Willard, as author of the book "The Intelligence Advantage" which is
developing the ideas - and operational definitions - of
organisational intelligence, I've got to take on each of your points.
> 1. What is the author's operational definition of a learning
> organization, of learning, and of teaching? Without operational
> specificity for these three concepts, it is difficult to have a logical
> exploration of the quote.
It might be more constructive and creative to suggest some
operational definitions rather than leave the question hanging
unanswerable. I offer:
- A learning organisation is an entity that is organised in ways that
allow it to continually build adaptive behaviours
- learning is the process of continually expanding and reorganising
existing knowledge
- teaching is the offer of sharing what one knows in ways that will
contribute to the learning intentions of the student
(remember, these are offered as operational definitions, not the
right way)
> 2. Do people still believe that anybody can teach anyone else anything?
> We can create a learning environement and we can facilitate discovery, but
> it is rather arrogant to think that we can teach anyone anything.
> Teaching assumes that someone has the answer. We all know that no one has
> the answer for anyone else because the other person's situation and
> capabilities are different than our experience and capabilities.
Yes, people still believe in teaching. Thank goodness. There are
master teachers the world over and I am thankful for that. Your
definition of teaching (obviously different than the one I propose)
is far too narrow for my taste and seems to assume that teaching
means "passing information from one to another".
> 3. What does the person mean by information technologies? Information
> technologies are just that, methods to more quickly distribute
> information. They may or may not be knowledge technologies or learning
> technologies or point of service decision aiding technologies.
Information technologies are far beyond *only* quick distribution.
They do processing that can't be done in other ways. They explore
territories of possibility that could never be done by an unaided
mind. They allow communication at new levels. And a couple of other
things.
> 4. What does a competitive advantage look like? How does one logically
> connect the definitions in question 1 to whatever the person defines as
> competitive advantage?
Are levels of intelligence and knowledge not obvious competitive
advantages? I challenge that we could think otherwise in a general
sense. I do allow that we can come up with specific examples -
particularly where there is little change in circumstances and no
competition with other intelligent beings.
> So, I suggest that the quote per se doesn't contain a whole lot of
> information or knowledge that will help us operationally add value for our
> customers, but it does trigger us to maybe have a fruitful discussion
> about the concepts embedded in it. Such as the current thread on what is
> the definition of a learning org?
For a quote to "contain a whole lot of information" it must be
ambiguous (see information theory) and will elicit dialogue,
difference and eventually some useful resolution. I think the quote
has succeeded admirably to go by the conversation it's drawn from the
list.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk