Barry Mallis, in LO27036, writes:
>Fred,
>
>I liked your simple expression concerning organizations and communities of
>practice. It makes me wonder further about whether organizations have some
>intangible "power" to learn.
I don't know. They might but I doubt it. Nope; I don't think so.
>Help me here.
>
>Are there not hypotheses, backed by phenomenological evidence, that groups
>of organisms possess discernable attributes usually not seen in
>individuals members of the group?
I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised. Six men can certainly lift a
log that one couldn't and two can converse whereas one can only talk to
himself. It's difficult to grapple with such a sweeping statement.
>At an extreme, we describe "mass
>hysteria" and palpable physical effects it has on humans. Can amoebas act
>in a group the way they would not alone, much like schooling fish, herding
>mammals, Gloria Estefan concert-goers, looters?
Yes. The notion that individuals behave differently in group settings is,
I believe, the essence of an area of study called "group dynamics." But,
then, people behave differently in theatres than they do at ball games and
in church.
>I wonder how much of a stretch it is to think that these "organizations"
>actually learn/acquire behaviors (especially higher up the food chain).
I think it's a big stretch.
>Now, if there's something to all this, if some kind of "weak force" in
>organizations makes the Organization itself learn in a way that is
>different from the learning of individual members OUTSIDE the dynamics
>(whatever THAT is) of the organization, then maybe organizations DO learn,
>too.
Forgive me but I believe what appears immediately above is a bit
circular...as I read it, it seems to be saying that if the organization
learns then organizations learn.
Much of this discussion (and some others related to it) seems to me to be
anchored in the way we use language. It is common, for example, to hear
or see someone say or write that "The team improved its performance." We
can even gather data to support that assertion. However, what we're
really saying is that the individuals making up that team got better at
working together. Or, in the case of the Xerox technicians who Julian Orr
studied, the individual technicians got better at what they did
individually as a result of sharing their knowledge and experiences.
Ditto for the claims examiners that Etienne Wenger studied.
So, for me, a learning organization is an organization in which individual
learning is fostered and nurtured (and exploited) but it is not a place
where the organization itself learns in the same sense that people learn.
Fred Nickols
The Distance Consulting Company
"Assistance at A Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@att.net
(609) 490-0095
--Fred Nickols <nickols@att.net>
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.