Richard and others,
After a happy long time on this list, I had to leave for a few months to
get some work done ;-) I returned several weeks ago to this thread and
others driven by some of the voices I remember so well.
I and some colleagues had considered the above question but with some
irony. We were not sure that the criteria in such conversations are
sufficiently detailed and examined. We wrote an article about how such
measuring might turn out in a short-sighted view in the most recent issue
of our newsletter Mind On The Job (http://idt.net/~tjell/MINDO_23.HTML).
In that article we cite what Kleiner, Senge, et al wrote in the 5thD FB:
"The rationale for any strategy for building a LO revolves around the
premise that such organizations will produce dramatically improved
results, compared to more traditional organizations." We looked at the
Stock market and a Best Companies rating for a quick analysis. Many
companies identified as LOs did not make the grade. But are such
measurements the way to go? Can you measure the changes wrought? If you
can't quantify as suggested in a recent article in the Systems Thinker,
are you excluding certain higher levels of thinking? I won't pretend to
have resolved such questions but I also am interested in the exploration
that gets beyond the surface comparisons and measures.
I agree with some of the items referenced as possible criteria by Richard
Goodale (see snips blow) and others. However, I think that any setting of
criteria must include the perspectives of those who hire others to help
transitions to LO, those who are working in the departments or whole
companies affected, and others who analyze the performance of
organizations -- including customers. I'm not saying that any of these
groups has the right answer. As we point out in the article, they all may
have a skewed or short-sighted view of what LO should do. I am saying that
if it's just the consultants examining that the view will be partial at
best.
It's a treat to be able to be back reading the list.
T.J. Elliott
Cavanaugh Leahy & Company
tjell@mail.idt.net
http://idt.net/~tjell
> Maybe not.... Some, including myself, see the LO principles as guides for
> organisational development, i.e. a roadmap for the teachers as well as the
> learners. From this point of view, they are "really" about "how to HELP
> YOURSELF AND OTHER PEOPLE live a fulfilling human life in the midst of a
> modern, complex, OFTEN hierarchicial WORLD." I (we?) come at these issues
> from the perspective that change only really occurs when it is embraced at the
> top of an organisation.
> ...snip...
>
> This is a good idea. Why don't we try to "backcast," as economists say,
> to see if the implementation of LO principles in the past by real
> organisations has led to greater organisational performance and/or
> individual fulfillment?
--"T.J. Elliott" <tjell@IDT.NET>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>