Replying to Stan Schellenburg, LO22256
Stan wrote:
....snip....
>Am I way off base? Did anyone make it past the body of this post to the
>post script? Can what is said in the body really be undone? Did it
>invite diversity of participation?
I made it to the end.
I think your post did to Robert Bacal what I believe you were upset about
Robert doing to others. But, I think the saving grace of your message is
that you were aware of what you did. You used the post as a learning
opportunity by encouraging readers to reflect on what you and Robert
wrote.
As I reflected on this post (and others of this type) I tried to identify
my discomfort. I came up with this:
I feel uncomfortable when someone puts the responsibility for their own
learning on the back of someone else (sometimes this is hidden when the
author is speaking on behalf of others "needing" protection). The result
of this shift in responsibility is that the "disappointed one" feels
justified in disqualifying and rejecting the one that failed to meet the
expectations (I see this in most organizations).
A sentence from your post illustrates this:
>By saying this, in addition to rejecting your message with the hope of
>reducing your further contributions, I also hope to draw the contrast of
>your ...snip...
This, it seems to me was not meant to encourage learning but rather to
sever and alienate. You knew this and acknowledged it in your post script
by saying:
>In the
>long run I think posts with this kind of tone are more likely to hinder
>learning in our community than help.
Is it possible to share with others on the list how something affects me
without demanding that others must change because of how it affects me (or
affects those I am trying to protect)? I leave the responsibility for
change in the hands of those I've informed. They may choose to change or
not. And if not, even then there may be advantage. Can dealing with
hardship be good? It seems to me that there is a fascinating interaction
between nurture and hardship. I will try to illustrate this:
Nourishment and proper growing conditions are necessary for a tree to grow
(this might be compared to the "outside" issues of learning). But the
tree itself sends down roots and sends forth branches to draw in the water
and nutrients available; it must then assemble these components into
something "living" (this is the "inside" reponsibility -- it can NOT be
done from "outside"). Additionally, the "strength" of a tree is the
combined result of "inside" issues, "outside" issues AND overcoming
hardship. If a tree never had to "search" for water or never had to
"resist" winds, how strong would the tree be?
I know this metaphor has limitations (I have a quote on my wall from At,
"It is easy to select metaphors, but difficult to use them as models");
but I wonder if these components aren't at the root of these dialogues?
Those who most clearly see the importance of the "outside" issues for
learning (i.e., without the proper nutrients and essentials for growth,
the tree will die), may not always keep in mind how essential the "inside"
issues are and how important it is to "struggle". They therefore take on
the responsibility to remove the perceived hardships and obstacles
thinking that learning will be strengthened by making learning easier
(this is usually not done by making changes in one's own behavior but by
demanding changes in others -- "If you're unwilling to change then we want
you to leave."). Sometimes this is done in the name of others.
Those who recognize how essential the "inside" issues and "the struggle"
are for learning (i.e., without the seeking out of the nutrients, or the
proper assembly, or the struggle, the tree will be dead or weakened) may
not always keep in mind that "outside" issues CAN strengthen the tree.
They therefore may not address issues, under their control, that could
result in hardships or obstacles for others (this is usually done by
refusing to identify opportunities for improvements in themselves which
could result in increased learning by others -- "This is the way I am and
if you don't like it, you can leave.").
Somewhere in all this is Balance. It seems to me that learning is not
just "gaining information" (if it were, then efforts to have only "right"
information presented in only the "right" way on this list would make
sense). But "learning" is more than that: the process of finding
information and constructing thoughts that can be shared and challenged by
others and then reworked again as new pieces are discovered or recognized
(all of this of course is embedded into "real issues" with a purpose to
grow and improve). It may mean, interestingly, that an obstacle (hardship
-- something that for me was not the "right way") may force me to think
through an issue that otherwise would not have received my attention. The
result -- learning.
I just noticed I've "gone in over my head". Maybe someone else
understands what I am trying to say and could help out here.
I'll close by sharing this final thought.
"Stumbling blocks are inevitable;
but woe to the one through whom they come."
What that means to me: hardships and things "not the way I want them" are
facts of life; but, don't use that to justify stumbling someone else.
As one who is a novice at formalizing thoughts and relaying them clearly
and briefly, I greatly appreciate this forum. Because I think that it
will be by my exercising in this forum that I will "become" clear, brief
and thoughtful.
Stan Berberich
--Stanton L. Berberich e-mail: sberberi@uhl.uiowa.edu University of Iowa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>