On 20 Aug 98 at 14:28, Richard Goodale wrote:
> 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?
Clearly to me, the answer is no, we cannot do better, because we are not
interested in doing so. The LO terminology is philisophically rich but
essentially bankrupt (as happens to many fad type ideas). Typically this
happens not because the concepts or ideas are faulty, but because the
demagoguery of the originators required to get a hearing eventually gets
taken on by the disciples, who can't pull it off....they end up talking
the words, sometimes without those words having meaning.
Deming's work is another example.
Tom Peter's is perhaps another but different example, the difference being
that he has admitted his shortcomings and grown, when he discovered that
many of his "excellent" companies didn't stay that way long.
Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca NOW
SHIPPING Conflict Prevention In The Workplace - Using Cooperative
Communication. Samples and info at
http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/prevent.htm.(204) 888-9290
--"Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>