>>Interestingly enough I experienced a similar phenomea on the Deming list
>>recently - but one of the main things I was commenting on was that I
>>expereinced less of a sense of what you describe on this list - now I will
>>have to think about this - is it in the nature of these lists??
Of course it is. These lists aren't teams, aren't work groups, etc:
They're like college mixers.
>From the point of view of each individual reader, much gets posted that
isn't relevant to him or her; some is boring; some wrong (i.e. "I
disagree"); some is fascinating ("I want to know more").
So: You ignore the irrelevant and the boring; you ignore or respond
publicly to the "wrong" (it's easier to rebut someone in public than
one-on-one, where it seems rude and at the least opens a dialogue you've
already decided you don't want: You just want the wrongheaded one to shut
up); and you pursue what's really interesting in a more private forum,
where you have a known commonality of purpose.
Students of diplomacy have long known that: In public, e.g. at the UN, you
posture. Posturing can be very valuable: it can call reluctant allies
forward, it can set out policy, mission, vision; it can claim the high
moral ground. But when nations want to make a deal, want to get work done,
they go private. To the team. The work group. The project.
For students of learning organizations, there's a pretty obvious pony in
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>