When I first saw this topic heading I wondered about the purpose in
looking for a definition of a learning organization. The role of
definition in the analytical language of logic is quite different from
that in management. In logic a definition creates "objects" and identifies
functions whereby they can be combined, transformed etc. Definitions in
logic are important because the conclusion of logic follow directly from
the premises: so definitions are inputs. In the more analogical language
of management, definitions are usually outputs - retrospective
analogy-based explanations of what worked. The language of management
tends to be the language of experience and it commonly uses what Gilbert
Ryle has called "success" verbs -- verbs that describe desirable outcomes
but don't specify the means for their achievement.
I think that this is born out by Willard Jule's definitions which I think
are admirable but are they inputs or outputs? "Learn", "discover", "work
together" are all verbs defined by outcomes. It seems to me that these
definitions translate action into thought but not vice versa. They allow
one to recognize an LO after the fact, but don't not help much when we try
to go forward. So apart from helping us coordinate our use of language so
that we can have conversations what are the purposes of looking for a
definition of a learning organization?
Incidentally, this problem with success verbs is rampant in the field of
strategy. In their appeal to desirable outcomes without specifying the
means for their achievement, most strategy statements have the logical
status of prayer! Let me hasten to add that IMHO this is fine, as long as
it is recognized as such and the management process conducted accordingly.
One way prayer "works" is if it is treated as an appeal for joint action
from a community with shared values and a common vision.
-- David Hurst Speaker, Consultant and Writer on Management, dhurst1046@aol.com