George, I am with you in the exploration. I approach organisational
learning from, suprise, learning itself. That is, we are going to have to
learn how to learn organisationally. So let's begin.
In this approach, I think the role or position for consultants is not very
different from the internal people and what is wanted and needed and
developing in successful places is a "community of leaders (for learning)"
to use the way that I name it. I'm looking for complex, emergent and
community language rather than authority, expert and individual language
such as "leader" and I'm trying to stay away from what I consider the
polluted language of mechanistic reductionist psyhcology which can be
imputed to "champion".
I'm not so sure about the "learning for what?" question. While its useful
for corporate conversations, I'm not sure its relevant for the action
people. Why? Because I don't think we can pin it down in the linear
cause & effect way that question is likely to lead to if not actually
implied in it. More importantly, its because "everyone knows" what
learning is for in general and also in any particular situation or place.
Learning is a fundamental human value - in my approach to life - and is a
pragmatic approach to any desire for an improvement.
Its worth looking at "what should we learn or how do we go about learning
given that we want x."
The "stewards of self-organizing collective intelligence" is far too alien
- but its right on the money. But the community is that and the stewards
continue to emerge if its present.
--
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