Replying to LO29580 --
Joe Podolsky<email@example.com> writes:
>By definition, organizational failure is a failure to learn.
>It's relatively easy for us with 20/20 hindsight to see first
>the organizations that died and then note where they went
>wrong. The challenge is to tease out those principles
>from the past that help us steer more wisely into the
Greetings dear Joe,
The above resonate with me.
But i think that an organisation which has not yet failed, is not
necessarily a "learning organisation" (two words, one concept). In every
organisation some learning takes place, but in a LO the learning is
special. It is this special learning which some fellow learners want to
identify with the criteria sought.
As i have written previously, the most obvious criterium for me is the
emerge of metanoia. Members of the LO share deep thoughts with each other
which they never have done before. They know things which are unknown in
an ordinary organisation. For example, they know that they did not become
a LO to have the competitive advantage over other organisations in the
same niche of the market. It is shocking for me how many consultants sell
this "competitive advantage" as a reason for becoming a LO. A search with
Google's advance search engine gives some 1 100 hits in this respect.
With care and best wishes
At de Lange <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.