Identifying Learning Organizations LO15004

Moore, Mark (mark.moore@attws.com)
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:47:28 -0700

Replying to LO14948 --

I've come into this thread late so please accept my apologies if my
comments are way off mark. Patton does, indeed, provide numerous
interesting lessons that relate to learning organizations.

The first of these has to do with the American military establishment from
its earliest days through to the middle of this century. The American
military used to have a long tradition of mediocrity in leadership during
peacetime. The personal characteristics that were valued in peacetime had
little to do with military prowess and everything to do with social
standing and political savvy. American involvement in the major military
conflicts of the 19th and 20th centuries typically started out with
disasters because of inept leadership. What typically turned the tide in
leadership was persons who would have never stood a chance at peacetime
leadership rising to position of leadership in time of war. Patton is a
prime example, as are Ulysses S. Grant, J.E.B. Stuart, and William "Bull"
Halsey. So, is there a lesson here for a learning organization? I think
there is, at least from a business perspective. A successful business
must know why they are successful. The reason so many poor losers rose to
positions of responsibility in the American military is because the
military didn't really know what it took to be successful. It took
battles to make them aware. If a business doesn't know why it is
successful, they don't stand a chance when things begin to change that
erode their success. Many businesses are successful in spite of
themselves, not because of themselves. If a particular business doesn't
recognize this, they are shark bait when the external factors that lead to
their success begin to change.

Another lesson that we can learn from Patton is also a lesson that is
taught by Erwin Rommel, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert E. Lee,
and a number of other great military leaders. That lesson is in
adaptability and willingness to change. There is an old axiom in military
strategy that says that amateurs worry about strategy and professionals
worry about logistics. While these leaders were good battlefield
commanders, their true genius was their organizational ability. Each of
them rejected the commonly held organizational beliefs of their day and
reorganized their force structure in a way that was revolutionary for
their time. If you want to see a corollary, compare the way Patton turned
around the entire third Army in the winter of 1944 to relieve Bastogne
with the way Bill Gates turned Microsoft around to become a major player
on the internet. Their ability to pull off these two feats had less to do
with their individual leadership characteristics and a lot to do with
having created an organization that was capable of making radical changes
very quickly.

"If there's a way to do it better . . . .
find it!"
Thomas A. Edison
Mark S. Moore
Training Manager
Technical Education
AT&T Wireless Services
mark.moore@attws.com

-- 

"Moore, Mark" <mark.moore@attws.com>

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