Replying to LO30940 --
Don:
Now you're being cynical and it really doesn't suit you. Let's cut to
the chase. Can you name a form of life on Earth, much less a human
culture, that does not learn according to the so-called learning
cycle?
That is, (in the case of Kolb) the Observe-Assess-Design-Implement
(OADI) cycle. Or (in the case of Haeckel), the
Act-Sense-Interpret-Decide cycle? Or (in the case of Stacey), the
Choose-Act-Discover cycle? Or (in the case of Firestone), the
Decide-Act-Monitor-Evaluate cycle?
They're all the same. And yes, you're right, they're emergent. What
can learn from that in terms of how to enhance organizational
learning? I think you've already answered the question. You said:
"As a personal reaction, I'd suggest an emergent rather than a
prescriptive approach to engendering, facilitating, and supporting
organizational learning (and individual learning in the organizational
context). That is, rather than assuming that you have the optimum
learning process for this organization (much less for all
organizations across all cultures), observe carefully and with an open
mind and heart how learning actually takes place when and where it
does, and look to leverage the strengths and shore up the weaknesses
of 'this' individual's/organization's learning processes (plural
intentional) in the now-classic iterative approach."
But that said, Don, you make the mistake of lumping me into the
alternative 'do it this way' school of thought in OL. Your remarks at
least seem to. So I take it you are not aware of my work in arguing
for the reverse -- contrarian view of how to enhance organizational
learning.
My approach is simply as follows: Because learning behaviors (and
knowledge) are emergent in human social systems, efforts to enhance
learning should be deferential, not prescriptive. In other words,
rather than thinking in terms of (learning) behaviors following from
deterministic (teaching) policies, we should completely reverse our
thinking. Teaching policies should follow from (emergent) learning
behaviors. We need to strengthen the self-organizing tendencies of
people to learn in their own endemic ways, not change them (the
learning behaviors) by imposing contradictory or deterministic
policies.
So Don, I don't know who the "consultants" are that you're attacking
with your remarks, but please don't include me in that bunch.
Incidentally, this "policy synchronization method" approach to
enhancing organizational learning is now being taught at www.kmci.org
in a class called K-STREAM (tm). It's what Don's arguing for. I
agree with him. And I co-teach the class. Next one is March 1 - 5 in
Washington, DC.
Regards,
Mark
Mark W. McElroy
Co-Director, KMCI (www.kmci.org)
CEO, Macroinnovation Associates, LLC (www.macroinnovation.com)
(802) 436-2250
>>Ahhh, the eternal search for the organizational consultant's holy
>>grail: "Just do it this way, and you're guaranteed optimum results!"
>>
>>My wife has been a teacher for over 4 decades; one of the thing's
>>she's learned, and most good teachers learn to deal with, is that
>>children in the classroom have different ways (styles, modalities,
>>...) that are most effective for them in learning the presented
>>material. Can we suppose, when learners are brought together in an
>>organization, that the "organizational learning process" will somehow
>>"smooth out" the individual differences, or will the interactions of
>>individual learning processes lead to even greater complexity in the
>>modalities of organizational learning? (Are there any good studies of
>>this, grounded in actual practice?)
--"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.