Replying to LO28693
Fred Nickols thoughtfully writes, in part:
> Organizations also acquire the capacity for new action based on
>the design or redesign and engineering or reengineering of their business
>processes. Ditto for the introduction of new systems, new machinery, new
>plants, etc. Does that qualify as "organizational learning"? I, for
>one, don't think so.
But wouldn't that redesign or new systems be put in place by a person (or
persons) who had 'learned' something, and doesn't the redesign thus
transfer that individual learning to the organization?
>Yet, there is something to be said for that view. On
>page 14 of his book, Senge writes that the basic meaning of a learning
>organization is "an organization that is continually expanding its
>capacity to create its future." Does not the creation of new processes,
>new systems, new plants, etc. contribute to the creation of the
>organization's future? I think the honest answer is maybe yes, maybe no.
>Only time will tell if the bets made today will pay off tomorrow.
Of course this applies to individuals, as well. I may learn something
(e.g., to trust strangers) that winds up harming me later (e.g. when I get
mugged by someone I identified as a harmless panhandler).
>Back now to the final point of the essay question, the "interdependency
>of individual and organizational learning." I don't believe they are
>interdependent. I do believe that organizational learning (at least in
>so far as people are concerned) is dependent upon individual learning. I
>do not believe that individual learning is dependent upon organizational
>learning because "organizational learning," as stated above, is merely a
>shorthand way of referring to patterns in individual learning.
So if the organization has been, let's say, redesigned, do not people
learn from that? Suppose that we create a Chief Learning Officer (CLO),
and position the Chief Information Officer (CIO) as a 'direct report' to
the CLO ... Does this not help people learn that Information is actually
subsidiary to Learning? And learning is the higher order and the more
important? And that perhaps technology should serve the learning of the
organization?
Perhaps we are talking, not about 'organizational learning' but rather
about the 'institutionalization of individual learning.' Or even the
'transfer of individual learning to members of an organizationally
sponsored network'? Or is that phrasing merely dodging the issue of our
tendency to anthropomorphize organizations and give them human attributes
thereby somehow letting the people that comprise the organization off the
hook for what 'the organization' does ...
Michael A
--Michael Ayers 3M Center IT Communication, Consulting, & Professional Development 224-2NE-02 St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 Tel: (651) 733-5690 --- Fax: (651) 737-7718 mbayers@mmm.com
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.