Organizing ideas of the "Why Bother?" section were to have been:

• Because we want superior performance and competitive advantage
• For customer relations
• To avoid decline
• To improve quality
• To understand risks and diversity more deeply
• For innovation
• For our personal and spiritual well being
• To increase our ability to manage change
• For understanding
• For energized committed work force
• To expand boundaries
• To engage in community
• For independence and liberty
• For awareness of the critical nature of interdependence
• Because the times demand it

• Its more fun to go to work in learning organizations.
• Learning organizations give people hope that things can be better
• Learning orgs provide a playground for creative ideas
• Learning orgs provide a safe place to take risks with new ideas and behaviors and the challenge needed to stretch beyond perceived limits
• In learning organizations everyone's opinions are valued and amount that people can contribute is not determined by position in the organization

• embrace and implement the vision of sustainable communities and organizations.

What is required then, given this constant state of change are fundamental new ways of thinking and acting. The most compelling of which is Systems Thinking, or "the ability to see the world as a complex system." This kind of thinking inspires people to say things like:in "you can't just do one thing" and "everything is connected to everything else."

Another one for the list:

• develop the practice of life-long learning

That leads to barriers to learning, what stops us from learning? :

• Defensive routines
• Dynamic complexity of systems
• Inadequate and imbiguous outcome feedback
• Misperceptions of the feedback
• Poor interpersonal and organizational inquiry skills

Why not have a learning organization?

Its not up to anyone to answer but those who want it. Otherwise, in my opinion, its someone else's organization. I may be wrong here, but the only way that there isn't a tradeoff between higher performance and individual satisfaction is when individuals decide that they will do what they love, be driven by THEIR drives to learn, and collectively create a higher performing, by traditional as well as their own measures, organization.

It reminded me of the "I want to live on a green planet!" story. He had a rich representation in his mind of what "freedom" meant (and what its lack meant).

Where I am becomes a learning organization the moment I preceive it to be one, as I share insights with others. It is born with the discovery that together we can contribute to evolution, that not knowing how to stretch- together- we can each learn how.

My reasons for supporting a learning organization are similar to yours, Rick, but I would change the term "improve" to the terms "learn, play, and achieve mastery". I think that the work by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi on intrisic reward (see Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience for a good laypersons summary) has much to contribute to understanding that deep human drive. My years spent as a pre-school teacher were invaluable to my observation and understanding of that drive in action. To that I would throw in some intimations of Teilhard de Chardin's notion of "complexification" (at personal, organizational, community, and cosmic levels) for the "big picture" of systems at work, and a bit of the "new science" concepts (a la Margaret Wheatley and others) and the ancient eastern traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and especially Taoism (the Tao Te Ching is an essential example). I figure if all of these various sources can be in some sort of resonance, we are probably on to something good!

The learning organization approach is a new way that promises to tap into this energy.

Any approach that increases joy in work and the quality of products and services raises the overall quality of life.

(1) provide people with more satisfying lives, so they are happier, do more interesting things with their lives, and are more fun to have lunch with; and

(2) promote systems thinking enough so we have a snowball's chance in hell of restoring enough sanity to our motives so we don't fall into any of the "Limits to Growth" scenarios during my lifetime. (Or hopefully many centuries to come, though knowing the collapse may well come while I'm around lends a bit more urgency.)

2. Because the L.O. approach flows out of and speaks to the deepest human values that I attempt to embody in my life, values such as wholeness, the interconnectedness of all beings and things, collective endeavour and intelligence.

3. Because it channels and supports and enhances the basic (and my) human passion to learn

4. Because it provides a rational explanation of the necessity for caring about each other.

5. Because it offers a way to cut through some of the dead ends that have cropped up in more "technical " approaches to organistion development, a way that calls upon soul qualities to support,inspire and illuminate the movement

6. Because it provides an invitation and a rationale for building communities.

On a lighter note---people involved in creating learning organizations are FUN to be with!!

Why do we want a LO?--because it gives organizations the possibilities to discover who they are, where they want to go, and define the quality of life they wish to pursue.

