Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [cp] Stimulating interest??

Expand Messages
  • Andy Roberts
    ... Hi Rosanna, Replying to an old ( but important) post here - I got distracted... I m familiar with the seed crystal analogy, and I think it s a good one. In
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 24/01/06, Rosanna <rosanna@...> wrote:

      > There are two ways of forming a CoP (I say two cause I don't believe in the
      > third, the "built" one):
      > 1) "spontaneously":
      > I don't believe it is *really* spontaneous, it's more like somebody doing
      > the work but not doing what s/he is doing... according to the Johari window,
      > it's the state of "unconscious competence". It's is more or like the case in
      > which an "unconscious" nucleator starts aggregating a CoP not knowing what
      > s/he is doing:
      > 2) "nucleated":
      > you follow me on this, my background is in medicine. Stones get formed in a
      > liquid that is supersaturated with a given solute. However, supersaturation
      > is necessary but not sufficient. It takes a little "piece of something",
      > like a cluster of some 5-10 cells, a kidney cylinder, few bacteria. That
      > "piece" in a supersaturated solution starts what is known as stone
      > "nucleation". So, what I do in my practice is to search for the
      > supersaturated solution (aka: a 10-20 member network among 3 or 4
      > departments, like Verna Allee would say) and then I search for the "piece"
      > to shove into it. The piece can be my "formal/informal" leadership, but most
      > often it is my detection of a subgroup of people that could be autochthones
      > leaders, a topic that can create debate (and therefore emergence of a
      > leader), sometimes shifting focus/technology attracts the "right" leader. It
      > depends.

      Hi Rosanna,

      Replying to an old ( but important) post here - I got distracted...

      I'm familiar with the seed crystal analogy, and I think it's a good
      one. In fact this idea of 'nucleation' is well known not only to
      natural scientists but to certain strains of social scientists also.

      The phrase which comes to my mind is 'subjective factor' . Sometimes
      a situation may be ripe for change but without anybody who both knows
      what they are doing and is in a position to intervene, then the
      opportunity can pass and the pressures subside again, which leads to a
      fundamentally different and possibly negative and enduring outcome.

      The theoretical basis for this I think is Hegel's dialectics - the
      transition of quantitive into into qualitative changes but the idea of
      the subjective factor - the conscious seed crystal, may be included
      in some theory of combined and uneven development. Not sure about
      that, you may know of a natural science version - echoes of chaos and
      non linear equations perhaps, but not exactly.

      Myself I believe that the 'built' version of the process is just about
      possible, but it takes a lot more effort and will often fail.

      --
      Andy Roberts

      http://distributedresearch.net/blog
      http://distributedresearch.net/wiki
    • John D. Smith
      Andy, I agree with your statement: Myself I believe that the built version of the process is just about possible, but it takes a lot more effort and will
      Message 2 of 20 , Mar 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Andy,

        I agree with your statement:

        "Myself I believe that the 'built' version of the process is just about
        possible, but it takes a lot more effort and will often fail. "

        Doesn't that depend on whether we put ourselves outside, hold ourselves
        separate from the imagined community? I think we can be very inventive in
        being unspontaneous and mechanistic, or we can be very inventive in
        imagining ourselves as part of a community we seek to create. But somehow
        imagining ourselves as separate is the most tenacious view. (Or at least
        that's my experience.)

        John
        *
        * John D. Smith - John.Smith@... Voice: 503.963.8229
        * "Tomorrow is not promised." -- Kitty Margolis
      • Rosanna
        Hello John, You wrote: But somehow imagining ourselves as separate is the most tenacious view. That all depends on which paradigm we buy into , ie: Vygotsky
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello John,

          You wrote:
          "But somehow imagining ourselves as separate is the most tenacious view."

          That all depends on which paradigm we "buy into", ie: Vygotsky or Argyris?
          The former maintains learning is a social construct (therefore the
          learner/observer can NOT be separated from what s/he observes), the latter
          maintains reflection is the way to make sense of observations (therefore the
          learner, in order to understand and generalize something HAS to be separated
          from what s/he observes).

