John Gunkler says:
> Perhaps there is also an emergent component of organizational learning
> that is different from, and more than, just the sum of the small scale
> learning. After all, if organizational learning is nothing more than
> small-scale learning, how could it last beyond the tenure of those
> individuals who engaged in the small-scale learning? And yet, the goal
> ...of those who promote organizational learning is to create knowledge
> that outlasts the individual knowers, that somehow inheres in the
> organization itself...
This seems to learn toward an almost Cartesian argument of mind vs. body.
Why can't organizational learning be composed of small scale learners? It
is the dynamic of these many individuals who have learned working together
that creates an effect. We need not postulate this emergent component as
a separate entity, though in practice it may be easier to think of it that
way.
I think in practice an organization that passes critical mass on a concept
becomes self-perpetuating because everyone will speak the same language
and do the same behaviors, in which case the learnings are passed on.
Human beings are not computers; they do not sit passively once learning is
"installed." They tend to use what they have learned, if it suits them,
which then can be picked up by others independently of any formal learning
approach. This is a critical factor in learning organizations--they
should also be teaching organizations.
Sociologists refer to "tipping points" where the effects of a cause
suddenly multiply--the usual example is introducing additional police into
a crime-ridden community. No effect (or minor improvement) is visible as
you add police, and then suddenly a critical point is reached and adding
one person has a huge effect on crime reduction. This curve later
flattens, so there is a diminishing return after a time--when you have
reduced crime to some essential minimum that requires massive effort to
reduce any further. In practice, you can still break this down into the
atomic effects, since tipping points just represent an S-curve effect but
it looks like some magic has occurred.
An example: one firm I know of has made coaching behavior part of their
corporate culture. Everyone was trained at some point, we presume, but
now everyone does it. Why? You cannot be promoted until you have two
people who can replace you. That gives people a powerful motive to want
to coach, and because they see many examples of coaching from their own
bosses from day one in the company, they know what good coaching looks
like. Looking at it in terms of the "organizational learning" component
you could say that the organization itself has created an environment
benevolent to coaching, but you can equally well look at it as a case of
many individuals learning and passing on what they learned:
1. Each individual has seen good coaching from their managers
2. Therefore, each individual can imitate good coaching behaviors
3. Each individual wants to coach as a means to be promoted
4. Each individual will coach his or her employees with at least reasonable
competence
If enough individuals do this, you have created a corporate culture of
coaching--and that is exactly what this organization does. But it could
change overnight if the individual motives to coach disappeared--say, for
example, if they downsized radically and every manager suddenly had more
to do, or you could get promoted without coaching.
Steve Kelner
Director, Educational and Advising Services
Center for Quality of Management
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>