Mike Jay wrote about a metaphor depicting an orgnization as having similar
attributes to a living being and then using this as a starting point for
discussing an organization's capacity for learning. Steve Hurst responded
by pointing out that since organizations are not living, the metaphor,
while useful, does not support the contention that an organization can
learn -- at least not in the sense that a living being can learn -- even
an amoeba (my take on Steve's comment).
[Host's Note: I believe this msg is replying to Steve Eskow's msg...]
I don't know where I come down on this topic. On the one hand, I agree
that the definition of life does in part encompass the act of learning
that proceeds from the stimulus-response model. My primary reaction is
not to accord this same attribute to an organization, but rather to assign
any organizational "learned response" to the individuals acting on behalf
of the organization. On the other hand, I can construct a useful mental
model that does permit me to treat an organization as an entity with the
capacity for learning in ways that are analogous to a living being. I
draw support for this mental model from two sources.
First, I can point to the rapidly developing field of
cybernetics/robotics, and the general discipline of artificial
intelligence, as an area where serious research is being done to imbue the
non-living with the learning capacities of the living. The capabilities
of these early "learning machines" are still very crude (maybe up to the
level of an earthworm), but one can argue very strongly that they do learn
in much the same way that a living organism learns. Therefore, the "living
vs: non-living" criteria as a measure of some intrinsic ability to learn
is not as viable as it might have been a decade ago.
Second, there is the whole arena of brain research and neurophysiology.
Some people draw a very mechanistic picture of human thought and relate it
to the electro-chemical changes of state that are continuously occurring
in thousands and millions of individual neurons. When a stimulus is
received, thousands of neurons go through a change-of-state and
electro-chemical signals race along a myriad of synaptic connections. The
reaction to the stimulus might be an insight, a new idea, a loving feeling
or just about anything. The key question, What is the thought that was
generated by the stimulus? Is it nothing more than the cumulative and
combined interaction of thousands of individual neurons? Or, is it
something that stands separate and apart from, and more importantly,
greater than the mere sum of the component parts? I do not take the
mechanistic view. To my way of thinking, thought, and the capacity for
learning, transcend the mechanistic support structure (the brain).
Now here is the big (and shaky) leap. In the same way that I believe that
human thought and the capacity to learn transcends and is separate from
the actions and interactions of individual neurons; I can conceive a model
where the organization's capacity to learn transcends and is separate from
the actions and interactions of individual people in the organization.
The analogy is admittedly crude, but it might prove useful, especially in
light of the exponential rate at which organizations are computer
networking their knowledge workers. Picture this simple scenario.
Customers are repeatedly being frustrated by not getting timely/accurate
information on their orders. One person has a new idea on how to give
customers instant and accurate information. A few innovative people are
recruited and together they figure out how to combine network access with
existing database information to allow simple tracking of orders and
instant access to this tracking information from any PC. A pilot project
is set up in one department of 50 people, it's successful, and the new
system is rolled out eventually to 500 peole across the whole company.
Learning is clearly occurring at the individual level as the new
capability cascades through the organization. But one can also argue that
there is more going on here than the learning in each individual brain.
Many dynamic things are changing in the organization that exist separate
from, yet interact with, the individuals to make the newly "learned"
process (response) possible. Databases are created, constantly updated,
and linked in new ways within the corporate network. Network software is
generated to support the new customer support system. Key lessons learned
from customer interactions are captured on the fly and become part of the
continuously evolving "corporate memory"; and this growing pool of
customer information is instantly accessable, searchable, sortable etc.
by any and everyone while they are on the phone with the next customer,
and the next, and the next and so on. Now, when a customer contacts the
company, the response (instant and accurate information) is the same so
matter at what point they interact with the company. The organizational
response, in other words, has in many important respects, become
independent of the individual players within the organization. This is
not a bad representation of an organization that has the capacity to
learn. Of course, in the end, it is always a person, not the
organization, that the customer gets on the phone.
So, do organizations truly learn? I don't have a clue.
--Doug Jones <djones@asheville.cc.nc.us>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>