          The corollary of all of it is, is "making" (or observing) CoPs art or
          science? Is it some "sacred fire" that inspires artist-practitioners or
          "pragmatic thoughts" that drive scientist-practitioners?

          I say science, and a difficult one.

          Rosanna Tarsiero

          "Knowledge must come through action"
          -Sophocles
          https://www.linkedin.com/in/gionnetto
        • Roy Greenhalgh
          Rosanna Thanks for a succinct definition of one of the differences between Vygotsky and Argyris. Roy
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Rosanna

            Thanks for a succinct definition of one of the differences between
            Vygotsky and Argyris.

            Roy

            Rosanna wrote:

            >Hello John,
            >
            >You wrote:
            >"But somehow imagining ourselves as separate is the most tenacious view."
            >
            >That all depends on which paradigm we "buy into", ie: Vygotsky or Argyris?
            >The former maintains learning is a social construct (therefore the
            >learner/observer can NOT be separated from what s/he observes), the latter
            >maintains reflection is the way to make sense of observations (therefore the
            >learner, in order to understand and generalize something HAS to be separated
            >from what s/he observes).
            >
            >The corollary of all of it is, is "making" (or observing) CoPs art or
            >science? Is it some "sacred fire" that inspires artist-practitioners or
            >"pragmatic thoughts" that drive scientist-practitioners?
            >
            >I say science, and a difficult one.
            >
            >Rosanna Tarsiero
            >
            >"Knowledge must come through action"
            >-Sophocles
            >https://www.linkedin.com/in/gionnetto
            >
            >
            >
            >*-- The email forum on communities of practice --*
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • John D. Smith
            I think Maturana would say you have to be inside AND outside of the system you observe. Maybe the trick is some kind of switching back and forth. I remember a
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I think Maturana would say you have to be inside AND outside of the system
              you observe. Maybe the trick is some kind of switching back and forth.

              I remember a cool video of a class Maturana gave to some SoL people 10 years
              ago. He's standing on a stage, obviously a very distinguished Chilean with
              a white scarf who's also obviously trained at Harvard Medical School. At
              one point he talks about how "seeing your own point of view is essential but
              also kind of impossible." He jumps and tries to look UNDER his shoes.
              Can't really do it. Very charming and vivid.

              John
              *
              * John D. Smith - John.Smith@... Voice: 503.963.8229
              * "Tomorrow is not promised." -- Kitty Margolis
            • Rosanna
              John, You wrote: I think Maturana would say you have to be inside AND outside of the system you observe. Maybe the trick is some kind of switching back and
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                John,

                You wrote:
                "I think Maturana would say you have to be inside AND outside of the system
                you observe. Maybe the trick is some kind of switching back and forth."

                Right on, right on!

                Do you remember what I said to you in Milano when we were brainstorming with
                Jason? This tension, the switching between opposites, is a characteristic of
                CoPs.... that's another difference between CoPs and groups.

                Rosanna Tarsiero
                "Knowledge must come through action"
                -Sophocles
                https://www.linkedin.com/in/gionnetto
              • Andy Roberts
                ... Yes, that s what we do. I don t see Vygotsky s social learning and Argyris s reflection as being contradictory at all. Our initial deas are shaped by
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 04/03/06, John D. Smith <john.smith@...> wrote:
                  > I think Maturana would say you have to be inside AND outside of the system
                  > you observe. Maybe the trick is some kind of switching back and forth.
                  >
                  Yes, that's what we do.
                  I don't see Vygotsky's social learning and Argyris's reflection as
                  being contradictory at all. Our initial deas are shaped by social
                  interactions, but anything radically new is perhaps more likely to
                  arise in an individual's isolated reflections first, which are then
                  developed and taken back to the social arena for validation and
                  further development, after which more individual reflections may occur
                  and so on. Both social and individual learning occur in a series of
                  loops, hopefully forming a positive spiral.

                  > I remember a cool video of a class Maturana gave to some SoL people 10 years
                  > ago. He's standing on a stage, obviously a very distinguished Chilean with
                  > a white scarf who's also obviously trained at Harvard Medical School. At
                  > one point he talks about how "seeing your own point of view is essential but
                  > also kind of impossible." He jumps and tries to look UNDER his shoes.
                  > Can't really do it. Very charming and vivid.

