Replying to LO28892 --
If you put it like that we couldn't agree more.
But then I assume we also agree that [true learning] requires a paradigm
shift in the [helped] in the sense that he/she needs to recognize:
A. the possibility of differing definitions as to what OL *is*;
B. the possibility (if not necessity) that each such differing definition
could actually present itself;
C. that each such definition may be explicit or implied by both sender and
recipient;
D. if explicit its true definition may be acknowledged or denied at will
by both sender and recipient.
This is a change process in itself and precedes the actual organizational
change process.
This also constitutes a large part of what I call "helping people to
learn/think". Added to this comes the explicit or implicit refusal in the
[helped] to be helped. So as usual the change process involved is a box-
in a box - in a box.
And perhaps the skill of unpacking all these boxes is the core of a
successful change process After all, you may lead a horse to water but you
can not make it drink.
That is why I prefer 'change coaching' to change management', but I
daren't even call myself a coach.
Gr.
Peter
>[As a contributor to this list i write:
>Thank you for your meta-perspective. As a facilitator of change i write:
>"Knowledge Management" - in my view - is not about knowledge, but about
>managing people. But "Learning Organisation" is not about learning, but
>about organising. etc.
--"Peter Westerhof" <p.westerhof@lixus.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.