> Replying to LO723 --
>
> What I suggest, following Deming, is that what is wanted is an
> "operational definition" - not the "right" definition. An operational
> definition is one that distinguishes something in a useful way and that is
> agreed to be the definition by those playing the particular language game
> until a change is announced. It has pragmatic rather than truth value.
>
> Before the definition, we need to create the field or domain of the
> definition. That is, I suggest that we consider that "organisation" here
> does not refer to a corporation or some other specific example of
> organisation. Rather, that we consider the phenomenon of organisation in
> its own existence.
>
> So a learning organisation is an emergent phenomenon which has the
> attributes of being able to receive data or stimulation, to interpret that
> stimulation according to the receiver's internal structure or systems and
> store that as knowledge for possible future action.
>
> This definition will now have a category of entities that learn _by their
> nature or design or organisation_ and a category of entities that do not
> learn. We can now consider that our companies, etc are either one or the
> other. If they are entities that do not learn by their nature, then the
> design challenge is too large to deal with. If they are entities that
> _do_ learn by their nature, then we are faced with the questions of how to
> enhance their ability to learn and their effectiveness in learning. A
> much simpler job - and difficult enough.
>
> I do not find the definition provided by Senge one that I like to work
> with or find empowering and enabling. There is too much personal
> judgement about things like "what is worth learning" and too much question
> of whether or not an organisation _is_ a learning one.
>
> I find it much more powerful and useful - pragmatic - to start with the
> assumption of my operational definition and begin to work from there.
> Given my assumption, I no longer talk about "a learning organisation".
> The focus shifts to the phenomena of organisational learning.
> --
> Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
> "Intelligence is an underlying organisational principle
> of the universe. The 'logos principle' is hidden and
> perceptible only to the intelligence." Heraclitus
>
>
The above discussion reminds me of two ideas. First, Ackoff's
classification into five hierarchical elements: data, information,
knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. At the top of this hierarchy,
wisdom is the least encountered of the five. Alexander Pope made the
point in 1717 that most wisdom had already been created by the ancients.
Anyone who tries to market to someone else something that they do not
inherently desire, such as a "learning organization", or, in my own case,
"Interactive Management" had better be relying on powerful hype, as
opposed to a careful system of reasoning. It is very tough to market
ideas loved by the owner to persons who do not love them, but who may have
some cash sought by the marketer.
A better stance is to find out what the people with cash would like to
have, determine if it is lies within the ethical system of the marketer to
provide that, and then proceed to use those loved ideas to provide the
purchaser with what is sought.
This was probably enunicated by Confucius, but I don't have the rererence
today.
JOHN WARFIELD