                  I have a problem with the assertion that all views are equally valid.

                  To me, this appears to lend credence to backwards and dangerous ideas
                  such as superstition, oppression, censorship, untruthful propaganda,
                  and worse.

                  By preaching acceptance and negotiation in all circumstances, this can
                  be unwittingly acting to prop up the status quo at times when exactly
                  the opposite is required, as history has demonstrated on a number of
                  occasions.

                  --
                  Andy Roberts

                  http://distributedresearch.net/blog
                  http://distributedresearch.net/wiki
                • bob van limburg
                  Research: the place of stakeholders. Dear Colleagues, I’d like to ask you your collaboration. I am working on a project on CoP and stakeholders. One thing
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 4, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Research: the place of stakeholders.

                    Dear Colleagues,
                    I’d like to ask you your collaboration.
                    I am working on a project on CoP and stakeholders. One
                    thing I’d like to know is the
                    Stakeholder’s forum position towards a firm’s
                    strategy. In this questionnaire there are
                    3 positions possible, a firms strategy, stakeholders
                    relationships and financial
                    performance.

                    The questionnaire goes as attachment.

                    Could you be so kind to let me know:

                    What positions is/are preferable and why?
                    What positions is/are most common?
                    Could you be so kind to send your short answer to:
                    bobbyvanlimburg@...

                    I thank you very much for your help.
                    Bob


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • bob van limburg
                    Research: the place of stakeholders. Dear Colleagues, I’d like to ask you your collaboration. I am working on a project on CoP and stakeholders. One thing
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 4, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Research: the place of stakeholders.

                      Dear Colleagues,
                      I’d like to ask you your collaboration.
                      I am working on a project on CoP and stakeholders. One
                      thing I’d like to know is the
                      Stakeholder’s forum position towards a firm’s
                      strategy. In this questionnaire there are
                      3 positions possible, a firms strategy, stakeholders
                      relationships and financial
                      performance.

                      The questionnaire goes as attachment.

                      Could you be so kind to let me know:

                      What positions is/are preferable and why?
                      What positions is/are most common?
                      Could you be so kind to send your short answer to:
                      bobbyvanlimburg@...

                      I thank you very much for your help.
                      Bob




                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • John D. Smith
                      Roasanna, I don t remember that but I d be interested in what you think the consequences of the another difference between CoPs and groups ... John * * John
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Roasanna,

                        I don't remember that but I'd be interested in what you think the
                        consequences of the
                        "another difference between CoPs and groups"...

                        John
                        *
                        * John D. Smith - John.Smith@... Voice: 503.963.8229
                        * "Tomorrow is not promised." -- Kitty Margolis
                      • Cornejo Castro, Miguel
                        Stimulating indeed :-). Going back to Andy s original reply about the spontaneous / nucleated / built origin of CoPs, art versus science, and being part or
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 6, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Stimulating indeed :-).

                          Going back to Andy's original reply about the spontaneous / nucleated / built origin of CoPs, art versus science, and being part or being external. Can't go into the learning theories, but there's some practical angle to this.

                          Last week I had a very interesting workshop with a few CoP facilitators, and one of them was saying (in other words) something very close to the science / external thesis: that starting and managing a CoP could be done with a person (catalyst) that was part of the medium, one among practice peers... But he's rather against that, saying that a thoroughly external catalyst, not part of the CoP except as an operator of social processes, was more effective and objective. Maybe some external "leader" as Andrew described.

                          I don't agree, for a number of reasons I reccomend always using a practitioner as catalyst and hands-on manager. But after a long discussion I had to admit there are very few (though important) reasons for choosing an internal "nucleation". And that in may occasions (see large corporate CoP efforts) those external catalysts can be unavoidable.

                          I still think it's like having to hire someone to perform as a family member...

                          ... but then, my arguments are purely practical (hyerarchical alignment, motivation, optimum resource allocation). I'd like to know if there's any coherent theoretical base to reccomend any of the two viewpoints.

