Replying to LO29898 --
Dear Organlearners,
Rod Sarah <Rod.Sarah@monyx.com> writes:
>I'm interested in the idea of building capabilities or org learning
>and whether these capabilities are at the individual level and/or
>at the org level. However, some of the literature and writings
>refer to 'capability building' and 'capacity building' and that
>learning is a 'competency' that an organisation needs to build.
Greetings dear Rod,
Your request stunned me. I have noticed too that some use capability and
other use capacity. I thought they were synomymous. But English is not my
mother tongue. So i had to consult the dictionaries to make sure what they
mean.
Both is derived from the Latin "capio"=take. But the "ability" is derived
from the Latin "habilis"=skillful. Thus "capability" seems to imply the
excercise and thus the expertise in order to receive something in
particular whereas "capacity" implies a general propensity to take hold
all of a certain nature. In my mother tongue Afrikaans we have
"capability"=bekwaamheid while "capacity"=hoedanigheid. This may mean that
"capability" focus on the outcome ("being") while "capacity" focus on the
process ("becoming"). In other words, it seems that "capability" has to do
with the "what" while "capacity" has to do with the "how". Thus
"capability" seems to be closer related to competency than "capacity".
However, i am still not sure what the actual difference is between them.
The longer I try to do self what you have in mind, the more i become
convinced that we have to focus on that which enables and sustains
learning rather than that which makes up learning. For example, a plant
cannot grow when the soil is poor and the water insufficient. Learning is
a creative act, perhaps the most creative act among all of humankind. Thus
i am increasingly inclined to promote the creativity of people so that
their higher faculties like learning can benefit from it. A person
creatively stunted cannot learn under all circumstances.
A couple of weeks ago i assisted in the interviews of candidates for a
graduate job. What striked me is that they were all well trained to do the
job according to certain recipes, but once they were confronted with
situations unfamiliar to their graduate training, they had no clue how to
deal with them. I made sure that they were all creative people, yet no one
knew that his/her own creativity is the key to act decisively in unfamilar
situations.
>As a relative recent 'lurker' on the list, I apologise if this has
>been 'done over' in a past conversation thread - perhaps you
>can point me in that direction - however I'm interested in
>exploring this distinction and different perspectives on this theme.
In a truely open dialogue serving personal mastery and team learning no
topic can be covered too many times. Anyway, your request is most crucial.
An organisation cannot be transformed overnight into a LO. Not even a
fundamental directive by the CEO can accomplish it. For example, a plant
can only flower when it has been nurtured carefully to do so.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
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.