Replying to LO29906 --
Don:
Don Dwiggins wrote:
>>Come on Don, what theory? I'm asking what it is, not whether
>>it needs watering or is permanent. It's not incomplete, it's
>>missing. Water what?
>>What is it?
>
>"It" is any theory -- yours, mine, Senge's, whichever -- that purports to
>explain the operation of an LO, and implies which actions will help the LO
>and which will hurt it. I don't believe that there's one all-singing,
>all-dancing, all-valid theory applicable to all LOs (let alone OOs
>struggling to become LOs).
Couldn't agree with you more. All I'm asking for is an articulation of
the one or more theories that Senge happens to have, or had. I'm not
asking for the one true, all-valid theory of OL -- just the one that Peter
happens to have as a basis for his 5D theory of practice.
>As At describes "at length", there's a complex relationship among
>practices, essences, and theories, and these relationships need to be
>respected.
Again I agree. But I ask again, what is the particular theory that lies
behind Peter's 5 disciplines? Or what is the range of theories?
Somebody throw me a bone here, please.
Thanks,
Mark
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
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.