Replying to LO28015
Dear lo-learners:
I have read the first paragraph of At's answer to Elixabete and then I
skipped to the last paragraph (to figure out the length of the post,
before printing it ;-) And I read his last sentence, without having yet
seen the rest of his post, namely his references to elephants.
At 11:48 20-03-2002, AM de Lange wrote:
>(...)
>
>Elixabete, I can mention other disadvantages too, but they all boil down
>to one thing: too little living in the present Systems Thinking. I wonder
>what Artur da Silva will say on my answer to you.
Apart, from the "provocation" (and that is not a criticism, on the
contrary, as, acording to de Bono, provocation is one of the best ways to
induce "lateral thinking") and only because I was thinking at At, a sermon
came to my mind ;-)
Mt 19:24 (see also MC 10:25, for confirmation):
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye
of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God".
I know nothing about the kingdom of God (and almost nothing about LOs - I
am still learning ;-) but I think that I can formulate my thinking this
way:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for an
OO (Ordinary Organization) to become a LO by studying and practicing the 5
disciplines".
And that is also my answer to Elixabete ;-)
Indeed, IMO there are no drawbacks of an organization BEING a LO. But...
...there are some problems, namely:
1. are there any LOs in real life? Or an LO is an ideal like "goodness" -
we can be closer and closer but never really arrive there [except,
eventually to some American government minds that always seem to know
where is Good (God) and were is Evil (god) ].
2. How do we know that an Organization is (or not) a LO when we see one?
(can the blind men recognize the elephant? and each one of them?)
3. Can someone propose a definition of LO that is accepted by the others?
Will that definition refer to the 5 (or 6? or 7?) disciplines? Or will it
refer to At's 7 Essentialities of Creativity or to de Geus' 4
characteristics of a living company? I don't know if this has already been
tried in the list but it would be interesting to try again...
4. If we have an Ordinary Organization how can we facilitate the
emergence (the first metanoia) of a LO? By TEACHING something (a
discipline)? Is teaching really a synonymous of learning, as the
Universities and some consultants seem to think? Or teaching is the
opposite of learning (*)? and if it is so, then maybe to have a LO the
first thing that we (and the CEO) must do is to stop teaching? And, on
the contrary, enhance learning about everything and not only about some
disciplines. And that also includes the Fine Arts, of course...
Ok, there are some drawbacks not in LOs but in some of the paradigms (or
Mental Models) about LOs. And there are, IMHO, some drawbacks in the way
some consultants try to "create" LOs (instead of "inducing" the emergence
of LOs - which is a completely different...elephant).
And yes, At (and Ana), maybe one of the reasons why it is so difficult for
an OO to become a LO, is the fact that most of us have been indoctrinated
in old and absurd (mechanist) Mental Models by the main fabric of OOs -
our Universities... (a machine being, in my mind, the contrary of a living
being - try to study a living being following the methods of Descartes -
first cut the animal in its pieces (or shall I say its "disciplines"?),
and then...
And, Ana, maybe the characteristics of an University, when compared with a
LO are similar to the characteristics of the Public Administration (at
least here in Portugal - probably not so much in UK...) but that is not
the point - characteristics of PA will disseminate only within the PA,
characteristics of Universities will (are), through their students,
contaminating all the organizations and sectors. That is, BTW, the reason
I think it is very important that you conclude the explanations of your
"list of differences" as soon as possible (and in English).
My two cents (of Euro)
Regards
Artur
(*) I am not sure if Universities should know better. I am quite convinced
that they are unable to know better, due to the very characteristics we
are examining. As an example - in a lot of Universities there is
discussion about e-learning. But in fact what they are discussing and
practicing is e-teaching - ways to use technology to impart knowledge in a
more efficient way. If we refer to the type of learning that can be
constructed through sharing and dialogue in a list or searching freely on
the Web, that is not discussed nor encouraged at the University. And even
some pioneer work has been immediately stopped when "regular" Professors
took control over it... I will came to that one of these days in a post on
"LOs and Higher Ed - a Portuguese experience revisited after 3 years"...
In the meanwhile, please visit the first part : "LOs in Higher Ed - a
Portuguese experience" at: http://www.learning-org.com/98.10/0027.html
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@mail.eunet.pt>
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.