Thank You Ben, for your note to the list.
My first impression of dealing with problem people was that "casting
out" disagreement could result in the kind of treatment I've received
(and I don't like that!). Once in a group, I mentioned that we had
not defined the word that our group was based on. Someone else said
that if I said anything else about it he was going to walk out of the
meeting. He didn't have time to quibble. At least one other person in
the group made sounds of agreement, and no one disagreed or had
anything of support to say. Further discussion was stopped. No doubt
there are other interpretations of what the context of the comments
were. I know that we eventually had a definition such as was
recommended (we may have actually been in the process of considering
the phrasing and my comment was about a part of the definition), yet
it was such a definition that it did not provide much against misuse
or make its necessary components evident.
I typically say what has not been said or else say something that is
not being said in the present, and that could easily be taken as
problematical.
Your comment showing the affect of continuous disagreement on others
is significant and surely would be dealt with in some circumstances.
The world doesn't make much sense when individual significance
becomes the extent of one's vision. There are other people also; and,
as I've been told, God loves them as well as me.
One problem with the undefined (or general) idea of removing
disagreement is that the result could be what Kuhn or Popper (or
both?) said about scientific development. Everybody thinks they're
right and agrees about "the basics" until someone else brings forth
a new understanding.
At the very same time, my personal opinion is that it wouldn't
behoove me or be my vision of the ideal to be in charge, having my
thoughts be the manager. I don't have experience with managing
groups, so these observations are not fully tested.
One closing comment, as I look over my note again. Sometimes we seem
to be pursuing "the learning organization" and wondering why others
don't see it the same way. We may simply be pursuing work that suits
or we think suits our own selves better than what we've experienced,
while others are pursuing what suits or they think suits them better.
The author of "The Fifth Discipline" said that "we want it because we
want it". At first I thought, that's not sufficient. Then I realized,
personal intent is as central as it appears in the words.
I do want a gentle work environment where knowledge that I Uniquely
have is valued, and my work makes use of and rewards the
opportunities that I've received (so to speak) inwardly, in my own
learning and observation. Gentleness is important to me because I
can't just command my mind to give forth ideas and most others can't
command that of me either. It's fair to bring the loops of learning
in as close as they work. For example, if I know something, I should
share that with co-workers. When they know something that I need for
my work, I have to listen to them. For the process to work, I have to
listen (or the individual has to listen) to the group before the
group has to listen to the individual.
Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
jpf@myriad.net
--"John Paul Fullerton" <jpf@mail.myriad.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>