Clyde,
I read and reread your article and thought and rethought so many times I
gave myself a headache! I've swayed back and forth so many times about
whether or not the military (past or present), fits the definition of a
learning organization, that I'm nearly seasick. I find that when I
examine a military unit's well-defined mission (elite special forces, for
example), and they are conducting their mission, they fit the LO mold very
well. But when I step out of the mission arena, competition between
individuals, units, organizations, services, and even allied nations,
dispels my notion that military organizations are LOs. IMHO, recognition
and promotion become overriding factors. Now on to your article...
When he changed the demands on the organization, it adapted and continued
to perform at a high level.
How far down the echelon chain did Gen. Patton's plans and purposes need
to get for him to be successful? I envision a separation within his
learning organization-the tactical planners behind the lines and the
commanders and their men on the front line. Because of his extraordinary
success, I surmise that for the most part, only his commands had to be
heard.
The field commanders were operating often out of a sense of fear of Gen
Patton. But this is not that different from what takes place in many
successful (learning?) organiztions in modern business. They still
managed to learn and adapt to the changing situations.
Reading these statements raised a question about fear and discipline. I
suspect, and hopefully will never experience, that prisons operate out of
a sense of fear-some prisoners fear guards and vice-a-versa, and some
prisoners fear each other. Are prisons learning organizations as well, but
from a civilized standpoint, for many of the wrong reasons?
Bill Hancy
obfusc8@erols.com
--"William T. Hancy" <obfusc8@erols.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>