Ecological literacy and living organizations LO13814

Richard C. Holloway (olypolys@nwrain.com)
Mon, 02 Jun 1997 20:56:59 -0700

Replying to LO13753 --

Benjamin B. Compton wrote:
> Richard C. Holloway wrote:
> > This web we're weaving seems to me to be speaking of the conflict between
> > the linear mind-set demanded by our economic culture and the cyclical--or
> > natural--mental model on which systems thinking is based. It seems to me
> > that much of the effort involved in developing learning organizations
> > seems linked to an awareness that organizations need to evolve, to change,
> > to become more reflective of the natural world in which they exist. This
> > means, to me, that we should seek to understand organizations from an
> > ecological viewpoint.
> >
> > One example of what I'm speaking occurred in the recent dialog about
> > learning--how can we get people to learn? How do we measure their
> > learning? How can we justify the expense to the organization (especially
> > if we can't get people to learn what we want them to learn!)? I see a
> > significant problem with this. Learning experiences that hinge on
> > trainers choosing what people need to know--presumes that what people need
> > to know has been invented or has occurred. What people frequently need is
> > the opportunity to experiment, to choose, to think, while being exposed to
> > the ideas and thoughts from professionals and academics. Now, many might
> > say that they don't intend to choose what people need to know--however, as
> > soon as they frame the questions to measure or quantify the learning, then
> > they've done just that.
>

Ben wrote:

> Richard, help me establish a connection between your first and second
> paragraphs. I don't see how what you're saying in your second paragraph is
> reflective of the approach to prescribe in the first.
>
> I've read "The Web of Life," and enjoyed it very much. And a good portion
> of my time over the last few months has been spent on trying to figure out
> how to view an organization from an ecological viewpoint. And so if you
> can establish a firm and clear connection between the mental model and
> practical realities I would be interested.

Ben--

Sorry for being obtuse--sometimes I take those intuitive leaps
that don't leave any markers behind. I'd like to take your last question
first, then go back to clarifying myself.

The basic principles of ecology (according to Capra) are:
interdependence, recycling, partnership, flexibility, diversity and
sustainability.

The "essences" of the five disciplines that underly the learning
organization (according to Senge) are: holism and interconnectedness
(systems thinking); being, generativeness and connectedness (personal
mastery); love of truth and openness (mental models); commonality of
purpose and partnership (building shared vision); collective intelligence
and alignment (team learning). Essence refers to "the state of being of
those with high levels of mastery in disciplines."

Three of these disciplines are collective, and I think that there's a
correlation:

systems thinking--interdependence and recycling;
building shared vision--partnership and sustainability;
team learning--flexibility and diversity.

The conclusion of "The Fifth Discipline" certainly advocates the
ecological point of view. Learning organizations (or Living
Organizations) exhibit the basic principles of ecology and appreciate
these principles by paying heed to them within the larger system.

I hope this helps. I certainly don't believe that there are very many
true learning organizations--certainly none that I've seen. But I do
believe that organizational success will depend on how well organizations
adopt the principles and disciplines that are mentioned above.

To clarify my point (your first question), my basic "complaint" about the
continuing dialog concerning learning measurements is that I believe the
process of quantifying and measuring learning (insofar as their value to
organizations) perpetuates the structures we find in anti-learning
organizations. Beyond the scope of teaching fundamental or mechanical
skills to facilitate communication (coordinating behavior!), what we need
most are critical thinking skills and mastery over the five disciplines.
The reductionist behavior of quantifying knowledge acquisition does not
support living, adapting, flexible, future-oriented organizations. It
seems to me that it reflects a basic Cartesian philosophy. How would I
measure "learning success?" By looking at the whole organization's
continuing survivability and viability.

Well, that's longer than I intended--I wish my response was as succinct as
your question!

regards,

-- 
Richard C. "Doc" Holloway, Limen Development Network -
olypolys@nwrain.com

" Man's destiny, then, is primarily action. We do not live to think, but the other way round: we think in order that we may succeed in surviving."

-Jose Ortega y Gasset

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>