Replying to LO27527 --
On November 11, Chris Macrae wrote, in part,
> 3) It's time people started measuring the other 85% , even if it means
> forming standards as we go. A relevant example is the Baldrige movement.
> Which formed a standard for what it meant by quality over years of
> evolving/negotiating the standard
It's here that I remain unconvinced. I am no proponent of the received
wisdom about "what gets measured gets attended to," as it seems to me that
this falls into precisely the trap Chris identifies: a mental model of
organizational accountancy that equates measurability and enumerability
with assessment. And this is precisely why I answered David Mather's
original message as I did.
I believe (as do others on the list, I think) that "assessment" of the
value of an activity or state of organizational being, in order to
determine whether it's worthwhile, can be accomplished in a variety of
ways. My first choice in assessment approaches would certainly not be by
auditing, since to me this presupposes an accountancy model that doesn't
match the intent of organizational learning very well.
> 4) A start with learning organisation could be made by forming a top 5
> consensus of needs that employees need to truly participate in learning
> organisation. Experts such as Senge could help make a top items list.
This, to me, would be quite antithetical to organizational learning as
I've practised it for ten years. A "top items list" is an abstraction
almost certainly devoid of application to any particular learning process.
I've worked in a number of different organizations as an internal and
external consultant, and I continue to learn, each time, how unique each
one is, even within the context of the five disciplines as an informing
model.
> 5) If we don't start measuring stuff which accountants find it convenient
> for their monopoly to say just can't be audited, organisations will get
> systematically worse and worse.
Could you provide me with some evidence for this assertion? It's not
self-evident to me
> I can't really understand why
> you are on a LO list but have no interest in trying to audit LO, to the
> extent that you even imply that system principles may not exist
>
> 6) I hope this thread continues with no holds barred arguments presented
> on both sides...
To be honest, I'm much less interested in the "no holds barred argument"
model of exchange than in a more reflective attempt to listen to, and
explore, one another's models and perspectives. If you can't understand,
as you suggest, why I'm on the list, merely because I don't see things the
same way you do, then I'd encourage you to ask me to explain.
Malcolm C. Burson
Director of Special Projects
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
--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.