Spirited Debate on LO LO6722

Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:00:17 -0400

Replying to LO6665 --

In a message dated 96-04-14 15:04:07 EDT, Bill Fulkerson wrote:

>Conflict, as a temporary intervention, can be useful to promote
>learning. Few of us can assume the detached position of an
>observer required to benefit from any but the shortest term

I agree, Bill. But e_mail conflicts fit your definition perfectly.

Also, I promote a degree of conflict in "my" organizations. I tell folks:

"We want to be a best ideas company. With that in mind, here
are the rules:

1. Before we make a decision, it is your obligation to forcefully but
logically argue your view, your approach, your IDEA

2. Let's assume that I have 51% of the voting "shares" in a big decision
and each of you have 49%. If we BOTH do our job, you really have 98%
of the "authority" in that I should never (rarely?) be required to
exercise the 2% "edge".

3. Once the decision is made we all go that way 110%. The old discussion
stops but NEW discussions on how to IMPROVE on what we decided are
required because we are back at step one.

Normally, this works very, very well. It takes awhile for new people to
truly tell me as the CEO: "That's silly, you forgot X!" and trust that
they will not only still have a job but could conievably be promoted after
such a discussion.

Hal Popplewell



Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>