Luis Colorado wrote:
> I've read a lot of postings saying that "we want to build a LO in a xxxx
> (school, industry, facility, etc.)". But, what for? If LO don't have a
> clear, well defined, reachable but demanding purpose, it will be very
> hard to apply any metric.
hello, Luis--
you've asked an important question here. I think that there are various
answers, though. For instance, I'm interested in learning organizations
for a couple of reasons. First, in the abstract, it appeals to my
personality and interest in learning. Only a few people out of a group,
though, would feel this same way as me. Another motivation for me is that
I see that it creates a more flexible and adaptive organization (actually
I see it as a transition into the category of a complex adaptive system or
living organization--pick the term that's least offensive to you). This
means that there is more potential for survival and even for thriving in
changing environmental conditions and with new competition for customers
and resources. One significant motivator for me is the human development
and growth that I see occuring within a learning organization (learners
lead richer lives). I'm convinced that the principles of LO fit into
communities, institutions (like schools and churches), businesses,
government organizations, nonprofits and so forth. I also am convinced
that many people will not see the value or have similar motivators as
myself.
I like to approach people and ask them what their purpose is--what are
their motivators--indeed, what is the purpose for your organization and
where are you aiming that purpose? I am relatively certain that most of
the time, LO disciplines will benefit and complement the organizational
purpose and provide it with a steadier aim.
This doesn't mean that it's the only way (or process) available to myself,
or you or anyone. There is a spirit, though, within the teaching and
lessons learned from the Fifth Discipline Fieldbook and the Fifth
Discipline which complement many other methods and processes. I believe
it was Gene Taurman who said or suggested that learning, like continuous
improvement, doesn't have an optimum condition.
So, as you say, it's difficult to apply any single metric. Success is
measured differently based on the perspective of the stakeholder. I
suspect that there should be an effort to meet that definition from the
perspective of each organizational member (including stockholders, CFO's,
CIO's, CEO's, managers, laborers, service and administrative staff,
contractors, suppliers and vendors). One of the interesting aspects of
growing an organization--especially an learning one--is to ask each group
of stakeholders to define success, to reiterate nested purposes within the
larger purpose, and to aim themselves accordingly.
Finally, I'd pose the question to you---what's the purpose of an
Unlearning Organization?
regards,
Doc
-- "I never hit a shot, not even in practice, without having a very sharp, in-focus picture of it in my head." -Jack NicklausThresholds <http://www.thresholds.com> Meeting Masters <http://www.thresholds.com/masters.html> Richard Charles "Doc" Holloway Astoria, OR & Olympia, WA USA ICQ# 10849650 voice 360.786.0925
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>