All entries for June 2014
June 04, 2014
The idea of actually gathering knowledge when ideas conflict is something that seems hard nowadays. Coming across the theory of Hegel Triadic ‘T.A.S’ Dialectic which is a framework for acquiring knowledge out of conflicting ideas. Breaking down the acronym, where T-THESIS (is about one idea) and A-An-thesis is the idea that conflicts the original idea and S-Synthesis is the merging of the conflicting opinions in order to acquire a robust knowledge. The Synthesis is what caught my attention because people don’t often get to that stage whereby they would actually synthesis the two ideas to acquire a robust knowledge. It is actually comfortable for people in teams to play ‘Russian roulette’ in order to see which idea that would survive without reaching the synthesis phase.
To actually appreciate the importance of Synthesising conflicting knowledge, one would first have to appreciate and welcome contradictory ideas to start with because that’s the only way one would be able to move on to the third stage of actually synthesising the ideas. The importance of getting ideas that are conflicting in knowledge gathering is that not only do they allow humans to think outside the box but would enable them to actually derive better ways in tackling issues. The gateway to acquire and create quality knowledge thinking and sharing is to sought and welcome conflicting ideas.
June 03, 2014
It has been said that when a failure occurs in a system it is due to various human error. Errors of which would always find its way back to the leaders because they were not being ‘situationally aware’ in the first place. As individuals we sometimes perceive something to be ‘THIS’ (0ne thing) only for it to turn out to be ‘THAT’ (another thing). I think this a common mistake leaders make in organisations. They believe that since all the important process are in place, then everything other thing should be fine or can be overlooked.
To actually minimise the level at which human error occur in organisational context, it has to start with the leader actually being ‘Genuinely Involved’ because being involved is totally different from being genuinely involved. Leaders might actually be fully aware of happenings around them and not make any changes about it but to be genuinely involved actually kick starts the whole process of putting measures in place that would reduce the level of human error to the barest minimal.