Michelle wrote,
> The essence of
> this article is that LOs should be seeking to become TOs (Teaching
> Organizations), where strategic knowledge of leaders is systematically
> taught to aspiring leaders and managers. GE and other leading companies
> have institutionalized this by having top management including CEO Jack
> Welch regularly participate in training programs. This seems to be the
> next step in the evolution of learning organizations.
It's a bit surprising to me (well, maybe not) that companies like GE are
just now having their top managers participating in learning programs. In
the places I see that struggle to become more learning focused, designated
leaders seem to often participate in the training programs that others go
through, as well as regularly participating in learning programs of their
own. This helps them stay more visible, be more involved within their
work community, as well as gives them a chance to pass along some of their
own strategic knowledge (and learn from the others, as well). But I see
most of the passing on of knowledge occurs more informally, more
incidentally.
I would be cautious in viewing this as the 'next step' in the evolution of
LO's, particularly in terms of "naming" it a teaching organization. In
fact, in many respects this seems a step backwards rather than forwards.
Maybe it's just the language that troubles me. We have always had
'teaching' organizations, where unfortunately the focus was just on that
-- teaching. Same thing in many of our school systems. Too much focus on
teaching, and it seems the learning part is too easily forgotten. I think
much of the value of the LO terminology is that it puts the focus where it
belongs -- on the *learning*, not the teaching. The difference, to me, is
that teaching seems to focus more on information-giving, the old banking
metaphor of education (making 'deposits' in someone's mind), rather than
on the unfolding and drawing out of knowledge.
It is also troubling that this seems to focus on designated leaders
(managers) doing the teaching, when in fact they may be the least fit to
play this role.
The system Michelee described sounds helpful, but it doesn't need a shift
in the metaphors to be effective. If, that is, it's broadened out to be
used and created among and between all organizational members. Any means
of making the knowledge and wisdom more widely shared, from leaders and
non-leaders alike, and increasing the chance for dialogue around it, will
be helpful.
Will it create a learning community? As I've understood it, the concept
of cultivating community in work rests with identifying the informal
community and networks already at work, and trying to make these
interactions more explicit. Such a more formalized program as Michelle
described might aid this effort.
--Terri A Deems, PhD DAI/WorkLife Design tadeems@aol.com
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>