Replying to LO24578 --
This raises an issue about the LO approach in general that I've been
musing about, and would appreciate feedback on.
It seems to me that dialogue and its attendant disciplines represent a
reintroduction of feminine energy and perspective into an environment that
has become hyper-masculinized, to its detriment. (We can substitute yin
and yang, or any pair of opposites you like for feminine and masculine.)
The notion of the learning circle in contrast with the organizational
pyramid captures this graphically for me.
In a recent conversation with a friend who is a major author and historian
of LO, he said, "LO is becoming pretty well discredited now in business
circles as too being too slow to produce results and too bureaucratic.
The charismatic leader is back in favor. " Putting aside what this may
say about the purposes and vision of business, or even whether it is
wholly accurate, it does capture for me what I think (perhaps in my
ignorance of the subject) is a challenge in the evolution of LO
understanding--how does it give birth to a new and viable understanding of
hierarchy that allows an LO to persist and develop through the
vicissitudes of time? (Am I correct that there are few examples of newly
minted LOs that survive a particular initiative?) I imagine this as the
reintegration of the masculine into a view that has now swung too far in
the other direction.
(Obligatory Disclaimer: Masculine and feminine, as I use them, are not
linked to specific men and women. We each have both, although women in
same-sex groups may naturally emphasize the "feminine", and men "the
masculine.")
--Michael Chender <mchender@netcom.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.