"From: JACK HIRSCHFELD
To: JAMZEN@WORLD.STD.COM
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 45382 (RE: STUCK IN THE MIDDL)
Continuing the thread of "the paradigm of executive incompetence", I was
interested in Jim Michmerhuizen's identification of this as a bias akin to
other office paradigms which lead to labels like "beancounters" and "sparks".
In my view, this phenomenon is part of a larger, more general pattern of human
behavior which has proved the source of great difficulties for the species:
The struggle for individual superiority, which is evidenced in the "pecking
order" and most visible among primates in baboon troops, gives rise in social
organizations as a predjudice of superiority of one's own group (tribe, nation,
creed, company, team, profession, etc.) This prejudice appears to be pretty
universal, and accounts for an awful lot of killing and other mayhem among
humans.
To me, there is a slight difference in "the paradigm of executive
incompetence." While it's true that consultants often hold this opinion of
their clients, it's also usually true that the consultants are there in the
first place as an admission of incompetence on the part of the client ("help us
do this; we don't know how on our own"). This provides an opportunity to
change things, and one of the things that can be changed is the "natural"
paradigm. The model presented by Peter Block and others for equality in the
client/consultant relationship shows a method for overcoming the damage of such
biases. The contracting process can include both first lessons in dialogue,
and actual dialogue. It's what I strive for in my initial contacts with a
client..."
He replied:
"Jack --
I think you may have meant your reply to go to the group rather than to
me individually. Judging from the header on the message, it never made
it to learning-org.
Your point about the sociology of this kind of stuff is exactly right,
and unhappily has, I think, no general solution. What I mean by that is
that there is absolutely no way, from *within* the purely tribal or
sociological frame of reference, to distinguish a "legitimate" pride in
one's own role (individual or group) from that other sort of denigration
that started the thread.
I don't mean that there is no way to distinguish; I mean there's no tools
within a purely tribal viewpoint to do so. The moment we make such a
distinction, we're in other territory.
This problem is related - pretty closely, as I see it - to the ongoing
thread about mental models. I'll get back to that."
He was right; I meant to post to the list. I have received some messages since
joining this list whose return address is the sender, and not the list. I was
also surprised that my postings have been returned to me (as a list member, I
suppose). Other lists to which I subscribe do not loop back.
I feel a little uncomfortable responding at this point, since I am new to the
list and am not therefore "within the thread" of the conversation. If my
postings are repetitive or diversionary, please let me know (and please bear
with me, I'll catch up)...
jack.hirschfeld@his.com
-----
Host's Note:
Yes, when you send messages to the learning-org list, Majordomo (our
faithful robot) sends them to all the list members, including you.
Jack, I think you're "caught up" already.
When you reply to a message from the list, you may reply directly to the
msg sender or you may reply to the list. Which command or which mouse
click does which depends on the environment in which you're working.
-- Rick Karash, rkarash@world.std.com, host for learning-org