                          The matter will be relevant for us next week when we undertake the launch of a new CoP (on IT security). We can go for a very slick operator who knows nothing about the subject... or we can go for a network security expert who's not particularly fond of (social) networking. The outsider or the insider; the one who won't be part of the learning process or the one who'll be deep into it.

                          Comments appreciated :-). Best regards,

                          Miguel



                          On 24/01/06, Rosanna <rosanna@...> wrote:

                          > There are two ways of forming a CoP (I say two cause I don't believe
                          > in the third, the "built" one):
                          > 1) "spontaneously":
                          > I don't believe it is *really* spontaneous, it's more like somebody
                          > doing the work but not doing what s/he is doing... according to the
                          > Johari window, it's the state of "unconscious competence". It's is
                          > more or like the case in which an "unconscious" nucleator starts
                          > aggregating a CoP not knowing what s/he is doing:
                          > 2) "nucleated":
                          > you follow me on this, my background is in medicine. Stones get formed
                          > in a liquid that is supersaturated with a given solute. However,
                          > supersaturation is necessary but not sufficient. It takes a little
                          > "piece of something", like a cluster of some 5-10 cells, a kidney
                          > cylinder, few bacteria. That "piece" in a supersaturated solution
                          > starts what is known as stone "nucleation". So, what I do in my
                          > practice is to search for the supersaturated solution (aka: a 10-20
                          > member network among 3 or 4 departments, like Verna Allee would say) and then I search for the "piece"
                          > to shove into it. The piece can be my "formal/informal" leadership,
                          > but most often it is my detection of a subgroup of people that could
                          > be autochthones leaders, a topic that can create debate (and therefore
                          > emergence of a leader), sometimes shifting focus/technology attracts
                          > the "right" leader. It depends.

                          Hi Rosanna,

                          Replying to an old ( but important) post here - I got distracted...

                          I'm familiar with the seed crystal analogy, and I think it's a good one. In fact this idea of 'nucleation' is well known not only to natural scientists but to certain strains of social scientists also.

                          The phrase which comes to my mind is 'subjective factor' . Sometimes a situation may be ripe for change but without anybody who both knows what they are doing and is in a position to intervene, then the opportunity can pass and the pressures subside again, which leads to a fundamentally different and possibly negative and enduring outcome.

                          The theoretical basis for this I think is Hegel's dialectics - the transition of quantitive into into qualitative changes but the idea of the subjective factor - the conscious seed crystal, may be included in some theory of combined and uneven development. Not sure about that, you may know of a natural science version - echoes of chaos and non linear equations perhaps, but not exactly.

                          Myself I believe that the 'built' version of the process is just about possible, but it takes a lot more effort and will often fail.

                          --
                          Andy Roberts



                          -----Mensaje original-----
                          De: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] En nombre de Andy Roberts
                          Enviado el: sábado, 04 de marzo de 2006 8:50
                          Para: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
                          Asunto: Re: [cp] Stimulating interest??

                          On 04/03/06, John D. Smith <john.smith@...> wrote:
                          > I think Maturana would say you have to be inside AND outside of the
                          > system you observe. Maybe the trick is some kind of switching back and forth.
                          >
                          Yes, that's what we do.
                          I don't see Vygotsky's social learning and Argyris's reflection as being contradictory at all. Our initial deas are shaped by social interactions, but anything radically new is perhaps more likely to arise in an individual's isolated reflections first, which are then developed and taken back to the social arena for validation and further development, after which more individual reflections may occur and so on. Both social and individual learning occur in a series of loops, hopefully forming a positive spiral.

                          > I remember a cool video of a class Maturana gave to some SoL people 10
                          > years ago. He's standing on a stage, obviously a very distinguished
                          > Chilean with a white scarf who's also obviously trained at Harvard
                          > Medical School. At one point he talks about how "seeing your own
                          > point of view is essential but also kind of impossible." He jumps and tries to look UNDER his shoes.
                          > Can't really do it. Very charming and vivid.

                          I have a problem with the assertion that all views are equally valid.

                          To me, this appears to lend credence to backwards and dangerous ideas such as superstition, oppression, censorship, untruthful propaganda, and worse.

