If you would be so kind to respond to this post I would appreciate it:
My study of the learning organization is moving along. Two noticeably
awkward ideas keep cropping up:
1. Definitions (operational) vary in their level of vagueness from: very
vague (a learning organization is any organization), to somewhat vague (as
in stating how an organization learned: "An organization learns by
remembering the consequences of actions taken in a set of conditions.") to
very deliberate in use of terms sorted from performance improvement and
organizational development interventions. If in conducting an interview
of anyone who claims to have an understanding of the learning organization
"paradigm" how many different (distinctly) responses would I get?
a. Define learning organization in your own terms.
b. Contrast that to organizational effectiveness (define if you must).
c. Applying any evaluation methods you can imagine, how would you know when
you are looking at a learning organization?
d. What is the most creative use of the learning organization "paradigm"
you've heard of (or created)?
In the quote (from LO023684) [below..] why is the word "consequence" used
versus outcome or influence on the organizational process, or...... This
statement implies that the same conditions must exist before the lesson
learned can be applied.
2. A twist of the personal mastery discipline to equal theological tones.
This one point is most interesting and bothersome in that this "template"
for looking at the means of creating a highly effective organization can
be overshadowed and destroyed by cultism.
>From: Jim Thompson [mailto:jim@globalprospectus.com]
>
>An organization learns by remembering the consequences of actions taken
>in a set of conditions. Knowledge management is an organization's
>structure to remember the consequences of its actions.
--"Swan, Steve R. SETA CONTR" <SwanSR@ftknox5-emh3.army.mil>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>