Replying to LO27109 --
"Doc" Holloway comes close but there is still a gap, I believe, in our
gatting a sure grip on this matter of whether organisatiuons can learn.
Looking at it all in the spirit of full reductionism, there is no doubt
that it is the people who are the active agents who can make or break
anything to do with collective learning. But what is really at issue is
whether such reductionism is warranted.
Once an organisation, as embodied in an organisational "place" (be it the
Board of Management or the Finance Division etc), learns and establshes
the learning as a new corporate standard which is meant to endure and to
be complied with, any factionalisation of the people involved matters less
and less. Is there now a new 'higher" level of "reality" which now runs
to the beat of its new chosen drum, such that the people are under
pressure to comply with it as an act of membership loyalty.
I doubt that the right question is "can an organisation learn" - rather, I
suggest that the right questions to be asking are about the "natural
history" of any such learning.
Any comments?
Jim Marshall
Brisbane, Australia
--- Richard Holloway <learnshops@rciti.com> wrote: >
>
> Dr Dash--
>
> I think that organizations could learn. I'm
> convinced that communities
> can learn. Not all organizations are
> communities...but there may be
> several communities interacting within an
> organization. When organizations
> learn, maybe it's because it behaves like a
> community.
--Jim Marshall <marshall_jim@yahoo.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.