John's challenges are irrestistable to me. The last one, of being an
inventor-practitioner or a practitioner is one that I wrestle with
regularly. Do I believe that there are answers - ar at least
effective theories or processes - already in existence? If so, do I
choose to find them and apply them or do I rather choose to pursue my
own ego development and insist on (re)inventing?
I confess that the latter is part of my motivation. I also spend a
great deal of time exploring what has developed theories and process
that work better than mine. (Including going to workshop sessions of
John's and reading - so far some of - his work.) My current
conclusion is that there are theories, approaches and processes that
are mightier than most that exist and many that I've used. Also that
there are situations for which the ones that I've developed are
better than I've had indicated so far.
There is another issue here. That is, the extent to which, in the
same way that a problem is so only to the individual, an approach is
unique to the individual and the situation. The approaches which
John speaks about appear to me as tools - mainly linguistic tools -
that support many approaches but do not provide "the" answer. To
fail to explore them and to utilise them is often a combination of
ego and laziness. And it's often a combination of not being able to
find a decent (understandable) representation of them.
Most of the examples which lead me to say, "Something good is
happening there - even something beyond what I kinow how to do." are
not available in any form other than personal anecdote. The work is
still all mine to do.
The area that I see John pointing at, and one that I value and
pursue, is that an approach based on education and development rather
than intervention is the pathway to longterm success and to
organisational impact.
What stops these theories and processes catching on like wild-fire is
a question that interests me greatly. If the aproaches are so good -
and some are - then what is preventing them? I don't buy the
variants of "resistance" and "vested interests". They exist but they
explain away rather than help with the problem. I think that we need
to take on the kind of learning that John suggests and becoime
masters at developing the process of learning/teaching/sharing so
that these things that work are much more widely used.
I am humbled by the thought that, once widespread, each of the ideas
will turn out to be primitive and only provide a platform for what is
next. But without the platform - which requires that we make it
accessible and available - we will continue at our same relatively
low level trumpeting the value of what is and miss the possibility of
what might be.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk