Dave points at what I consider to be an unfortunate condition in our
current stage of learning and development. It's the condition of
inclusion without sufficient care for distinction, variety and
richness. The most exciting challenge for me, in the intellectual
fields, is to achieve convergence which maintaining or increasing
diversity.
> I was initially offended by Senge and LO folks since
> I thought they were attempting to take credit for what Deming was teaching
> the world. Once I found out Deming and Senge were friends, I realized LO
> supplemented TQM (Deming style).
The titles (TQM, LO) are only markers for some distinctions,
processes and useful ways of thinking. When these or any others
become standards of truth or rightness then they lead to trouble - to
separation and divergence. As Dave says, "I was initially offended".
To take offense at such implies that the idea belong to the thinker
rather than live of their own power. The same is true of the label
that we happen to be using - such as TQM or LO. Some of these cover
larger domains and thus can easily be seen as inclusive of other
approaches. I offer the idea, in contrast, of being empowered or
enabled by other approaches rather than inclusive.
In either LO or TQM modes, I can be enable by Native American circle
processes, for instance, but to say that they are therfore included
in LO or TQM thinking trivialises the historical case, the rigour
inherent in the processes and the master practitioners as well as
taking too much credit for the specific mode being favoured.
> If you saw Deming, read "Out of the Crisis", or attend a Deming Users
> Group, you got the sense of community with him, a deep desire for real
> learning, an abiding concern for truth, authenticity and just being Dr.
> Deming, a person who dedicated himself to mankind.
Something lacking in most TQM practitioners who have converted great
teaching into truth. The sources of our thinking are usually just
the sources that we have happened to discover and which have become
explicit. Deming did not invent from nowhere. He too had
predecessors and was part of one or more traditions.
My deep honour is reserved for the ends of the scale. Specifically,
for those who do the deep research and the deep thinking than offers
us tools to think with. And for those who are are at the edges where
doing is important and intellectual lables mean nothing. Those few
who are the champions, in my world, are the ones who have done bopth
and continually move between the two worlds.
Most of us are left to do our best with the thinking that is offered by
others, to add our bit in practice or in theory, and to contribute to
others. What is called for in these circumstances is the humility to
realise that the sources of our thinking, our action and our
effectiveness are mainly unkown to us and that the ones that we know
are likely merely interim truths whose origins are forever mysterious
to us. I am thankful whenever sources are revealed - like John
Warfield has done from time to time - so that I can be assisted in
going deeper into the thinking which produced such value for another
and explore what value it might produce for me.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk