Archive for August, 2009

Another Communication Boundary: How Far Can You Self-Disclose?

August 28, 2009

Organizational learning requires the ability — and willingness — among members to self-disclose. Senge and his colleagues use tools such as “Left-hand Column” and “Ladder of Inference” which require a member to be aware of, and to publicly describe, how one thinks. That includes many things: how one reasons out, what doubts and uncertainties one entertains, whether one agrees or disagrees and why, what one does not know or what is the extent of one’s ignorance, what facts or observations led to one’s conclusion, the meaning of a word or label one uses, etc. Below are two slides from a PowerPoint presentation on Senge’s “Five Disciplines” that I show my KM graduate class at the Technology Management Center, University of the Philippines, which lists things that members of a learning organization must be able and willing to talk publicly about.

mental models

systems thinking

Double-loop learning is more demanding: it requires self-disclosure that can bring about strong emotional content: personal likes and dislikes behind a behavior or pattern of behavior, personal fears and desires that affect work performance, tacit patterns of inefficient or ineffective behavior one is unwilling to talk about, etc. The strong emotional content itself can inhibit self-disclosure.

How far one is willing to be candid and public about his own thinking and feeling processes — which are normally private or personal things — is another form of communication boundary. This “self-disclosure boundary” delimits what one is willing or comfortable to tell others; just as the “communication boundary” we discussed in the previous blog post (“Announce Your Communication Boundaries”) delimits what one is willing or comfortable hearing from others. In both cases, discomfort is the signal that tells one that his boundary is being breached. These boundaries vary from person to person, and from context to context, but watching at what point the discomfort begins is a useful way to be aware exactly where one’s boundary is.

Browse through the profiles of your contacts in Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, or other similar social networks. You will notice the differences in the willingness to self-disclose. In fact people who are “very private” will not even join such social networks. You must be a “social person” or one who is less guarded about your “private space” or “personal life” to join and enjoy participating in them.

In the plane ride from Beijing to Manila last Tuesday, I sat next to a young man who visited his Chinese girlfriend. Wow! He disclosed to me — a stranger — much more than what I expected about him, his girlfriend and what they did in the two weeks he was in Beijing. He showed me their pictures in his laptop. He is a body-piercer. He told me so much about how he does it to minimize the pain in his clients. He described where (=what parts of the body) and which way he had pierced his lady clients as well as gentlemen clients, etc. He showed me the piercings in his face, mouth and head (he had temporarily removed the rings in them).

Willingness to self-disclose is not enough. Some may be willing to self-disclose more than others, and a few may be like my plane seatmate. Most people assume that they know everything about themselves — why they think, feel and do what they keep thinking, feeling or doing or NOT thinking, feeling or doing. This is a wrong assumption. Most people are actually unaware about much of their internal states. For example, most people are unaware of their “blind spots” or “blindfolds”. A willingness to self-disclose is not enough; self-disclosure to be productive of learning must be accompanied by self-knowledge that comes from years of constant practice of double-loop learning and “conscious living”.

Chris Argyris, who introduced double-loop learning, said: “Leaders and subordinates alike… must all begin struggling with a new level of self-awareness, candor and responsibility.”

In the February 2007 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Bill George and his associates wrote about learning how to be an inspiring and empowering leader. They asked 75 members of the Advisory Council of the Stanford Graduate School of Business what is the most important capability that leaders must develop. Their answer was nearly unanimous: self-awareness!

I believe that extending the envelope of organizational performance can be achieved through three steps:

  1. The first envelope is through better technology: this is the easiest.
  2. The second envelope is through better management: this is not difficult as there are numerous management tools for this purpose.
  3. The third envelope is through better psychological-behavioral technology: this is difficult because the tools in this area are still works in progress.

According to Management Today, “Peter Senge’s advocacy of the learning organization helped begin a revolution in the workplace. And, the relevance of Senge’s work is growing rather than diminishing over time. As more businesses go global, the need to overcome psychological barriers to necessary organizational change increases.”

Peter_Senge

PETER SENGE

Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the webpages pointed to. Thanks to Wikimedia Commons for the use of the last image in this blog post.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Announce Your Communication Boundaries

August 26, 2009

To my blog fans, I apologize for not posting for over a week. I was in Beijing, China and flew back to Manila only last night. I discovered, to my dismay, that I cannot access my WordPress blog and my Facebook page from Beijing.

This is perfect timing to write about communication boundaries.

Every person has his or her own communication boundaries. You can be more aware of your communication boundaries by answering the following question: What topics, manners of talking, or kinds of questions or requests bother, irritate or offend you?

When I was studying for my Master of Science degree at Cornell University, I shared an apartment with an Egyptian friend majoring in theatre. I was uncomfortable every time, during conversations, he would stress a point by talking with his face about six inches from mine. My tendency was to move back. I noted that he behaved in the same manner when talking to fellow Egyptians. His “personal distance” (a technical term in the science of proxemics) is shorter than mine. We eventually both noticed and talked about it. We both saw why I felt discomfort and had to move back, and why he felt I was disinterested in what he was saying by my moving back. We became aware of our hitherto unconscious communication boundaries, and we understood why we both behaved the way we did.

“Green jokes” (or jokes with sexual undertones) can be another example of communication that violates the boundaries of a person. If the person is unaware of her communication boundary, all she will feel is irritation at the person telling the green joke. And the person telling the green joke will continue to do so, if he is so wrapped up in his joke that he does not see her discomfort. Both are unaware of the communication boundary of the hearer, and the irritating or offensive situation can repeat again and again. The solution: be aware of your communication boundary and announce it to others.

We are free to say anything… but only up to the point where we begin to violate the communication boundaries of our hearers. The problem is, people do not announce their communication boundaries, because they are often unaware of their boundaries or they are too timid to announce them. Another problem is that our communication boundaries are often not the result of our conscious choice.

At the organizational level, there are similarly unconscious communication boundaries. An example is what Chris Argyris calls “undiscussables” — topics, manners of talking, or kinds of questions or requests that are not allowed within a particular organization’s culture. Undiscussables vary across organizations and cultural milieus. Some examples of undiscussables are: political criticism against Communist Party officials, public opposition to the CEO, facts (e.g. what went wrong) that embarrass an office mate, etc. These are implicit “don’ts” or what members of an organization implicitly agree not to talk about. According to Argyris, undiscussables can block organizational learning processes.

I believe that a precondition to productive communication in a group is the conscious review, choice and announcement of communication boundaries by each member of the group. Each member decides what kind of communication he or she is unwilling to receive. In a learning organization or a learning team, communication boundaries that are explicitly announced, clarified, acknowledged and respected can better lead to productive communications.

What do you think?

Note that there is an embedded link in this blog post. It shows up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on the link to create a new tab to reach the webpage pointed to.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Communication Intents behind Indigo Practices

August 17, 2009

The Indigo Quadrant is where —

This series of blogs is a contribution to the shaping of new “Indigo Practices” — the survival skills we inhabitants of Planet Earth need to learn if we are to “pull through” despite the global environmental, political and religious-civilizational crises we ourselves have unwittingly created.

The communication intents behind Indigo Learning Practices are simple but challenging: to be able to understand ourselves and each other so that we can learn and build together as a group, despite our cultural, political, religious and other differences.

Towards this end, we need new and different but more workable tools for —

Here is my first-pass mind map of skills and tools for Indigo Learning Practices. It is an evolving mind map: I change and improve it from feedback from colleagues like you and as my concurrent personal experiences guide me as the blog series gets written one post at a time.

Building together

Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the webpages pointed to.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Personal Intangible Assets and Intentions

August 14, 2009

Among KM practitioners, the word “knowledge” has a very specific meaning, namely, “capacity for effective action” (see previous blog posts “F5- A Proposed KM Framework” and “Practical Exercise #15: Ingredients of Effective Group Action”).

I wrote a paper entitled “Organisational energy and other meta-learning from case studies of knowledge management implementation in nine Asian countries”. It will be published soon by Routlege in the next issue of the Knowledge Management for Development Journal. In this paper, I reviewed 22 KM case studies from Asian countries and 21 KM case studies from the Philippines, and I concluded that effective action is the result of two factors: knowledge assets and “organizational energy“. I defined the latter term as motivational, intentional, relational and related factors that determine effective group action. A knowledge worker must “know” how to do a job well, AND he/she must be “willing or wanting” to do it. See blog post: “Q23- Know-how (=Knowledge) without “Willing-to.” Organizational energy is a part of an organization’s capacity to create value. Organizational energy is part of its intangible assets.

KM practitioners know that KM to be successful must be accompanied by one form or another of “change management” (click “Change Management Must Accompany KM” in the CCLFI opening page). If you examine the repertoire of a change management expert, you will conclude that all change management interventions aim to enhance organizational energy — it seeks, enhances, encourages, builds upon or enables “willingness” of employees to perform the desired actions. (see: “A Success Factor in KM: Motivating Knowledge Workers”)

Therefore, to optimize person-to-person communication for either creation or transfer of knowledge, organizational energy must be managed, including paying attention to the intention behind our communication acts.

Let me share an insight about personal intangible assets.

I blogged about people who had experienced looking at death face-to-face, and surviving from that experience. The experience leaves them with a heightened appreciation of life. They listen to, engage with, and live life more fully. The experience also results in a valuable learning, namely, that when your time is up, we leave behind many things that we thought we “own”. Think about this: when you or I cross the threshold to death, we leave behind:

  • Our tangible assets: properties like house and land, financial wealth, explicit knowledge, equipment and technologies (you can’t bring your laptop with you!);
  • Our physical body and its physical or biological life;
  • Our academic, professional and social credentials and positions.

I had assumed that religious beliefs cannot be scientifically scrutinized. I realized I could be wrong after I read books such as Dr. Raymond Moody’s popular book “Life After Life”. Since that time, much research in transpersonal psychology had grown. This subfield is not yet recognized by the American Psychological Association, but a couple of universities had started to offer doctoral programs in transpersonal psychology.

Thanks to this new field of research, we are beginning to see new insights about life and learning.

Dr. Moody is a physician in Pennsylvania who noted that patients who unexplainably regained consciousness hours after having been pronounced clinically dead (“spontaneous revival”) almost always have a story to tell about their “in-between” experience. The fact that some people can regain full consciousness and bodily functions hours after the brain had been deprived of oxygen is itself a medical mystery. But Dr. Moody’s interest was elsewhere: in those stories. The stories seem to exhibit similarities. Listening to the stories, it appears that the “in-between” experiences were often life-transforming for those patients. His interest grew and he sought and collected more stories from other hospitals. Eventually he published the case studies in book form in 1978.

The similarities he observed across many stories were as follows. Patients recall:

  • Passing through and eventually emerging from a dark tunnel to a place of light;
  • Meeting or being met by relatives and friends who had died before;
  • Reviewing their life in a split second — as if watching a super fast movie;
  • Having someone beside them during the life review, whose demeanour is kind and non-judgmental (the identity of this “someone” varies according to the religious belief of the patient);
  • This “someone” asks basically two questions during the life review: Q1: What have you learned? Q2: Whom have you helped or loved?;
  • Then the patient “returns” back to life.

Dr. Moody was intrigued by the similarities because the patients who told their stories were unknown to one another (and therefore they could not have secretly conspired to tell similar stories). In fact many patients regard their experience with so much significance and respect that some hesitate at first to reveal their experiences.

Did you notice that Q1 is about (using KM language) gain in human capital while Q2 is about gain in relationship capital? The indications from Dr. Moody’s studies are: we do leave behind all our tangible assets; these are NOT ours, at least not in any permanent way. But our intangible assets do stay with us! They are really OUR assets.

Findings from transpersonal psychology, and knowledge accumulated by those who practice what we can call experiential technologies (e.g. Tibetan Buddhism; see my previous blog post “A Paradox of 20th Century Scientific Practice”), indicate that we can bring with us:

  • Our intangible assets: tacit knowledge, lessons learned, relationships;
  • Our capability to be consciously aware and to make decisions, choices or intentions.

The book I am reading now is Stephen Levine’s “A Year to Live: How to Live This Year As If It Were Your Last.” I am happy to learn that many of the skills and tools in conscious living (and in “Indigo Learning Practices” in this blog series) we have been practicing and developing at CCLFI, are useful not only for personal KM and organizational learning, but also for fearlessly and smoothly crossing the threshold to death.

We saw in previous blog posts that intangible assets are more important than tangible assets in: (a) GWP and the global economy, (b) in corporations, and (c) in development of poor communities. And now we see that intangible assets are also fundamentally important at the personal level.

