Kara Peters wrote:
> This month, we would like to know how you combat concerns that
> organizational learning may be just another "management fad." Thanks for
> your insights.
Dear Kara:
As others suggest, the answer to your inquiry is most likely determined by
the way in which it is framed. It seems to me that if we try to deal with
concerns about organizational learning being a management fad by 'taking
sides' - i.e. to show offer evidence or opinions why it is or is not, we
give weight to an either-or argument that would reinforce the management
fad view. At the same time, engaging in such 'competitive' discussions
would probably also lead to organizational learning showing up as a
temporary technique or fad.
Said another way, whether organizational learning appears as a management
fad depends to a great extent on what we look at to answer the question.
If we look at particular techniques or forms or approaches, then it is
probable that we would notice that these are replaced over time with
newer, more innovative, or more effective alternatives. If such progress
meets a someone's criteria of a fad, so be it. I think an organizational
learning view would embrace such conclusions and seek to understand the
basis for them.
Similarly, if organizational learning is presented or understood as an
approach or philosophy that conflicts with other approaches, then people
might be inclined to attack or defend it. Some might wish to judge
organizational learning to be a fad, and in doing so could offer great
food for thought, especially where evidence to support such a view is
provided. For those really committed to organizational learning, such
conversations would be welcomed as an opportunity to learn more - to see
some things that may not have been clear before. Remember that what we
resist persists, so fighting the thought that organizational learning is a
fad will most likely give it more support.
Another possibility is to consider that a learning organization is not a
'thing' - a process or technique or model - that is presented in
opposition to what already exists, but rather a 'context' that includes
everything that is. As such, organization learning is created by the
declarations or stands that people take. And these stands are generated
by their commitments because of who they are. In linguistic terms, it is
the domain of 'being' that generates context, not the domain of 'doing' or
of 'knowing'. Now it is interesting that context and beingness are
constantly recreated, they do not endure. That is in part what makes them
so powerful, yet may also appear as temporary phenonema to a casual
observer. It is also why it is essential that leaders invest in keeping
organizational visions fresh and alive, for as real examples of context
they too lose their impact over time.
I hope these thoughts are useful....
Rick Fullerton
Canadian Centre for Management Development
rwfc@odyssee.net
rickf@ccmd-ccg.gc.ca
--Rick Fullerton <rwfc@odyssee.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>