Gene Taurman said that he thinks we are asking the wrong question when we
say, "Is there such a thing as a learning organization?" I agree that to
live is to learn and thus all organizations are learning organizations (as
in the descriptor) I think the implication behind the question of
becoming a "Learning Organization" (as in the label or identifier) is that
certain ideals are being promoted and developed within the organization.
It is more than mere semantics.
When we ask what it is that organizations are learning, I believe we get
to the heart of what being an LO means. Becoming an LO implies positive
growth and development, especially learning from the past to improve the
present and future organization. It implies openess and willingness to
learn. It implies accountability for mistakes and an honest attempt to
uncover their causes so they will not be repeated. It implies sharing
knowledge, ideas, and insights for the good of the whole, beyond any gain
for the individual.
These are ideals that I associate with being an LO. They take a concerted
effort to achieve and committed leadership to promote. They take time to
develop and infuse into the culture of an organization. Employees who
work for such a company are valued as a strategic resource and will want
to stay.
My earlier comment about whether a LO includes the community or board
stands. I think of a LO as the company, but have been challenged by our
discussion to think in broader terms. The company exists as an
organization within and because of the community (clients/board) it
serves. Will the ideals of a LO be shared by its community? Is there
mutual benefit?
kind regards,
Vana Prewitt
Praxis Learning Systems
Chapel Hill, NC
www.PraxisLearning.com
--Vana Prewitt <vana@PraxisLearning.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>