We need to bother because of the issues of complexity and the quality of life on the earth . Complexity is driven by a feedback loop containing variables from the social, cognitive, political, organizational, and technological worlds. These variables have always be with us, but what has changed is the speed of access to information (compressed information float time). Mass media, cyberspace, technological artifacts are adding to the complexity facing all of us. James Burke's Connections is an excellent example of these loops developing over time. I find within the educational organizations I work with a disconnectiveness from these variables which heigthens thier inability to see their relationship to the system. Introducing the tools of LO has given some a new lens to understand this disconnectiveness. I am starting to generate many examples but I don't think you are asking for those at this time.

After reading and listening to Capra, Ackoff, Senge, et al.to me the LO is part of an evolutionary process.I see the LO evolving into what I would call (it might already be coined) the Ecological Organization. The EO will create the "sustainable community" that Capra envisions. This is why I am pursuing the LO concepts with all the organizations that I work with. What the LO gives these organizations (schools - businesses) is away to explore their present assumptions juxtapositioned with new assumptions that will be found in sustainable communities.

If you ask me what the mental models of the EO are and how they relate to our present organization I am not sure. But, the essence of the LO will help to generater the models linked to many of Capra's concepts found in living systems. For example, given all the recent discoveries in the cognitive sciences, why do our school systems continue to produce a byproduct called student failure? If life-long-learning is a vision for school systems, how would we create a self renewing process that would enhance all learners and increase the quality of life within the community?

Humanity generally acts -- as if -- most of the time, especially in collective action. This is a form of denial. Denial of the consequences of rationalism. A hopeful denial, but none-the-less, a kind of group defense mechanism. It is the source of our faith in technology as 911. The western belief in inventing our way out of a mess.

It seems possible that the learning organization can bring into our enterprise institutions the possibility of systems thinking in action. And shorten the feedback loops so that collective action for the general welfare is not just possible, but expected. Thus the learning organization, unlike other technologies for business, is not about the bottom line first. It is about living with paradox and choosing life affirming values. This is why I think of Bohm's proposal for dialogue as an epistemological discipline, not a communications technology for 'business'. This is why I believe Bohm insisted it be "agenda free." To discover what Laszlo refers to below. And the learning organization appears to be a "state" which could support such a profound change in view, and act from that change!

I want to build learning organizations because it gives me energy. I am truly excited about this work. I have not been excited about work in a long time. I am deeply interested in creating a learning journey for myself which, hopefully, serves those who I am working with. By serving others in an effective manner, I will serve myself in an effective manner. Everybody will be better off.

Why do we want? ** To change attitudinal and institutional barriers of learning

On a personal level? ** Learning is living, living is being open to possibilities

What do we want our organization to be? ** "Thriving" rather than "surviving" and achieving extraordinary results.

To the extent that a learning organization is a place in which community is fostered, I want to be in one and help create them. Also it would not be enough for me to be in a learning organization to become a better 'company man" in the pursuit of an even better widget. (Maybe that's why I work for myself!)

To me a community has to have a sense of connection to the wider world and I want my participation in it to contribute to a better world in some way. So it is with organizations. If my participation is aligned with a larger goal (making environmentally friendly widgets, expanding access to learning for parents, encouraging a sense of creativity and spirit, creating connections among people etc), then I can get excited.

I also want my private aspirations to be respected. I want it to be legitimate that I spend time writng, making music etc I want my commitment to my children to be respected and so on.I am from Ireland. Once, many years ago I heard the leader of a political party talk about how he would travel the country to meet the people. He said he would be on the road for many days. His wife later talked about how his children would not see him for weeks on end. He was following a commitment to make things better for families yet his own family rarely saw him. This, to me is what we need to get beyond in learning organizations.

It's as if the legitimacy of academic institutions gives me the courage to move ahead with even more of who I am, and help others do so also, thus creating organizational communities that are more supportive of life, in the widest and deepest sense of the term.

They are the ultimate example of the need for all people to understand how the systems within their world work through interrelationships, and how what one part of that world does affects others in ways broader than many have realized. People must look into assumptions, and beyond perceptions of healthcare to learn more and gain understanding, in order to make informed decisions. Leaders must continue to ask why things are as they are.

Healthcare providers must work toward better business and community relationships, and the sharing of resources with colleagues, whether is is across towns or regions. The classic model of competitition will not work in healthcare provision. Healthcare providers must get their communities involved and learning in the "business" of healthcare. They must understand that healthcare is people, not an industry. A dollar spent on healthcare is a dollar spent by a citizen, not a government or a committee. The limiting of services is the limiting of services to real people, not an industry.

