Replying to LO29618 --
Dear Organlearners,
Mark McElroy <mmcelroy@vermontel.net> writes:
>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.
Greetings dear Mark,
Wow, the word "quintessential" has been unknown to me. So i had to
look up what it means. For example, Funk& Wagnal give two meanings:
(1) An extract from anything, containing in concentrated form
its most essential principle; hence the purest, most essential
part, manifestation or embodiment of anything,
(2) In the doctrine of the Pythagorians, the fifth or celestial
essence or ether above the four elementss of earth, air
fire and water.
This two meanings made me think deep and wide what you have been saying.
Meaning (1) is not exactly what i have in mind. I am now sitting on a
"draaistoel" ("draai"=turn, "stoel"=chair, stool) rather than calling it a
"draaiende stoel" (turning chair). It is still a chair, still used for
sitting, but with the special property that it can turn. Turning does
restrict the sitting on it, but rather enables the sitter to face any
direction. Just as there are many brands of fixed chairs, there are also
many brands of "draaistoele".
The problem in distinguishing between Learning Organisation (L+O) and
LearningOrganisation (LO) is that the special property is not articulated
with a distinguishing word other than learning, although the grammatical
construction (concatenation) implies that there has to be such a special
property. Furthermore, in terms of my own experiences, this property is an
emergent one. Let us assume, for example, that the word "caring" describes
this special property. Then to indicate the difference we will write
Learning Organisation (one in which organisational learning happens) and
CaringOrganisation (one in which organisational learning as well as caring
happens).
>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.
I agree with your analysis. But i can make that distinction easily should
it become necessary because of thinking Afrikaans and using this peculiar
construction when needed. Unfortunately, the same agility is not possible
in English. The fundamental question is whether an ordinary organisation
becomes a LearningOrganisation by merely having more learning, or by way
of an emergence to special features of learning which lack in ordinary
organisations.
>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.
Thank you for questioning my viewpoint. This brings me to meaning (2) of
quintessence. The Pythagorians argued that the four elements lacked
"eureka" feature in so many transformations. By this they tried to
articulate what we today would call an emergence through a bifurcation at
the edge of chaos. Meaning (2) is closer to what i have in mind. I have
had experiences in three "tacit LOs" and am now involved in the lift-off
of a fourth. I have also studied other "tacit LOs" closely, but that is
different from experiencing them. I am convinced that all of them became
LOs through an emergent event so that afterwards they could exclaim
"eureka".
It is not my intention that all fellow learners should agree with me. I
have said it many times over several years on this list. But, like
Copernicus for whom the heliocentric description fitted facts better than
the geocentric description, why should i give up my description in favour
of one backed up by a massive amount of literature and a large body of
practioners? Quantity -- in spareness ("quantity-limit") -- is but one of
seven patterns i have to take into account.
>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.
I have never claimed only one flavour, shape or kind of LO. My sensitivity
to otherness ("quality-variety") is too much to do so. But what i strongly
suspect is that every LO (not L+O) has this special "eureka" property. Our
host Rick has a special forum "Why a LO" and what strikes me each time i
read through it, is this "eureka" between the lines.
>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.
Mark, let the signs "/=/" symbolise "is not equal to". I then hold:
organisational learning /=/ learningorganisation
Furthermore, i recognise that for most thinkers in the field
organisational learning = learning organisation
Despite the possibility of this case, i am convinced by my own
questioning that it is not the case. And i am open to convincing by
the questioning of others.
>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.
I agree with you. Theories have abounded concerning individual learning
for more than two millenia. To expect anything less for organisational
learning the past three decades would be foolish. However, as a scientist
i have learned to make a careful distinction between the observation of a
phenomenon and any theory to explain what has been observed in the
phenomenon.
I have experienced "learningorganisations" many years before the Fifth
Discipline appeared. I have observed them, but the significance of it did
not struck me until the Fifth Discipline appeared. Much of my observations
were articulated by the five disciplines. Unfortunately, more than that
happened in these five disciplines. But first i have to quote you:
>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.
I have a different problem with The Fifth Discipline, The Field Book and
the Dance of Change. It is that in them observations and theoretical
explanations are so intermingled that it is very difficult, without any
experience, to know which are which. Nevertheless, i do not think that
Senge had much to say on learning and little on knowledge. He often
considers them together which, in terms of wholeness, is what they are.
The English langauge allows the usage of learning for both.
>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.
I have to admit that theories in every walk of life are put into
competition to each other. For example, there are even those who put
"complex adaptive systems" theory into competition with "irreversible
self-organisation" theory or "autopoiesis" theory. However, once we admit
to the role of wholeness in any evolution, even the evolution of theories,
it becames more an issue of finding in each theory that which explain
facts sufficiently and combine them together.
>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.
Mark, again I have to emphasise that for me
"high performance organizational learning" /=/ "learningorganisation"
In fact, after a "learningorganisation" has emerged, individual and
organisational learning in it may very well still be of low performance.
But, to use the Pythagoreans once again, there will be "eureka" in the
learning -- excitement, joy, care and compassion.
>And let's, above all, keep the field open to testing and
>experimentation.
Let us also include observation and reflection.
>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,
As for a debate, i try to avoid it because of its exclusive nature. But as
for a respectful dialogue, i am all for it because of my commitment to
learning. In such a dialogue we can share our different viewpoints and
learn what fits in with our own experiences. We can even plan to open
ourselves up to new experiences so as to modify our viewpoints if
necessary.
Mark, while writing this reply, i was continuously aware of how
difficult it is for expressing myself in English since much of my thinking
is done in Afrikaans. For example, the equivalent of
organisational learning = learning organisation
in Afrikaans is
organisatoriese leer & lerende organisasie
Unfortunately, in Afrikaans the two are different concepts and thus
cannot be equalised.
Furthermore, when i wrote i am aware that for most thinkers in the
field
organisational learning = learning organisation
i did not write i am also aware that these thinkers are not aware of the
difference between "reversibility" and "irreversibility". It is because of
"irreversibility" that two words in the equation above cannot be
reversed so that we actually have
organisational learning /=/ learningorganisation
The most striking feature which i observe of the "act of learning" when
organisational learning is not involved, is its irreversibility. I have
observed it as early back as in 1972 and i am convinced that my eyes is
not playing the fool with me.
Thank you for your strong expressions. It helps us to become aware that
the "Criteria for a Learning Organization" and the "Criteria for a
LearningOrganization" cannot be the same. The latter has a few additional
criteria since it is more complex. I have pointed out one of them and that
is the occurance of metanoia.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> 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.