Tony DiBella votes 'yes' on the question "can organizations learn?".
This begs the question: What is the operational definition of learning, in
the context of the question?
And, what does "organization" mean, in the context of the question?
And, would the concept that "systems drive behaviors" impact either the
question or the response to the question?
Let's take an example; IBM in 1957 vs. IBM in 1997;
was/is IBM an organization? - defined as individuals of various skill
levels and purposes/responsibilities brought together.
if so, what did IBM "learn"? - defined as moving from one level of
comprehension and application of information, to another level of
comprehension and application of the same information.
As the following formula seems to suggest - x plus y plus the result of x
times y = z, the linkage between the individual and the system, and the
combined effect of both on each other, is dependent on those within the
system as well as the system itself. As individuals change, grow, age,
die, retire, are impacted by bad news about their kids homework, etc.,
etc., the "snapshot" of THEN vs. a snapshot of NOW would be a most chaotic
picture indeed if one were required to identify each and every impacting
agent from 1957 to 1997 in the company known as IBM.
Perhaps you have heard the saying: "Yesterdays bright idea is today's
tradition." The same holds true, in my opinion, for the scenario
presented. We simply do not know what was going on within IBM in 1957,
other than by simple means such as interviews and reports which do not
delve into the deeper recesses of where "learning" actually occurs, or how
it occurs.
It seems to be a human trait to want to turn "free form" thinking into
policies and procedures so as to make certain "it" either happens all the
time in the future, or to prevent "it" from ever happening again in the
future. To me, this is NOT learning, but rather standardizing. In fact, it
may be a major hindrance to actual learning to have "new" and "better"
policies and procedures created and revised and stored for later
institutionalized training at employee orientations et al.
Difficult as it is, we are always in a state of flux as human beings,
constantly bombarded by "input" of every kind. This changes us as
individuals, as one who, along with others, is brought together by
circumstance/fate/karma/hangover to work in what we call an organization.
What is wrong with a snapshot in '57 compared to '97? Nothing, as long as
it's not used to make some point that doesn't follow, such as Pitcher X is
better than Satchel Paige. The era has changed, the individuals have
changed, the organization has changed, but has it been a "learning"
process?
My vote and the reasons:
On the question Can Orgnizationa Learn - NO
On the subset, Can People Learn - YES
IBM in 1997 is NOT the same as IBM in 1997, nor is any other organization.
So, when we speak of "learning organizations", as we certainly do on the
list, we are really speaking of "culture" (of individuals), of social
groups (of individuals), of the interaction and interdepedence of
individuals and the "system" containing and impacting those very
individuals.
Tony may not be right. But he is not wrong, anymore than others would be
in dealing with an unresolvable situation. And that is what this is. Just
like the question:
"Has the United States of America learned from the lessons of the past;
slavery, injustice, immorality, corruption, discrimination?"
We have vast storage areas for our "policies and procedures" with new ones
daily. If you desire to believe that this is "learning" then that is a
choice you may have. Is it "real"? Does it hold water?
Sounds like a job for Mandelbrot.
--Regards, John Constantine rainbird@trail.com Rainbird Management Consulting PO Box 23554 Santa Fe, NM 87502 http://www.trail.com/~rainbird
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>