Dear @ALF: You have provided an excellent example of attacking the person and avoiding the argument, yet you lecture on “Respect for People.” Tsk tsk.
@Michael – I don’t always agree with your takes. And, to be frank, you can kinda come off like a jerk sometimes too.
It is easy to come off sounding like a jerk online — it is the unfortunate nature of social media. But it is a terrible mistake to confuse sharp online comments with the human being that posts them. Informed judgments about people are made through personal relationships.
But while I appreciate your comment about seeing past rudeness to the debate, that’s certainly not Respect for People. If Bob wants to disagree, that’s fine, but never once have I ever seen him “seek first to understand”… it’s ALWAYS “I’m right, you’re wrong, and here’s a link to my website”.
“Never once” and “always” are pure hyperbole and speculation given that you have no way of knowing. By the way, it is not merely “a link to my web site.” It is a link to evidence and facts that supports my argument (evidence and facts being of great importance in Lean-world).
It’s exhausting. I stopped reading and following him years ago – it’s the same plucked string over and over and over.
Apparently you are still tuning in. Thank you! My body of work is diverse — the most diverse Lean-world — so you are factually incorrect about “the same plucked string.”
Even today, he’s got a rebuttal piece on his own blog about all of this because he simply can’t accept that he may 1. be wrong, 2. not get the last word. Again – both firmly against Respect for People. It’s sad & pathetic, really.
Click here to read the rebuttal (which you are welcome to rebut, with facts — don’t merely complain again). I am certain that I am wrong about numerous things, given the breadth and depth of my work, and I can easily accept that. The difficulty is that those who say I am wrong invariably base their argument on tone, simplistic contradiction, obfuscation, evasion, and misdirection (lots of straw man arguments). They fail to refute the central point and mount counterarguments based on evidence. That’s what is sad and pathetic, really. Oh, one more thing: This is not yet the last word. 😁
Respect means being heard, trusted and considered. It doesn’t mean we have to treat each other with kid gloves, but it certainly does mean that we should use words like “I don’t understand what you mean…” and “Can you explain what you meant by…”.
“Respect for People” also means to challenge and develop people (could be a peer or one’s superior), and calling people out if what they say is wrong or misleading because doing that is most disrespectful. The words you cite in quotes originate from training in active listening between two or more persons. In written posts, there is no active listening; the protocols are different and apparently do not meet with your satisfaction.
Bob and his ilk do none of these. FFS – NONE of us ever met Taylor – he died over 100 years ago, so all of this is an effort in futility. All this “Taylor meant this and that” is at best an interpretation of what he left behind. To argue over it seems pretty pointless.
The fact that we have not met Taylor is irrelevant — another straw man argument. It is not an “interpretation” when Taylor’s when the facts, based on primary sources, are cited. What is pointless is to whine, as you have done here. You do not address the argument I made, nor do you refute my central points. And, most importantly, you fail to criticize Dr. Ballé for misinforming and misleading his readers and customers (don’t worry, I took care of that for you). The feedback and coaching I provided here demonstrates my respect for you. There is no need to link to my web site, is there? Sure there is.