                          By preaching acceptance and negotiation in all circumstances, this can be unwittingly acting to prop up the status quo at times when exactly the opposite is required, as history has demonstrated on a number of occasions.

                          --
                          Andy Roberts

                          http://distributedresearch.net/blog
                          http://distributedresearch.net/wiki


                          *-- The email forum on communities of practice --* Yahoo! Groups Links
                        • Rosanna
                          Hello Miguel :) You wrote: I don t agree, for a number of reasons I reccomend always using a practitioner as catalyst and hands-on manager. But after a long
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 6, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Miguel :)

                            You wrote:
                            "I don't agree, for a number of reasons I reccomend always using a
                            practitioner as catalyst and hands-on manager. But after a long discussion I
                            had to admit there are very few (though important) reasons for choosing an
                            internal "nucleation". And that in may occasions (see large corporate CoP
                            efforts) those external catalysts can be unavoidable."

                            One (important!!!) reason to choose an internal catalyst has to do with
                            organizational memory. If it is a member of the organization to nucleate the
                            CoP around him/her, the *memory* of that event will belong to the
                            organization, and it will become one of those "foundation myths" that keep
                            organizations alive in the memory of its components.

                            But, as your colleague said, often an external person is more lucid.

                            So what I do when I do it is this: I select an internal member and I do some
                            "shadow coaching", observing him/her in what s/he does in the CoP and
                            telling him/her what not to do, or how to do a better job. S/he will get all
                            the merit (who cares? I know *I* did it, and that's all I care about!) and
                            the CoP will be part of the organizational memory.

                            Rosanna Tarsiero
                            Online Facilitator , Gionnethics
                            rosanna@...
                            M: +393356759481
                            http://www.gionnethics.com
                            Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/e/fps/1127530/
                          • Rosanna
                            You wrote: I don t remember that but I d be interested in what you think the consequences of the another difference between CoPs and groups ... Ok John
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 6, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              You wrote:
                              "I don't remember that but I'd be interested in what you think the
                              consequences of the "another difference between CoPs and groups"..."

                              Ok John *you* asked for that ;)

                              Aside from the learning framework that is adopted (that is important, more
                              as a matter of hermeneutics though) in many books on CoPs as well as in many
                              hands-on accounts of CoPs (com-prac included) there is a creative tension
                              between practice and theory, which is what I referred to as a "ping-pong"
                              between practice a theory when we were in Milano.

                              That is, people share half-baked ideas and observations and then starts
                              discussing. Discussion, often, "mixes" theories and practices, back and
                              forth, to gain a new interpretation.

                              As much as I like Vygotsky, I realize this way of proceeding is typical of
                              action learning. In CoPs people aren't interested in building something new,
                              or having their perspective affirmed over others, they are interested in
                              finding the "truth", aka finding a way to frame the concepts they observe
                              that makes sense for *others* as well, so that they can *share*, create,
                              learn. They strive to find and use a "code" of communication (somebody -
                              like Maturana - would call it ***language*** with all its implications,
                              somebody else will call it a "codification approach", but NOT from a KM
                              perspective, it's linguistics!!!).

                              This process, as you can guess, is *intrinsically* collaborative (which is
                              why egos are afraid of it, and should be kept out of it): it takes one
                              learner to consider another learner's opinion to have the same dignity to be
                              listened to and carefully consider as worthy of attention as his/her own is.
                              That's why "experts" refrain from this kind of conversation (and that's why
                              World Bank KM initiative created a knowledge nobody uses, because they went
                              after experts opinion).

                              So, if we want to tell the difference between a group and a CoP all we have
                              to look at is the kind of hermeneutic that is used, which can safely be
                              retrieved from the type of storytelling (and its *morals*) that flow through
                              that set of persons.

                              To answer your questions, the consequences are mainly for the
                              manager/facilitator of a CoP, ie: deciding which kind of hermeneutic
                              behaviour to foster.

                              Basing on that, one either cultivates a CoP or a wanna-be CoP.

                              Rosanna Tarsiero
                              Online Facilitator , Gionnethics
                              rosanna@...
                              M: +393356759481
                              http://www.gionnethics.com
                              Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gionnetto
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.