Keith --
Like many others on the LO I jumped to the conclusion that you were
condemning lurkers in that posting that caused such a stir. The
interesting thing is, I thought I knew what you meant in that posting, and
in my mind I condemned you for it. At the same time, I was quite aware
that it did not fit with the view of you that I had developed from reading
your thoughtful, and sometimes caring postings.
Your most recent statement (below) clarifies everything for me, and makes
it clear that I had in fact really judged you harshly and incorrectly
because of your words. Now I can see that the words were not badly
intentioned.
Of course, aside from sincerely apologizing to you, I have a not-so-hidden
agenda. This example really ties together a number of threads.
First of all, apparently there is a shared set of self-evident truths that
many people on the list have, and which caused a pretty uniform negative
reaction. It is interesting to me -- still -- that we use our SETs without
taking the time to actually, explicitly figure out what they are. Some of
us even continue to claim that they don't exist.
To clarify, I would guess that the value we all felt revolved around
unjust criticism. Someone else may wish to put it into better words than
I have. We responded by being angry, and interestingly, the feeling of
anger precipitated a lot of responses to the list from people who normally
do not participate. No criticism intended here. I just suspect that this
violation of our implicit values had a very powerful impact. The learning
for me is that values are strong, potent feelings. they will cause a
reaction when many other things will not. Another good friend -- lurker
on this list -- just wrote me to say they exist in the belly, not the
head.
Second, it dramatically illustrates how our actions are used by others to
determine who we really are -- what our values are -- despite our
intentions. Keith, you were well-intentioned, but you still got hammered.
Your image suffered greatly. It is now 80% repaired. There is probably
some lingering suspicion that your apology was not honest. This, probably
from someone who was very willing to believe your first post was an
accurate representation of your values, but is unwilling to believe your
second post. The lesson is that it is very hard -- very, very hard -- to
completely correct for a mistake when you have violated someone's values.
This dramatizes for me the importance of thinking through what it is you
are trying to share and ensuring what you communicate is an accurate
representation. As a communicator you have some responsibility.
Not to let myself off the hook, however, as a responsible listener, I too
have to invest some effort in ensuring that I am understanding what you
intend for me to understand, and that I have not 'received' a different
message than you intended to send. This is particularly the case when you
have stepped on my values toes.
Thanks for getting back to us on this one. I hope we all are able to
learn something big from this.
=====================
Keith's posting
In a recent post referring to the participation rates on L-O, I was trying
to make the point that participation does not come naturally in groups. I
was using L-O as an example that we can all relate to.
My cryptic remarks regarding participation rates and the 75% "lurkers" on
L-O offended some L-O followers. My intention was not to pick on L-O
lurkers, and I apologize for this. My cryptic typing style tends to leave
out the necessary details when it would be better to elaborate as in this
case.
Sincerely...Keith
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc. 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>