Replying to LO27935 --
Dear Organlearners,
Elixabete Escalona" <eliescalona@hotmail.com> writes:
>...since I joined, two weeks ago, I have been trying
>to catch up with all the messages that I had missed!
Greetings dear Elixabete,
These words makes me think that you are a very brave learner. I am glad
that you have joined our LO-dialogue.
>My experience showed me that many aspects of
>the ISO 9000 were against the philosophy of the
>L-O and I though that this could be an interesting
>topic for my research. I hope that you find it of
>interest as well.
The ISO 9000 reminds me of a confectionary shop while the LO reminds me of
home where delicacies are prepared with loving care. In the confectionaty
shop recipes are used slavishly to ensure consistency between
confectionary from the past, present and future. In the home the recipe
book is gathering dust while each delicacy is prepared to become a greater
master piece than the former ones.
My one daughter is a food technologist who works for a large baking
industry. She is responsible for the research and development of new
products. She is a master cook/baker despite her training ;-). Their
industry follows the ISO 9### certifications, placing them in a better
position to get contracts. As also an artist she often gets very
frustrated when thinking how her master pieces get copied with fidelity in
a production line, losing all the fun she had in developing them. But she
also knows she gets paid by the products which they sell and not the art
needed to create those production lines.
>As experts on the L-O, I feel there are no better
>people to ask so I would be most appreciative if
>you could give me your views on this idea. I
>understand that ISO certificate, as a Quality
>measure can be a subset of the L-O while the
>L-O may have a more holistic approach within
>the organisation.
Dear Elixabete, I for one would feel much better if I am called a learner
rather than an expert. The word expert is defined as someone who has a
specialised knowledge. (For me an expert has too little otherness in
knowledge.) Yet, strangely enough, the words expert and experience are
derived from the same Latin root "experior"=to_try_out. It is this
"experior" which is so important in learning.
When I thought of the 7Es (seven essentialities of creativity) and your
request, my first reaction was that quality and wholeness need not to be
seen as opposing forces. The essentiality otherness has to do with quality
and diversity whereas the essentiality wholeness has to do with unity and
associativity. In measurements themselves the focus is on the essentiality
spareness which involves quantity and limit.
I often said that in my own understanding these 7Es do not work
independantly from each other. Each one depends on the other six. Thus it
is possible to look through the one at the remaining six. I think that
with Quality Measurement (QM) as it is practised, the essentiality
spareness ("quanitity-limit") is used to look at only the "quality"
aspect of otherness ("quality-variety"). But what about its "diveristy"
aspect? And what about the other five essentialities liveness
("becoming-being"), sureness ("identity-context), wholeness, fruitfulness
("connect-beget") and openness ("open-paradigm")?
I have indicated a few weeks ago how the 7Es are related to
Peter Senge's 11 essences of a LO. What I said about the 7Es
applies also to the 11 essences. See for example:
"Central Notions... Challenges... LO27864"
< http://www.learning-org.com/02.02/0124.html >
Whoever tries to certificate an organisation as a LO, will have
to look at all 11 essences and not merely one or two of them.
There is something else which I also want to entrust to this LO
dialogue. It is the "metanoia" so characterestic of a LO whereas
an OO (Ordinary Organisation) has too much "orthonoia" and
"paranoia". In
"metanoia organizations LO25138"
< http://www.learning-org.com/00.08/0014.html >
you will find an explanation of how the three differ.
Is it necessary to certify this "metanoia" of a LO? I do not think so. Is
it necessary to certify that Mona Lisa is a painting of Da Vinci or that
the Ninth Symphony is a composition of Beethoven? Similarly the "metanoia"
of each LO is not only characterestic of that LO, but also unique to that
LO.
Can this "metanoia" of a LO be certified at all? I do not think so.
Whenever a person appreciates a work of art, that person finds in it
something which somebody else before did not found. It is because such a
work of art do not merely articulate/explicate something, but also hints
to a vast implicate (hidden) order from which this explication stems.
Similarly the "metanoia" of a LO hints at that which made the animal "Homo
sapiense" humane.
It is a good to have the specifications of some"thing" which has to be
"worked with". (Please note that I avoid using the usual "used as a
tool"). The specifications tell us what can be expected from that "thing".
But the specs cannot tell us how to make that expectations actual. For
that a skilled worker is needed. The LO is for me not some"thing" or a
tool which merely needs to be specified. The LO is much more the skilled
worker who have to work with that some"thing" so as to actualise what is
expected from the LO specifications which Senge gave in the Fifth
Discipline.
Nevertheless, humans will always try to specify anything, even the skilled
worker! That is typical of the nature of humankind. It is when humans
begin to mistake the specifications for the actual thing when all the
trouble starts.
>If one employee tackles an issue out of his/her
>responsibilities, this would go against the norm
>of the ISO. In this sense, while the L-O is trying
>to create a climate in which people can experiment
>and learn, the ISO regulations set up limitations
>for each individual.
Beautifully said. It reminds me of "expert" and "experience", both coming
from the Latin "experior"=to_try_out. I think that the ISO regulations are
trying to transform the LO into an Expert System which it cannot ever be.
The outcome of this will be devastating because rote learning will
displace authentic learning.
I suspect that the ISO specifications came about as a result of rote
learning rather than authentic learning. Such rote learning makes it very
difficult, if not impossible, to understand that quality and diversity are
two aspects of one thing, namely otherness.
Your "an issue out of his/her responsibilities" makes me think of the many
issues of which one part of each lies within the person's responsibilities
and the other part outside it. It is tragic how much such issues are
avoided. It has to do with the dictature of LEM (Law of Excluded Middle)
-- it has to be either the one side or the other side, but not both sides.
When this LEM becomes the pivot of any certification, then that
certification becomes useless for the purpose of creativity and all which
flow forth from it, including learning.
>I would appreciate your opinions on this as I
>feel that your views can be of great interest.
I want to thank you for jumping whole heartedly into this messy thing
called Certification. It again tells me how brave you are. I think you
already have experienced enough resistance to your course of questioning.
Therefor I want to encourage you to keep up with this course of
questioning.
One last thing, is the name Elixabete merely the Spanish (?) version of
Elisabeth?
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
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.