Replying to LO28467 --
Leroy Ang <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>Being in a regimental environment i.e. in the
>Army, i personally find it very difficult to
>implement or inculcate the culture of LO.
Greetings dear Leroy,
Thank you very much for your most honest admission.
I do not think it has to do with your military culture per se. I know of
three local organisations of higher learning in which rather independent
sub-organisations in them tried to implement the LO culture, found it
difficult, and failed.
>But I am still quite confused on the term LO,
>whether is it an end-state, a culture or the
>process we should be more concern with? I
>had read works by Richard Karash and other
>authors and i personally believes that LO is
>more Process-Oriented than Result-Oriented,
>though this belief of mine will not be welcomed
>in my organisation. Am i at the correct start-state?
If I had not experienced the formation of and working in three "tacit
LO"s, i would probably have considered the LO concept as another
managerial gimmick. With "tacit LO" i mean an organisation which behaves
as a LO without knowing of its study in managerial science.
As a result of these experiences, the following metaphor describes for me
best what happens in a LO. An OO (Ordinary Organisation) is like a dormant
seed. Its emergence into a LO is the germinating of that seed into a
seedling. For the rest of its life the LO functions like a seedling
growing up into a mature plant, perhaps one which will live for many
centuries. It is impossible for me to say that a growing plant is "more
Process-Oriented than Result-Oriented". The reason is that i observe in
plants process&result as two features of the same thing. Thus it is
impossible for me to say that you are "at the correct start-state".
What I can say, is that this "process-result" is essential to all self-
organising phenomena. I call it liveness. So i would suggest that you keep
this liveness in mind during all your work, how difficult that may be in
your already difficult work. I think that any military organisation must
be a self-organising system to be effective. So there is hope for you --
even when its the head light of an advancing train far away in the tunnel
I have saved the first to quote it last:
>I am the person who had contacted HC from
>the back-channel on the above-mentioned subject.
>After reading all the posts in this list, I now believe
>that to learn, i have to step my first step into the open.
This, my friend, is also essential to self-organising systems. I call it
openness. Every military organisation have to take great care to what can
go in and out of it as well as what must stay within or without.
>Your humble and obedient soldier,
This is also essential to self-organising systems. I call it spareness.
I think you are well on your way. What you will need much, are courage,
patience and the help of fellow learners.
> ... wish to know more about LO, why many
>are talking about it, which companies or armies
>have implement it and its outcomes and what
>can i learn from them to benefit my organisation
I think that here is a very risky aspect which you have to make strategic
plans for. I have to leave now, but we can take this point up in future.
>[Host's Note: Leroy, welcome to the LO dialogue! ..Rick]
Yes, we all welcome you. Rick, I perceive in this caring soldier the
authentic learner! He will get success where others could not.
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.