Robert Bacal wrote:
"This is a commonly taught component of assertive behaviour.
Unfortunately, what is almost never taught is the limiting circumstances
of this particular conversational tactic. First, it is largely ineffective
with people with whom you do not have a relationship, or have no tie or
concern about you personally. It is also generally not effective with
people who are very angry. Third, the structure of the set of statements
is not quite in the form of how real people speak...hence the risk that
some people will perceive it as manipulative or "social worky".
"It's a good technique, but like everything it has limitations."
My reply -
Robert,
I believe it is up to us to contribute our learning to jump to a new
level. Otherwise we stand to be accused of Henry Ford's adage - (that I'm
sure Dilbert would use well) - of " an expert is just someone who can tell
me six reasons why something is not going to work".
So - I wish to affirm Rick's notions of examing the on-line learning
experience and move with the flow..i.e I feel sad that in this forum we
may lose the opportunity to examine and improve our own processes, if we
only apply a critique of a suggestion. (i.e. a chance to remember
appreciative learning processes!)
Which is to suggest that yes IMHO the "formula" as it is oft taught is
clunky, its also a foundation to realize the integration of thinking, and
feeling - the 2 sides of the brain, the intuitive and the sensate, etc,
etc, that we struggle to attain.
I suggest we acknowledge our communication as an art form - to steal
Vail's metaphor - and that we can take a formula and draw different
pictures with it in our "somewhat free form style" - that we might juggle
the parts of the formula whilst staying true to a multiplicity of views
and the difficulty (for many of the western socialized men - including
myself) of affective expression. I'm reminded of the favorite phrase that
David Bradford is said to use in their very popular Stanford MBA
interpersonal relations program - " do you have a feeling for that?"
Further I would add the value of many of the dialogue practises that have
been so well documented, e.g. my assumption about that is ....., as well
as carefully enhancing the quality and safety of the "sacred space".
Therefore, my assumption is that I have a level of relationship when I
read and/or actively contribute to this list, this is a felt tie, and I do
have some concern for people on this list - in that OL constitutes an
upstream struggle of culture change of such magnitude that it feels good
to me to have company - even if it is mediated through a computer. Shared
visions and communities of practise - right... I am a real person, and I
wish to speak my reality, and the reality I choose at this time is one
that is close to some OL reality, and that includes combining thought,
affect and praxis in my communication/s.
Similarly, I wish to appreciate the quality of the mediation in this
forum. I note the apparent correlation between the knowledge and
commitment of the moderator Rick, to the richness and value of this list.
[Host's Note: Thanks, Tony, for the gracious words. And, thanks everyone
for the rich content that makes this a learning activity for me. ..Rick]
Regards,
Tony Kortens
Practitioner
--Tony Kortens <tkortens@stmarys-ca.edu>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>