Mnr AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za) makes a number of fascinating
points. I would like to take one of them, holistic thinking and expand:
>...The pattern which we seem to perceive, points to some very important
>things. Firstly, there is some correspondence between our minds and the
>material world out there. Secondly, this correspondence forces us to
>accept that our minds and the world out there are firmly connected into
>one reality. This the very essence of holistic thinking.
>Now, to end this contribution on the thread "Can Organisations Learn?", I
>wish to observe YES, provided that the members of the organisation think
>holistically. How should we define this holism? ...
There are several notions here. First, the organization must have a shared
vision, values and culture NOT TO mention similar backgrounds and
education. Strong leadership will ensure continued buy-in to the current
change initiatives to produce the forward momentum that can cause learning
to occur.
Second, lack of holistic thinking is what causes the symptoms to be
treated in so many organizations. Treating of symptoms (rather than
causes) and preserving the status quo are both observable behaviours of an
organization that would qualify it to be "NOT AN LO" IMHO. So it serves to
eliminate some from consideration.
Third, other behaviours include fear of failure and lack of process to
learn from ("celebrate!") organizational failures. These would not
strictly qualify as holistic IMHO so I would say that holistic behaviour
is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an LO.
I think if we can agree on a set of these behaviours that are not
representative of LOs we will start making progress in our thinking.
This would be a kind of holistic approach to defining LOs!
--"Cowan, Keith" <kcowan@orion.globalden.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>