That's "why learning organiztions", and why I do what I do...

I'm engaged in two projects based on turbo-charging the information executives get from IS systems. Both are focused at least in part on using the "i" from WWW and the Internet for strategic planning purposes. However, getting the "i" is only part of what the executive needs. The missing ingredient is what to do with it (it being the i for information).

At the executive level, and this comes from 16 interviews so far at the mid--level VP to Senior Executive VP's and COO's, it has become a question of, "Ok, we know what information we think we need, but how do we get it?" Executive Information Systems are the answer to that q. This is followed by "OK, we got the information now what do we do with it?" This is not yet answered by a system so is covered piece by piece in analysis, individual and team guesswork. Then comes a disturbing q by thoughtful executives, "Are we sure this is ALL the information we need?" If one's not careful paralysis sets in--this is not new to executive management.

The world has become more competitive, I can't verify with a citation, but if you doubt this then I pity you. Hyper competition is extant in more industries. Trade barriers both structural and cultural are waning. Given this, executives are faced with overload as demonstrated by the three questions above. A good example of dealing with this information load can be found in Thurman Rodgers work at Cypress Semiconductor. An elaborate goal setting system for every employee that is easily accessible by all executives with certain automated features to remind one of goals past due. His book is "No Excuses Management". It contains demonstration software and I recomend it highly.

The learning organization is one response to this, and I suspect, without trying to be melodramatic, soon to be a question of survival for many firms. The executives simply are not capable of knowing the same % of the firm's secrets and knowledge as they were 5 or 10 years before, but they have greater access to the information of the firm than ever before. I suspect an indicator of this is the mean age of executives in affected industries getting younger.

What this means is the new skill being developed by executives is not only accessing the information, but also in synthesizing it into understanding and actions. Multiply this out to several levels of the corporation because of flattening organizational hierarchies accomplished over the last decade and you've got a prescription for executive headaches induced by stress.

A solution, maybe not the best, is to push the organization's learning about itself, and I'll use the zen metaphor for learning (the full tea cup) to stress that it is unending, just like it was 20-30-100-300 years ago, but the pace of unlearning has increased--that is the tea is poured faster, sometimes faster than one can drink.

Sorry for the length, as always, had I had more time...

Connecting humans to organizations in a vital mutually beneficial way is why learning organizations are worth creating.

Why do we want learning organizations?

We want to live "divided no more." We want work and personal goals to be in sync or chosen for legitimate reasons. We want to instill greater levels of personal commitment and creativity in the work force. We want to have our work and our organization work be in harmony not at odds. We want to be able to produce exceptional business results in an ever changing environment.

Personally, why do we want to build learning organizations?

I believe that such an environment is essential to the continued growth and development of those who work. I believe that work should not be an obligation but a joy. I believe that learning and creativiity spark the future. I believe that without learning organizations we will not be able to transition into the next millennium and meet the challenges ahead. I think it is the only way to live and work!

Why do I want my organization be more of a learning organization?

For all of the reasons mentioned above and because we have chosen strategies which depend on our ability to expand the organization's capacity to learn and innovate. Without these skills and concepts, we will probably not achieve our desired results.

I personally am interested in helping people explore alternatives in their own lives--both personal and professional--and take responsibility for bringing their personal vision of "better" into reality.

I can take an intellectual tack with talk of self-organizing systems, various theories of group dynamics, etc.

I can take an emotional tack and approach it from the fundamental essence that all I encounter here seems to have.

I can take an operational tack and approach from all the great things improvements, and results we will likely achieve.

But what it really comes down to is that my image of a 'learning organization' is fundamentally the type of place where I want to work; where personal growth is valued as much as organizational growth; where we recognize the essence of the whole and our individual roles.

Speaking for myself, why a learning organization? Because thats what I want to create.

.. to achieve competitive advantage. This is usually the answer that businesses understand. We know that in order to learn, information and knowledge have to be available... However, competitive advantage at the individual level is based on "know-how", that is "knowledge is power". So my question is:

How do you create an organization that is willing to share if most of the people in the organization are willing to learn, but not too many are motivated to teach or share?