RE: Replying to LO3912 and LO3921
On the subject of "LO Oly half an answer"
John Woods replied, "We have a bad habit of turning really good
insights and techniques into fads and then we trash them."
Kent Myers added, "That quotation is obnoxious." ... "Any idea that
is successful comes to be identified with its most degraded
manifestations."
Willard E. Jule said, among other things, "Do people still believe
that anybody can teach anyone else anything?"
Rol (me) said "Personally, I think this is right on. It gets to the heart
of
the problem with 'learning organizations,' in that
there is no implied responsibility to take action on the learning."
****** end of prior quotes ********
There seem to be some strong feelings about this subject. Let me offer
some additional quotes:
"When we try to bring about change in our societies, we are treated first
with indifference, then with ridicule, than with abuse, and then
oppression. And finally, the greatest challenge is thrown at us: We are
treated with respect. This is the most dangerous stage."
A. T. Ariyaratne in a paraphrase of Mahatma Ghandi
Or, in a more in-your-face vein:
DRIVE OUT SLOGANS!! DRIVE OUT SLOGANS!! DRIVE OUT SLOGANS!!
repeated many, many times in many places by W. Edwards Deming
Any idea that cannot withstand attack is -- by definition -- not a good
idea. Therefore, the only way to determine the value, the worth, the
essential goodness of an idea, is to attack it, and see how resilient it
is.
Therefore, let us not treat the l-o concept with too much respect, nor let
it become a slogan. Instead, let us attack it from every direction, let
us listen carefully and respectfully to the emotional or thoughtful
messages, and respond emotionally as well as thoughtfully. Either the
concept will survive, in which case it will have proven that it deserves
our respect, or it will be replaced. Frankly, it is too soon to put this
concept on an inviolate pedestal.
I will tell you why the original quote resonated for me. I have been
listening to a fascinating, rich, and thought-provoking dialog on this
network about the definition of a l-o, about what the term l-o means,
about whether or not organizations learn or think, and so on. I heard --
and this may not be a complete view -- a deep and enriching diversity of
viewpoints. But no consensus, or even any clarity. No definition. More
troubling for me, I heard insufficient mention of some critical parameters
for me personally: 1) results, and 2) customers.
I have reread Senge's essay in the 5th Discipline Fieldbook beginning on
p. 15, and he has a section entitled The essence of "the Learning
Organization" Notice his subtle use of quotes. He talks about something
I _do_ understand very well, the Great Team. The Great Team achieves
incredible results. Research shows they accomplish this through trust,
relationships, acceptance, synergy. I would add -- perhaps not Senge --
Fierce Shared Purpose, and passion, passion, passion. He goes on to
describe deep learning.
I am very comfortable with Senge's viewpoint because results are central.
However, I think the original quote that generated this discussion was
expressing discomfort -- actually a feeling of irrelevance -- because
results do not often enough enter into the arena. The desirable outcomes
of l-o that are often mentioned are self-actualization, satisfaction with
work, self-management, natural teams, and so forth. My viewpoint is that
those are not goals, they are desirable, and perhaps inevitable, side
effects. Their existence may be symptomatic of a l-o that is truly
performing. But the goal is to achieve incredible results, nothing less.
Teams that achieve incredible results (e.g. the Marines) feel
self-actualized and satisfied with work, and they practice naturally
occurring teams, and self-management. but only after the fact of Fierce
shared purpose, deep learning, and incredible results.
We would be wise to pay attention to the feelings expressed in this quote,
because they are not the feelings of one person. We run the risk of
letting l-o become an interesting irrelevance that never reaches its
potential because we minimize the central essence -- incredible results.
-- Rol Fessenden <76234.3636@compuserve.com>