Replying to LO29824 --
Don:
I appreciate and agree with your points, but it doesn't relieve us (or
Peter) of the need to be clear about what, in fact, his assumptions
happened to be about organizations and how they operate. How can we be
expected to understand, much less evaluate, the value of a tool if the
nature of the object or system it purports to have impact on is left
undefined? Declaring that there are many possible descriptions of such
systems may be true, but it still tells us nothing about which one, or
ones, Peter in fact had in mind. Thus, I am still left wondering about
this, and am also left incapable of judging the suitability or potential
effectiveness of his approach. The underlying theory of practice is, by
definition, incomplete.
Regards,
Mark
Don Dwiggins wrote:
>Mark writes in LO29760:
>
>>Next, what's your take (or others') on the statement Jan makes: "She notes
>>that The Fifth Discipline contains all or most of the important Christian
>>values (integrity, freedom, loyality, openness, forgiveness) but lacks a
>>normative framework"?
>
>>I think I agree with this question. In other words, what do the five
>>disciplines map into, or onto? What is the theory of organizational
>>behavior that the five-discipline idea of practice relates to? What is
>>the 'thing' that the act of practicing the five disciplines has impact on,
>>and why is it five and not six, etc.? How do the five kinds of practices
>>map into or onto the thing we're trying to have impact on? What is the
>>vision of the underlying thing, or the view of what a healthy learning
>>organization looks like that logically leads to Peter's five disciples and
>>not some other five, six, or a hundred and six? Where is the underlying
>>normative (or even descriptive) model?
>>
>
>These are good questions, except for the word "the", implying that there
>must be exactly one such model. The 5Ds may be compatible with several
>models, that in their full elaboration may be incompatible with each
>other.
>
>It's probably a good thing that Senge didn't try to elaborate his
>principles into such a "normative framework" in his book (or its
>successors). There'll be time enough, when many good examples of LOs
>exist, for experience with them to provide a good foundation for such
>frameworks.
--"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.