In his reply to Steve Kelner, Doug has done me (if no one else) a favor by
refocusing the discussion on an issue relevant to this list, namely,
learning.
In looking over the so-called "testy" exchanges among Robert Bacal, Philip
Pogson and myself (which I didn't take as testy), I found an important
slip in the discussion. The axe that wound up being ground was the
reification-abstraction axe, and things got off track there. I even used
the word reification in my last post and that's not what I was originally
talking about. My issue was and still is one of concern about
anthropomorphizing, about endowing nonhuman entities with human qualities
and characteristics. (Reification has to do with treating abstractions as
though they are material objects and that wasn't and isn't my concern.)
So, let's go back to learning -- and to anthropomorphizing and to Doug's
back on track post.
Doug wrote...
>I agree that the focus on the individual learner as "the unit of analysis"
>represents the mainstream of the Learning-Organization community. And,
>I'm all in favor of nurturing individual learning and growth.
>
>However, I think organizations also learn at various organizational
>levels. And, in the extreme, organizations can learn without any on the
>individuals in the organization even being aware of what the organization
>has learned.
Doug: I'd like to hear some more from you on this score. In particular,
I'd like to know what you mean by learning and I'd like to see some
examples of what you mean by learning at various organizational levels.
I'm particularly interested in your reference to organizations learning
without any one of the individuals in the organization being aware of what
the organization has learned. Finally, how do you distinguish between
individual and organizational learning?
>Unfortunately, the current L-O community is so focused on the individual
>learner as to be culturally and perceptually impaired when it comes to
>organizational level learning. I suspect this impairment will limit the
>contributions from the L-O efforts and eventually the L-O movement will be
>displaced by a new HR/OD fad.
That sounds like an "If-we-don't-get-our-act-together-we're-lost" message.
It also assumes that whatever you mean by organizational level learning is
substantial enough to be managed, hence, as indicated above, I'd like to
know more about what you mean by organizational learning. How do you
define it? What is the evidence that it occurs? How is it fostered,
managed, or otherwise tended to?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>