I would like to explore three connected thoughts: 1. things like good,
bad, right, wrong; 2. jargon; and 3. questioning.
In re: jargon, Jesse White wrote
"I do not mean that competition is inherently good or bad."
and
"What is wrong with cooperation?"
and Michael Scudder wrote
"To me, "good" competition strives for truth."
Julie Beedon started this thread (I think) when she told us about the
frustration she sometimes experiences when she uses jargon and the group
with whom she is intending to communicate receives her message in a less
than loving fashion. The conversation has since then taken a few twists
and turns.
Another thread we have been pursuing has to do with questioning and how
some people have difficulty asking questions.
My construct is that principles exist that govern interpersonal actions
just as principles exist that govern interactions of matter and energy.
(Please keep in mind that in my formative years I educated myself in
Physics and earned a PhD in that field.) We do not use words like right,
wrong, good, bad about the principle (law) of gravity. We accept that it
just is. I suggest that we stop using them about interpersonal
interactions.
In place of these words, I suggest that we use the words effective or
ineffective. Effective means that an action produced the result I wanted
and ineffective means that I did not. Words like right, wrong are
judgmental and tend to block communication. Words like effective and
ineffective aren't quite so value-loaded and don't tend to elicit quite
the same level of defensiveness.
Here are three principles that will illustrate what I mean.
What you will see, hear, feel in the learning organization (details)
1. Principles
Effectiveness Principle: P/PC balance focused on the customer
If
* We choose and perform all our actions to sustain or build
- our relationships with all affected people (customers
and other stakeholders) and
- our production and/or service capability (PC/SC)
(facilities, equipment, hardware, software, the
environment)
* While we produce and deliver today's products and/or services
(P/S),
Then
* We will sustain or build our capability to produce and
deliver our customers' desired P/S tomorrow.
Ineffectiveness Principle: P/PC Imbalance
If
* We DO NOT choose and perform all our actions to sustain or
build
- our relationships with all affected people (customers
and other stakeholders) and
- our production and/or service capability (PC/SC)
(facilities, equipment, hardware, software, the
environment)
* While we produce and deliver today's products and/or services
(P/S),
Then,
* We continually erode our capability to produce our customers'
desired P/S tomorrow.
That is, we mortgage the future to achieve today's short term
goals.
The first principle describes what happens when we choose our actions to
benefit all people and things affected by them, while the second one
describes what will happen if we do not. The value of having both
principles consciously articulated is that it makes the results of our
decisions clear. For instance, if we make our decisions according to the
principle of effectiveness we are guaranteeing the long term success of
our organization. If we do not make our choices consistent with the
effectiveness principle, then we are automatically choosing the results of
the ineffectiveness principle. This statement becomes self-evident if we
state the complementarity principle.
Complementarity Principle
If we are not choosing our actions based on the affirmative form
of a principle, then we are basing them on the negative form of that
principle.
So how does this relate to jargon? Jargon is neither good nor bad. It
just is. The question for me is, does the use of jargon achieve effective
communication in the situation that I am in at the time I use that jargon?
In some cases the answer will be "yes" because the jargon has become
shared language with shared meaning. In other cases the answer will be
"no" because it is not shared. Wisdom will have something to do with
knowing when jargon will be effective and when it won't. Another way of
saying this is, "In the current situation, is your use of jargon hindering
or enabling building a sense of community?"
The issue of questioning is important in this description because if you
are using jargon in an ineffective way, how will you know? Partly you
will know because you are a world class body language reader and you cna
discern that it's not being effective. Partly you will know because
people ask questions. BUt is the environment psychologically safe for the
questioner? Many of the previous postings indicate that it is not.
Now "to end the refrain, thrust home," I am going to make a bold
statement that may elicit some strong emotional responses. I suggest that
one of the most liberating things we can do for ourselves and our fellow
man is to drop words (and the associated concepts) like should, oughta,
must, right, wrong, good, bad (in the moral sense) from our vocabulary.
Replace them with awareness of the principles cited above and take
conscious responsibility to choose our actions in the context of these
principles.
I hope this stimulates some thoughts.
Later.
-- Willard Jule 75272.3452@compuserve.com