Chris Michel commented on the source of conflicts at his company:
>MY HYPOTHESIS: THIS PHENOMENA AND ITS RESULTING CONFLICTS IS THE RESULT
>OF THE MENTAL MODELS RESULTING FROM THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ONE
>DIMENSIONAL MATRIX.
I think we can safely say that the source of all conflicts comes from
people operating from different assumptions that they take to be "true."
My version is the "truth" and yours isn't. Of course, you are likely to
tell me the same thing, and off we go. As we know, the purpose of
dialogue is to get at the assmptions behind what we each think is true,
and as we come to know and appreciate each other's assumptions, this opens
us up to dealing with one another and learning from one another.
However, for this to happen, we have to appreciate that all conclusions
are always the result of assumptions we make (based on our experience,
knowledge, information, personalities, and insights) and that no one has
the same set of assumptions about anything. Our gift as human beings is
that we can appreciate this. By acknowledging this about each other, we
create an environment where it is safe to talk about it. Deep down,
everyone knows their version of reality is subjective, but they learn
there is no payoff for acknowledging this in our culture. I would suspect
that is the case in the culture of Chris's company. However, that is
slowly changing, as perhaps the participation on this list evidences.
Finally, we should note that this is not a "neat" idea. It is the most
realistic way to approach life. From my perspective, fostering dialogue
and a climate where it takes place just makes sense. Why would I want to
insist I'm right and start conflicts, when I could more realistically
state we're both right given our assumptions, so let's examine those so we
can learn what makes the most sense for both of us. As far as I am
concerned, this approach is "getting with the program" of life.
-- John Woods jwoods@execpc.com