Replying to LO29604 --
Dear At:
Thank you for writing. I believe I do understand he distinction you make
between L+O and LO. You see the LO as a kind of quintessential form of
L+O, or perhaps a fully realized learning organization. Still, since we
typically do not make that distinction, or find it expressed as such in
the LO literature, I suspect it will continue to be lost on, or missed by,
those who partake of this field. Moreover, I have to question whether the
distinction you make is useful or even desirable. Why? Because it has
the effect (on me, anyway) of imposing a single view of what a
quintessential learning organization is, or at least your view of what we
all should agree should be its description. By this I mean to refer to
the quintessential form implied by your statements. But, in fact, I don't
agree with the model you suggest, if what you suggest is the Sengian view
expressed in his book. I agree with much of it, of course, but not all.
Thus, I think that to confine the discussion of OL to only one flavor or
shape of what it means for an organization to have achieved quintessence
in OL is unnecessarily narrow, even premature. It doesn't help us, it
hinders us. If, for example, you mean to take Peter Senge's formula and
position it as the defining model for what you call a
'learningorganization,' then I say that you probably have gone too far.
For there are other normative models for what it means to have achieved
highest performance in organizational learning, some of which have nothing
or little to do with Peter's theory of practice or his five disciplines.
Thus, theories continue to abound in the area of how organizations should
configure and manage themselves in order to improve or maximize their
capacity to learn, and each is only a variant of the same general idea --
that organizations, not just people or teams, can learn -- adaptively and
generatively.
Unfortunately, though, most theories of practice in OL are problematic.
Peter's work, for example (which I deeply respect), tells us little about
the nature of knowledge in organizations, even as it advocates for
learning. His account of OL, therefore, leaves us guessing as to the what
the epistemology behind his ideas might be. Thus, how are we supposed to
know when Peter's approach has produced real knowledge, as opposed to only
information, or even false knowledge? The answer is we can't, so his
approach -- in my view -- is fundamentally incomplete, thereby leaving
normative models based on his thinking open to fair criticism.
Many other ideas related to organizational learning and the dynamics that
lie behind them have been expressed since the publication of Peter's book,
some of which contain rather compelling views of how organizations learn
of a sort that directly compete, or conflict, with Peter's ideas.
Complex adaptive systems theory, for example, offers extremely attractive
insights into the nature and pattern of learning in living systems,
including the kinds of epistemological perspectives of such great
importance to having a complete view. So before we consider embracing
only one view of what high performance organizational learning looks like
by granting it the exclusive title of 'learningorganization,' let's take
care to recognize both the limitations of all theories and the potentially
important differences between them. And let's, above all, keep the field
open to testing and experimentation. The 'field' of play is 'OL'; what
constitutes an LO of the quintessential sort you describe is still the
subject of much debate, so to claim that one model versus another ought to
be proclaimed the real 'LO' whereas others should not seems political and
counter-productive to me. Don't you agree?
Respectfully,
Mark
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
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.