>I totally agree. The big issue, and a lot of what we are all about, is
>surely the opposite. How do we get the organisation to build its capacity
>for effective action by capitalising more effectively on the learning of
>individuals?
>
>This is then, I suggest, back to the toolkit of attitude / behaviour
>alignment, skill development and process design which encourages this.
>
>Paul Foley
An operational definition of insanity is to "continue the same behavior
and expect a different outcome."
I remember reading Art Kleiner's 1996 book, "The Age of Heretics". While
some of the change technology may have been relabeled, replaced or
forgotten over 40 years, the focus then, as now, seemed to be on
individual and small team learning, "Gosh, if we could just get enough of
these folks sufficiently self-aware and enlightened we could change the
world (or at least our company)!"
One of the things that struck me was the number of examples of
organizational change efforts from the 1950's and '60's which ran a
standard "life-cycle": 1) start with one or two "enlightened
individuals", 2) gather converts and energize a small group or factory,
3) engage the larger system and slowly (sometimes quickly) run out of
energy, 4) enlightened leaders are quietly moved off to the side or "let
go", and 5) things go "back to normal". I have not been actively engaged
in the LO community for several years, but I remember a disturbing number
of LO vanguards which seemed to follow the same "life-cycle" for
organizational change.
I have nothing against individual learning (some of my best friends do it
:-). But, my limited HR experience tells me that "original sin" gets in
the way. That is, human nature is the product of several million years of
evolution and probably won't change too quickly. Enlightenment is rare;
"backsliding" is easy and frequent.
I have no doubt we can find wonderful examples where increased efficiency,
effectiveness, and stakeholder value added were attributed as the fruits
of successful LO efforts. But, how many LO efforts yielded short-lived or
no "organizational fruit" at all? How many of the LO converts tried,
tired and left their organizations? How many organizations got similar
results without resorting to LO efforts?
Another "thought experiment": After several common conferences, I got to
know an HR Leader who planned to retire in a year or so after over 35
years with a Fortune 100 firm. One night over drinks I suggested he
consider the following challenge as he prepared for retirement:
"Implement a program that would be difficult, if not impossible, to
turn-off after you retired" (He called me several months latter just to
say that he was still wrestling with the question but he was starting to
get some ideas.)
I think this is a strategic organizational learning question for senior
leaders. If they are really committed to being "The Founding Parents" of
a sustained Learning Organization, what could they initiate that would
transcend the duration of their leadership. Of course, as long as the LO
community is focused on learning at the individual level of the system,
the senior leaders will have to look elsewhere for help.
Doug Merchant
--"Doug" <dougm@eclipse.net>
[Host's Note: In association with Amazon.com, this book link Art Kleiner, The Age of Heretics http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385415761/learning-org ...Rick]
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>