I would rather not comment on the specifics of the situation, since that
probably isn't of list interest, but this sparks a few random thought on
barriers to learning (note, NOT necessarily linked to anything Sherri has
said.
1. One of the largest barriers is the stereotyping or application of a
"mental model" to a group of people, either in terms of roles, gender,
colour etc. While we all have mental models, I think the issue is the
degree to which we can acknowledge that they are always limited, and need
to be questioned via self-reflection. I see this issue crop up often in
terms of the we/them stuff between management and staff. No org. progress
can occur provided that each "side" sticks to the mental model of the
other, and the mental models are almost always wrong (from a third party
in perspective.
2. The "me/mine" approach is a focus on our own feelings or reactions as
if they are the only ones that pertain, and that our feelings are a
reflection of another person or group's intent. For example, the employee
who feels that their manager is trying to force them out of their job
because an effort is made to alter their performance levels. While it can
be true the manager is trying to improve performance ( a factually
verifiable thing) the extrapolation to the manager's intent stops learning
cold, and makes it impossible for the employee to improve. What I try and
do is to keep people focused on what is factually verified, NOT what is
inferred about another person based on a set of feelings.
My proposition is that when we spend time trying to categorize or "guess'
someone's intent, we spend less time learning (are there exceptions?)
Just a little comment on my interaction with Sherri-one of the things I
ask people when they have some negative response to something I have said
or done is to ask them "specifically" to indicate to me the offending
behaviour (in this case, the actual words used that the reader perceives
to have said [whatever]. I do this for several reasons related to
learning.
1. First, I cannot control what people take from what I write (I do a lot
of writing for a living, and do my best, but....) However I make mistakes
out of haste, impatience, or sometimes, just plain non-reflectiveness. So,
I ask for particulars so I can evaluate whether I DID mess up, or it is
somewhat unreasonable (my opinion) to have taken a particular meaning from
my message. If the former is the case, I note the language, (my behaviour)
and attempt to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
2. The second reason I do this is to encourage others to learn by
examining the "evidence" behind their conclusions (sorry, been teaching so
long, it's a habit to try and make everything a learning moment (ask my
wife). A really great strategy is for all of us to be encouraged to look
at our conclusions, and justify them on the basis of the actual words or
behaviours. Often, one finds that our conclusions are based on our
projections, "mental models" or things absolutely unconnected with the
words in the communication. I choose to play a role in these contexts.
Does this stuff strike a chord for anyone?
Robert Bacal, Bacal & Associates, rbacal@escape.ca
Join us at our Resource Centre at
http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
Phone: (204) 888-9290
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>