The reference to Easterby-Smith's paper (perhaps not seminal, but
certainly an excellent contribution to organizational learning) is as
follows:
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning:
Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085-1113.
In reading the replies to John Gunkler's initial message (LO20353), I feel
that we have all managed to argue that System Dynamics is perhaps not the
founding discipline and that we need to keep an open mind. However, John
is right when he argues that we have to be careful to ground our theories
in reality. He states that:
>The other disciplines provide analogies, language, creative ways of
>thinking about things -- but few solutions, few process descriptions, and
>little practical help.
This criticism does not apply only to organizational learning but to all
management sciences. I have just read Pinder and Bourgeois' paper (1982)
on the subject and wholeheartedly agree with its argument. In order to
move forward as a field we need to limit metaphors, or at least be careful
that the metaphors remain as such. If taken to the extreme we may even
consider organisational learning as a metaphor but that is a another can
of worms altogether.
Just my two cents
Jens Peder
Pinder, C. C., & Bourgeois, V. W. (1982). Controlling Tropes in Administrative
Science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 641-652.
--Jens Peder Kolind <kolind@email.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>