430px-Garborg_av_Olav_Rusti_1912

ARNE GARBORG

“It is said that for money you can have everything, but you cannot. You can buy food, but not appetite; medicine, but not health; knowledge, but not wisdom; glitter, but not beauty; fun, but not joy; acquaintances, but not friends; servants, but not faithfulness; leisure, but not peace. You can [buy] the husk of everything, but not the kernel.” – Arne Garborg, Norwegian writer and reformist

Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the webpages pointed to. Thanks to Wikimedia Commons for the use of the image in this blog post.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Tools for Conscious Shifting of Communication Ends and Means

August 11, 2009

Henry_Martyn_Robert
More than a century ago, a US Army officer Henry Martyn Robert, was without prior warning asked to preside a community meeting. He had zero experience in presiding a meeting, and the result was a big disaster and personal embarrassment for him. To make the long story short, he decided to learn how, did research and eventually designed and wrote a simple guidebook on how to conduct meetings. The result is the “Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies” that was published in 1876. Over time, it was so useful that it was republished again and again. It came to be known as “Robert’s Rules of Order.”

Various experts have since been struggling to continue to perfect the way people can productively think and decide together.

William Isaacs, in his book “Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together”, described the Four-Player Model based on the work of David Kantor. For a group conversation to be productive, he said that four distinguishable actions must all be performed:

  • I Move“: proposing, initiating, leading, setting direction, requesting, advocating, voicing
  • I Follow“: agreeing, supporting, listening, consensus-making, completing, confirming
  • I Oppose“: correcting, re-directing, negotiating, revising
  • I Bystand“: studying, exploring, suspending choice, seeing different perspectives, weighing.

Members of the group must be able to shift from one action to another as the need arises. Getting stuck in one pattern of actions either as individuals or as a group would not be productive. Each action has a use: without a Mover there is nothing to discuss and no decision to be reached; without the Opposer corrections cannot be made; without the Bystander no one can see or weigh different perspectives; and without a Follower there will be no consensus or completion.

Edward de Bono proposed “Six Thinking Hats”, another tool to help a group shift how it thinks together:

  • Blue Hat” for designing a procedure, for agreeing on a group process or protocol, for deciding which sequence of hats the group should use to achieve what the group wants
  • White Hat” for presenting and studying facts and information
  • Green Hat” for exploring, creative thinking, innovating or improvising, thinking freely or outside rules and mental boxes
  • Black Hat” for evaluating or weighing facts or options, correcting, identifying risks
  • Yellow Hat” for identifying opportunities, advantages, benefits
  • Red Hat” for expressing feelings, emotions, attitudes, intuitions, gut reactions.

For example, if a group wants to solve a problem creatively, the sequence of thinking the group can adopt is: blue-white-green-black-blue

  1. “Blue Hat” to agree on overall procedure
  2. “White Hat” to look at all the facts about or surrounding the problem
  3. “Green Hat” to look at the problem in different ways, and to generate many options or alternative solutions
  4. “Black Hat” for weighing all options generated
  5. “Blue Hat” for selecting an option and agreeing on the next steps, who will do them and their deadlines.

The “Blue Hat” is often the first hat a group should wear. For the same reason, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, a “point of order” (to clarify what is the correct procedure or process) takes precedence over other motions or proposals.

By agreeing to shift thinking hat together, there is less risk that a member will be stuck in one position while another member will be stuck in the opposite position and the two members endlessly debate. In de Bono’s system, everyone looks together at the advantage of a position, and also looks together at the disadvantage of that position.

A facilitator (a peer) or chairperson (a permanent or ad hoc superior) must be skillful in sensing and redirecting the group PROCESS. In other words, he or she must be an expert in wearing the “Blue Hat”. He or she must have “process-savvy”. Read my narrative of how I facilitated a Team Learning process in the previous blog post “Q9- An Exercise in Team Learning: Some/the(?) Root Causes of September 11”

The key is simple: moment-to-moment awareness of group process.

Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the webpages pointed to. Thanks to Wikimedia Commons for the use of the images in this blog post.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

L23- What is Your Communication Intent?

August 8, 2009

bowl

Is it to beg, ask or plead?


lasso

Or is it to rope in, coopt or recruit into your group, convince to your way of thinking?


knife

To fight, hurt, get even, exact revenge?




gift


To give, offer, augment, provide?


hook

To capture, possess, ensnare?



door


Are you opening a door, giving a chance, offering a way, providing a choice?




mixed


Are you offering a Trojan Horse, a gift hiding your desire to capture, win, or vanquish?




What is your communication intent?

And what is your manner of voicing? (Review the “12 Manners of Voicing” in a previous blog post.)

Your end and means of communication determine its learning outcomes.

Note that there is an embedded link in this blog post. It shows up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the webpages pointed to.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Listening to Life

August 5, 2009

People do not notice nor give value to those things that are always available or always around them all the time — air to breathe, solid ground beneath their feet, the local culture, being alive, the support of a loved one — until those things are taken away from them, or seriously threatened to be taken away from them. It is paradoxical: anything that is omnipresent tends to escape our notice. Consequently, we fail to appreciate it.

Many species of fish and other aquatic animals are born, live their lifetimes and die immersed in the water all the time; and so I believe they do not notice the water. Dolphins, which can jump out of the water momentarily, have experienced being out of the water; and so I believe dolphins do notice the water. Spinning dolphins even delightfully and playfully shoot up into the air spinning, and splash back into the water. They do it again and again, in apparent glee and enjoyment.

Spinner_dolphin_jumping

When I was a young man I dated girls at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Laguna province in the Philippines. The first time I visited IRRI facilities, I was struck by the beautiful scenic view of the green rice fields, the rows of coconut trees and thatched huts in the distance, the blue-green mountains nearby and the bluer mountains afar. I blurted a remark to one of the girls about the marvellous scenery surrounding them. She said, “Oh, we do not notice them anymore.”

We are immersed in life and its repeating patterns so often and so much that we have stopped noticing life.

People who had looked at Death face-to-face — for example, people who survived a life-threatening illness, or an accident that was fatal for many companions, or any event where they thought they would die — are people who afterwards better saw how precious Life is and who thereafter lived Life more fully. Like young children, they listened, experienced and savored life more intensely. I know, because I survived an illness that threatened my life for nearly four years.

Take your local or national culture. You grew up within it. It is around you all the time. You never even knew what it consists of — until you leave your town or your country and travel to another culture. It is when you are outside your culture and you are confronted with an alien, strange or different culture that you begin to be aware of your own culture!

Nearly two decades ago, I studied an indigenous local spiritual culture. They have a daily practice that they taught me. It is called “pagbabasa ng Buhay na Aklat” or “reading the Living Book.” By “Living Book” they refer to your own life and daily personal experiences. It consists of closely observing, and internally and externally listening to the micro and macro events in your personal life in order to discern patterns, movements and cues as to where Life is taking you as well as where you want Life to take you. They call one’s life the “Living Book” because they believe that God communicates and interacts with every person through numerous micro and macro events in his or her life. In other words, your life experiences constitute your own “Living Scripture” that you have to “read”. “Reading the Living Book” is a practice of passively listening to Life, as well as actively engaging Life. It is a beautiful practice.

Using knowledge management language, “Reading the Living Book” is sensing of tacit individual knowledge, while reading a religious scripture (whether Christian, Muslim, Judaic, etc.) is reading explicit group knowledge. The first is personalized and private, compared to the latter which is common and public.

Early Christians, and modern-day Pentecostal Christians, use the Greek word “rhema” to refer to direct, tacit, personal experience or communication from the Holy Spirit, in contrast to “logos” which is the written, explicit record of that experience. Unfortunately, when the Bible was translated from Greek to English, both “rhema” and “logos” became the “Word” thereby losing the important distinction between direct, tacit, personalized sensing (“rhema”) and the indirect, explicit, public record (“logos”). This shift is one of the reasons why, in my analysis, Christianity lost the virtues in the indigo quadrant (see the diagrams in my previous blog post “Evolving Forms of Governance”): it shifted from rule by the many and inner disciplines of the early Christians during Pentecost, to rule by the few and canon law/doctrinal controls in the modern Vatican-managed Catholicism and various Protestant congregations. Please note that Protestantism is closer to the indigo quadrant than Catholicism.

A similar distinction occurred in the development of Islam: today there is a distinction between various practices of tacit discernment of Allah’s will (maarifah, haqiqah and tariqah) and the more common reliance on explicit or written laws (Shariah) and the Koran.

The KM distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is an excellent framework for better understanding these distinctions: one is contextual personal knowledge and the other is generic second-hand knowledge. KM also helps us see that there are losses accompanying conversion from tacit to explicit knowledge.

Abraham, the forefather of all Jews, Christians and Muslims, did not have any scripture to rely on (fortunately!). So he used direct tacit means to listen to God. He listened very well, even if he could not at first believe what he heard. Most modern-day Jews, Christians and Muslim rely on their different scriptures (unfortunately!) and their different mental models and judgments are now leading them to misunderstand, hate and even kill one another. Watching all his children now, Abraham must be an exceedingly unhappy soul.

