Winfried writes:
>There's always a 'somebody' that asks the question. That someboy is the
>owner of the question and should be at present through out the dialogue,
>because she/he has an interest in the question and therefor has taken
>commitment and responsabillity for the thread. Others can 'hang on' to that
>question.
>The dialogue is finished when she/he has had satisfactional answers and
>notifies the others involved.
This is an excellent point. I was frustrated by the Ohmae's KSF thread
for the reason the original questioner apparently left the conversation
and wasn't available for follow up questions. I even sent a cc: to his
mailbox and had no response. Yet the conversation took off largely so we
could "show off" our opinions on the notions of key success factors. I
still grew in understanding as a result, but what value did the questioner
receive? Was he satisfied?
Also,
>Some guidelines:
>*Stop arguing.
I'm put off by replies that begin, "I disagree" without apparent attempts
to clarify if the writer meant what the responder understood. I like
these suggestions...
>*Instead try to read/listen carefully to hear on what _facts_ , his/her
>opinions and thoughts are based, AND what implicite vision/value you assume
>is hidden underneath. Check this out by asking some questions to get these
>hidden values "on the table". Many misunderstandings can be traced back to
>the fact that we assume that the dialogue-partner understands the words as
>we mean them. Nothing is less true! Every concept can summon totally
>different associations in somebody else's mind.
Here, here. Let's continue to improve our conversations.
--Ginger Shafer The Leadership Dimension "Bringing Leadership to Life" (c) vshafer@azstarnet.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>