Paul
Amen!
I have found myself increasingly disinterested in the LO list over the
past 3-4 months due to the high level of abstraction in most of the
threads and the dearth of empirical evidence offered to support the vast
majority of the various contributors' abstractions. I've also been
disappointed in the lack of response to the few contributors (including
myself) who have tried to give (and solicit) concrete examples to enliven
various debates. I do not think, however, that your queries can or should
be ignored.
As I see it, you effectively and rightly ask Emperor's New Clothes type
questions, e.g.
1. Is there such a thing as a Learning Organisation?
2. Is it any different from a "TQM" Organisation, a "BPR'ed"
Organisation, a "Strategically Congruent" Organisation, or whatever?
3. If there is, is there evidence which tells us that this
is so?
My answers to those questions are:
1. Yes. ALL organisations are "learning" ones. By definition, every
organisation of peoples incorporates communication (even Trappist
monasteries). All communication incorporates learning (whether the
learner or the learnee likes it or realises it or not).
2. Perhaps. There are a series of core principles which underlie most if
not all "modern" management concepts, and all of them have roots in
"ancient" philosophy. To quote the punch line to an old joke, "Hey!
There's Nothing Gnu, under the Sun!" And yet.....the concept that an
organisation itself may have (and/or be able to create) capabilities for
accessing, integrating, synthesising and redistributing information (i.e.
"learning") is a novel one, from my understanding of our history. I know
that many on this list find this theory incompatible with their mental
models. If so, why are they on this list? What does a Learning
Organisation mean to them? If Organisations are irrelevant or abstract,
why not just call it the Learning list, and be honest about it?
3. Maybe. Senge gives us a few examples in his book (in fact, VERY few,
re-read it, as I have just done--it's disappointingly skimpy on real world
cases). In previous messages I've tried to pass on some examples which
are in the public domain (e.g. Sears, Toyota, GE, etc.). In addition,
some years ago, David Garvin wrote an article on "Building a Learning
Organisation" (HBR, July-Aug 1993), where he gives some other good
examples (e.g. Xerox, Chapparal Steel, Analog Devices). Finally, per your
request, Paul, here are a few others from my personal experience,
disguised to protect confidentiality:
--the medium-large ($500 million) chemical manufacturer which
insisted that each employee know the strategy the company was pursuing,
and coded every internal communication in relation to the strategy which
that communication was supporting
--the large ($5+ billion) conglomerate which asked its most senior
management to think through the implications of future changes in advanced
technologies on its (extremely) low technology businesses.
--the company which hired a "story teller" to identify, codify and
communicate the"legends" which defined the company's culture
I've got many more.
Garvin, in the article referred to above, makes the very salient points:
"How, for example, will managers know when their companies have become
learning organisations? What concrete changes in behavior are required?
What policies and programs must be in place? How do you get from here to
there?
MOST DISCUSSIONS OF LEARNING ORGANISATIONS FINESSE THESE ISSUES. THEIR
FOCUS IS HIGH PHILOSOPHY AND GRAND THEMES, SWEEPING METAPHORS RATHER THAN
THE GRITTY DETAILS OF PRACTICE (my caps)."
This criticism was written more than 5 years ago. Can we not do better?
Constructively
Richard Goodale
Richard Goodale
Managing Partner
The Dornoch Partnership
"Discovery, Creativity, Leadership"
goodale@dial.pipex.com
+44-1383-860660
--Richard Goodale <fc45@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>