I'm delighted that we are coming to a 'meeting of the minds.'
I absolutely agree with the notion of preserving (knowing) 'what we know.'
I've had several conversations with colleagues about how common it is for
hard-won knowledge to simply disappear into useless anonymity in
organizations. And of course employees routinely walk out the door, taking
vast unrecorded knowledge-bases with them, in their heads.
In our culture, I suspect there may be a tendency to devalue 'old' or
'established' knowledge. No doubt the cult of the new is supported by
people like me who champion knowledge of the 'next big thing.' Like kids,
we're sometimes attracted to shiny new dimes over wrinkled paper money!
So, Dr. Eskow, keep on championing the established pool of knowledge; it's
an important counterweight to our cultural bias to newness at all costs.
I think I understand why you say that the notion of 'collision of ideas'
is contrary to some of Bohm's thought. In his little essay on Dialogue
Bohm suggests that in order to 'do dialogue' properly, we must engage in
'suspension of assumptions.' This means we deliberately avoid knee-jerk,
reflexive argument.(Senge is also a fan of Bohm's approach to dialogue.)
Bohm's main point here (and it's a very rich discussion) is that we
normally don't suspend our assumptions. Instead, we hear something we
disagree (or agree) with and react, primarily emotionally. We are 'led
around' by our assumptions.
One obvious corollary is that, if we are always reacting, we're not fully
listening, and therefore, we're not learning as much as we might. As one
who has participated in facilitated Bohm-style dialogue, I know just how
difficult it is to suspend assumptions. I also have experienced the
difference in learning and appreciation when I (with great difficulty!)
have managed to keep my mouth shut and really listen!
Deep, appreciative listening is the critical skill in dialogue. It may
also turn out to be the 'best kept secret' of the learning organization.
It's what 'lets the new ideas in' and allows them to collide.
I did not intend, by use of the violent word, 'collision,' to imply that
knowledge flourishes best in a culture of argumentation. Instead, I
suggest that a culture of 'conversation,' which entails AT LEAST as much
deep, appreciative listening as talking, is probably the ideal medium for
knowledge growth.
Neil Olonoff
Conversant Associates
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>