Brian Gordon writes:
> It has occurred to me that executives will want to create learning
> organizations if that means increased profit, market share, etc. However,
> if becoming an LO means that a higher vision is required, perhaps one that
> comes from the majority of the people working there, and that vision is
> more like "conquer world hunger" (even if that means lower profits because
> we give food to developing nations, or whatever), then those same
> executives will resist a change from the current profit-driven structure.
> Especially as the execs are rewarded in proportion to the company's
> profits, not its contributions to humanity.
Brian-
This is a key issue for me, and I'd like to address it in two parts.
First, my own interest in the LO movement is also primarily in how we
can create a decent and enlightened society, (as it is, I believe, for
many of its leading practitioners.). I see the introduction of learning
disciplines into the organization as a Trojan horse-once you open the
gates of more genuine inquiry and communication to people, many will not
stop at how to optimize the widget making process. I would by no means
denigrate that goal-we may decry it as purely profit and greed-driven, but
everyone is uplifted by a more elegant and creative way of doing their
work.
However, the power of the disciplines, to my view, is that they are
unrecognized contemplative practices. If you look at dialogue, and much
systems thinking and scenario planning, areas with which I have a very
rudimentary familiarity, they seem to me to share assumptions (I'd call
them understandings, but that's my assumption) that:
- there are no fixed reference points of how to proceed in any given
circumstance; the future in its details is unknowable; we need to let go
of our mental fixations to best meet the situation
-everything is interdependent
-human beings have more intelligence, resourcefulness and decency than
they are commonly given credit for
I believe that this is a common ground with contemplative traditions-
meditation and arts- that take as their basis the exploration of the
profound connection between one's mind, experience and the world. This
becomes a natural direction that the learning disciplines suggest, for
those who catch the fever.
Second, we have the question of how the learning process within an
organization is able to flower, and transcend self-interest alone. Even
assuming that many individuals become inspired in this way, its an open
question whether the organization (say its a corporation) is the
appropriate vehicle for it. There is a lot of work in this area, such as
triple-bottom line emphasis, and I have no particular insight to add. .
However, it seems to me that a, maybe the, ultimate limiting factor in a
company becoming an LO, even with a smaller vision, is the same as it is
for the development of a greater vision-the difficulty of individuals
breaking the habitual patterns of the culture, of the larger society.
Everyone goes home from the office to the habits of their domestic
situations and its demands, and to the constant drumbeat of the media
proclaiming the values of our culture.
So, a simple suggestion-let's explore how we introduce learning
principles into the greater culture. There has been a lot of discussion
on this list about the educational system. Do we have other avenues? How
can we build a society where people will naturally think in terms of the
effects of their actions, and where allegiance to some kind of basic
goodness will be primary?.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not talking about Shangri-La, where everybody is perfect
and there are no problems, but about a shift in cultural bias. Its a
long-term project.)
--Michael Chender
mchender@netcom.ca
--Michael Chender <mchender@netcom.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>