Why is there a desire to have a goal? Is it because it is our instinct to
achieve something when we participate in a group? Or is it a desire to
bring structure and order to the group? Does it make one more comfortable
to know there is a "purpose" to all the conversation?
What if we just continue to let things unfold as we go? There's a definite
order that has emerged on this list. Topics come and go, often repeating
themselves every few months. For instance there have been a number of
threads on "humans as resources" and "values." Each time around I learn
something new, that I come to value and cherish. And then there's a lot of
redundancy. New people, who are unaware of what was said before, raise
questions we may have already talked about. That's fine with me, because
redundancy plays an important role in learning.
There's a "flow" that occurs on this list that makes it better than any
other I've participated on (except for one short-lived, highly focused
list). I view this as both good and bad. It's good because it makes it a
very comfortable place to come and talk about important issues with very
thoughtful people. It's bad because there's not a lot of dissension or
disagreement. What limitations does this place on our learnings? I've
noted with interest how Steve's questions about organizations as living
entity h as evoked more defensive messages than messages inquiring into
his thinking. Regretfully I fall into this category: I've been more
focused, at least in my own mind, about defending the idea of an
organization as a living entity that I've shut myself off to potential
learnings from Steve and those who may agree with him. I think that Steve,
and his approach, have a valuable role to fill in our learning potential
that is often unrealized on this list. If I were to have any goal, for
myself, on this list, it would be to inquire more and advocate less.
The other thing I wish there was more of on this list is more focus on our
actual experiences in organizations or in helping organizations move
toward becoming a Learning Organization. Our conversations usually focus
around an "intellectual" topic; the de ep learning that comes from
experience, that emerges from our failures, our frustrations, our hopes,
and our successes go unshared - - or, if shared, it doesn't often lead to
the type of conversation that is reflective of what is really going on
inside ou r organizations. I sense a "rule" that says, "A Learning Org is
an intellectual challenge; the list is made up of a bunch of pretty
intelligent people; we can't get the emotional side of our learning
involved. That's too subjective, too personal to be exp ressed in this
forum!" I may be way off base here, but I don't think so. I think that if
we were to start expressing the learning that comes from within, from the
heart, from the emotions, we would dramatically increase the value of this
list. It's frightening to do that, but the rewards, I believe, can make
the intial fear a small price to pay!
Whether we include our experience in our conversation or not I still think
this is the best list I've ever participated on. And I still think that
there is tremendous learning available to anyone who wants to stop by,
listen to the conversation, and then act on what they learn. I'm grateful
I found the list, and that I've become a participant (well, OK, I'm
usually glad).
-- Benjamin Compton DWS Computer Consultants "The GroupWise Integration Experts" E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>