Replying to LO28028 --
One question in particular raised by Artur caught my attention:
> 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...
I find a great deal of sense and wisdom in the statement, "then maybe to
have a LO the first thing that we ... must do is to stop teaching?" I
think that is largely true -- at the very least, we must be as interested
in learning as we are in teaching. One of the major difficulties in the
training field is that the focus is generally on teaching rather than on
learning. Very different activities and processes, and certainly not
synonymous!
There is at least a subtle difference between instruere (to put in) and
educere (to draw out), and I think it's relevant to the LO ideal. An LO
does not occur via instruction -- putting in -- but by way of educere --
drawing out.
Terri
tadeems@aol.com
---------------
Terri A. Deems, PhD
WorkLife Design
The Art of People at Work
Re-Spiriting Work through Organizational Change, Development, &
Transformation;
Career Management & Outplacement;
Training, Coaching, & Consulting Services
DesMoines Scottsdale Moline
515-964-0219
--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.