I agree with those who have described that perhaps the difficulty with
somehow "measuring" whether or not LO's work has most to do with the
measurement criteria which are used . . . and time. In looking at
possible criteria for measurement and the determination of "success,"
looking at numerative data alone is possibly too narrow and limiting. As
others have suggested, it may be that we simply have not yet discovered
the kinds of measurement that the emerging workplace needs.
Dollars and productivity or quality measures tell only part of the picture
of work. It is easy to forget that work serves a utilitarian purpose, an
expressive purpose, and a developmental purpose. Traditionally, though,
effectiveness has been judged primarily in terms of the utilitarian
purpose (e.g., money).
The work of the Council on Economic Priorities here in the US proposed a
few years ago that social and moral responsibilities also be included when
evaluating or measuring organizational effectiveness; Ellmen, in the 80s,
came up with a similar listing, though briefer. The Coalition of
Environmentally Responsible Economics (1990) created useful ecological
measures. I'm sure there are others.
I perceive the "learning" in LOs in two ways, working along parallel
paths: one is the extent to which the organization as a whole learns and
improves or evolves along several dimensions; the second is the extent to
which the organization provides a context or environment that will enhance
(educative), rather than distort or restrain (miseducative), individual
development.
It is possible, and helpful I believe, to look at organizational success
in terms of both our standard market models (or whatever will evolve from
them) and from a developmental perspective. For adults, work is the
central domain for the development of our human capacity. As Welton
describes, it has become a fundamental training site for a participatory
society. We can look at work as being itself a curricular context. When
we organize work from this perspective, "development" becomes not a
function of training but a way of conducting work as a whole. This is
where I see the significant potential of LOs.
We could, I think, "measure" (at least qualitatively, for now) the
development of the people within the workplace, and contrast or compare
this with the development of people within a more traditional workplace.
My research in this area has consistently shown that the movement from a
more traditional, self-protective workplace towards a more autonomous and
integrated one such as LOs, does stimulate and support adult growth along
the lines of self- needs/values, sense of self, moral sense, cognitive
development, task/conflict resolution, and
differentiation-individuation-discernment.
Though the measurement of these development areas continues to be hotly
debated, I think there is value in considering measurement tools along
these lines. Economic indicators of some sort must also remain in the
picture, but I believe there are also other ways to measure the success or
effectiveness of a way of conducting work that provide a richer, more
meaningful evaluation. A developmental matrix can, btw, be used to
understand both the individual and the organizational development.
To be considered "practical," however, will no doubt mean a BIG shift in
how we collectively think of the purpose of work and the nature of the
worker.
--Terri A. Deems, PhD DAI/WorkLife Design
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>