Replying to LO28321 --
Glebe Stcherbina <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>Personally, I do not believe the term LO has outlived
>its usefulness. specially, in those organizations which
>maybe entering the mature part of their life cycle.
>However for some organization in decline, it may.
>What do others think?
>Thank you and may the force be with you.
Greetings dear Glebe,
May the force be with you too!
I think that there is such a phenomenon among some (not all!)
organisations which Peter Senge articulated as the "learning organisation
having five disciplines" or Arie de Geus as the "living company". Perhaps
someone will some day find a way to articulate it better. For example,
since learning and living are arts, what about the "arting organisation"?
[Please, the artists among you fellow learners, even the word artists,
tell me why the word art (a noun) cannot also be a verb.]
I think the main reason why people think that the term "learning
organisation" is a fad is that they are not aware that the LO is a complex
emergent phenomenon. It is not just something which can be switched on or
off at the snap of the vingers. Furthermore, they are also not aware that
the LO can emerge among almost all kinds of organisations.
I wrote "among almost all kinds of of organisations" because I believe
that those kinds of organisations of which the core business is
destructive creativity cannot and will not emerge into a LO.
With care and best wishes
At de Lange <email@example.com> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
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.