Replying to LO27866 --
Richard - you asked a very important question, and I was lurking before
giving a (lateral) answer but maybe laterality will provoke the straighter
thinkers
at loop 1, I'd say all of us where we fail to connect our own discliplines
actionably with the OL's multidiscipline
at loop 2, I would say the measurement systems most companies actually
employ currently, and (unless its being done and I don't know wheer) the
failure to develop some performance standard transition so that OL could
save organisation's measurement systems from themselves ...
I suppose Peter's paper isnt freely circulatable electronically. It
sounded huge. (reference : One debate that pulls out these differences is
in the book (2000) by Beer and Nohria, _Breaking the Code of Change_ which
includes two papers focused on this directly, one by Mike Jensen (one of
the best known advocates of the financial return perspective) and one by
me (ie Peter Senge)
[Host's Note: No, I do not have the paper in electronic form. I'm anxious
to read it myself. ..Rick]
chris macrae, wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
http://www.egroups.com/group/simplysee
>Who are the most responsible people who DISAGREE with the organizational
>learning field? Who are the challengers to these ideas?
--"chris macrae" <wcbn007@easynet.co.uk>
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.