is
rote learning, i.e. parrotry. In the rote learning of the individual the
information coming from learners in the past is copied. In the rote
learning of the organisation each individual has to conform to faceless
information coming from somewhere. The rote learning of the individual
makes a small parrakeet while the rote learning of the organisation makes
a big parrot. It is this parrotry which we have to avoid in every LO.
I wonder just how much rote learning contributes to improper criticisms.
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.