Abraham

In 1995-1997 I led a team of experts in Filipino culture and indigenous spiritualities in designing, testing and piloting a Pamathalaan Workshop under former Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos. Pamathalaan, according to President Ramos, is “pamamahala kasama ni Bathala” or God-centered governance. One of the experimental workshop modules was a form of listening to Life patterned after the indigenous practice of “reading the Living Book”. It is an inter-faith process of consensual discernment. If God is omnipresent, then our tendency is to fail to notice Him (or Her). The water sustains the fish, but the fish never notices the water. The process is therefore a conscious practice of noticing and listening to God or to Life (is there really any distinction between God and Life?) all around us every day or moment of our life.

In 1997, I was browsing in a bookstore in San Francisco when I chanced (perhaps it was not “chance”) reading the following excerpt from the back cover of a book. The excerpt “jumped out” and I knew it was another corroboration of the Pamathalaan Workshop. I bought this book and all subsequent books by its author, Neale Donald Walsh. Neale “wrote” these books through the process of “automatic writing” (whereby the author’s hand holding a pen or pencil involuntarily moves and writes, or without the conscious control of the person). The title of the book is “Conversations with God: an Uncommon Dialogue, Book 1.”

    “So go ahead now. Ask Me anything. Anything. I will contrive to bring you the answer. The whole universe will I use to do this. So be on the lookout; this book is far from My only tool. You may ask a question, then put this book down. But watch.

    “Listen.

    “The words to the next song you hear. The information in the next article you read. The story line of the next movie you watch. The chance utterance of the next person you meet. Or the whisper of the next river, the next ocean, the next breeze that caresses your ear — all these devices are Mine; all these avenues are open to Me. I will speak to you if you will listen. I will come to you if you will invite Me. I will show you then that I have always been there.

    “All ways.”

Put this blog down (it is second-hand knowledge) and start gaining your own first-hand knowledge. Start listening to Life.

Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the webpages pointed to. Thanks to Wikimedia Commons for the use of the images in this blog post.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

Listening Where Mental Models of People Conflict

August 3, 2009

Two people with conflicting or incompatible mental models will likely:

  • See different slices of the real world (read blog post “Q7- We Found the Enemy: Our Own Concepts!”);
  • May be looking at the same thing but will interpret what they see differently;
  • Use different language, or use the same words but with different meanings; and
  • Will not be aware of all the above and will not know why they are unable to communicate productively (unless they practice internal listening and the rest of the discipline of “Mental Models” in Learning Organizations).

If they harbour mental models of each other that the other does not agree with (“On Michael Jackson, or Our Mental Models of People We Know”) then listening stops and the erosion of goodwill starts; further communication is unworkable.

What are the options in such a case?

  1. Option 1: Stop communication. To preserve goodwill, an agreement to acknowledge the fact that they have basic differences and to respect each other’s mental models instead of –
  2. Option 2: Use force so that the mental model of the more powerful will prevail or
  3. Option 3: Agree to obey the authority and judgment of a third party or
  4. Option 4: Use universally-accepted protocols for validating, eliminating or selecting mental models.

Unfortunately, protocols for Option 4 are not yet fully developed. The scientific method is a rather well-developed and tested set of protocols for validating mental models, but applied only to empirical validation or only on “what is” and “what works” (in figure below, only right side of Ken Wilber’s quadrants). Knowledge management is engaged in seeking, innovating, developing and re-using “what works”. Sustainable development criteria falls on the lower right quadrant.

Parallel protocols for validation and selection of mental models for the left side of Ken Wilber’s quadrants (see figure below) are not yet fully developed. Protocols for application to validation of experiential data (upper left quadrant) are still being developed in the discipines of transpersonal and paranormal psychology and in phenomenological research. There is no consensus on how “individual benefit” (upper left quadrant) is to be defined and assessed. What does it consist of? Money? Social opportunities? Learning and realizing human potential? Security? Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a step in clarifying this area. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the slew of accessory protocols on other aspects and varieties of human rights is a notable contribution on the lower left quadrant. Surprisingly, the Rotary Club’s “Four-Way Test” fits very well with Ken Wilber’s framework and provides commonly-understandable or laymen criteria for the four quadrants:

Rotary 4-way test

I have written about Ken Wilber’s framework and applied it in many ways in past blogs:

Cheers!

Note that there are embedded links in this blog post. They show up as colored text. While pressing “Ctrl” click on any link to create a new tab to reach the webpages pointed to.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index