Robert Bacal wrote:
> I may be totally off base here, but if the goal is to discuss learning and
> to promote learning, then it makes sense to use language as it is commonly
> used, rather than inventing new words which may only be meaningful to
> those inventing the terms.
>
> The greater issue, of course, is whether the language that we use in
> promoting a learning organization has the exact opposite effect--impeding
> the development of learning organizations.
Let me put it this way, you don't hear many people using communist
terminology like proletariat in Eastern Europe these days! Sometimes the
only English word that taxi drivers in Poland know is "business". And just
as the vocabulary changed from communism to capitalism, so too will it
change from capitalism to technological capitalism- words like employee
and organization will find little if any use there. Retention of this
outmoded terminology only delays positive change and learning. It is true
to say that even new descriptive terms like "ranker" and "technological
capitalism" require people to make the effort to have a basic
understanding of them.
regards simon buckingham, http://www.unorg.com/gloss.htm
--Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>