Rick, you said,
> One factor is that this is not easy, and there are some serious skills
>needed. Just wanting to be a learning organization isn't enough. I look
>to see if people are serious, serious enough to build the skills, stay
>with it through the rough spots... Serious enough about the benefits in
>order to stay with it. No one said it would be easy. <<
As you say, "just wanting to be a learning organization is not enough."
My personal bias, totally unsupported by any data or observation, is that
there must be a specific outcome involved as well. "LO" is about process.
What outcome is LO striving for? Not stated. As a consequence, LO too
often deteriorates into an academic, learning for learning's sake,
approach. If the outcomes don't occur (whether stated or not), then LO is
deemed a failure.
Same problem with TQM, and, as it happens, with Re-engineering.
However, just my uninformed prejudice...
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <firstname.lastname@example.org> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>