To Rol's response for Reg Munro about deployment of effective practices,
I'd like to add my own thoughts.
Several contributors to this list have, like Rol, observed that the LO is
not an organization at all. Let's think about that for a moment. If we
"voted" on what we thought a learning organization is, some of us would
include toward a structure of people, let's say, who are aligned in their
sensitivity toward and use of profitable learning.
Others would opt for the notion the Learning Organization means "How
Learning is Organized". These are related concepts, but, I submit, they
are confusing by the different foci which comprise the grist of this list.
We have typed about teams; Human Resources; reward and recognition; Zen;
seven this and five that; myth; story telling; etc. What we are getting
at (read: getting our arms and hearts and heads around) is how we align
disparate, thinking humans so that their thought processes and experiences
(data) contribute to what is perceived as improvement.
So, I want to support Rol in his notes. Let's be concrete where we can
(data points); let's understand the notion of a vague boundary or
demarcation between between theory and practice, and that a learning
organization already exists just about everywhere. You and I are turning
the directed camera lens to bring what exists into better focus. That way
the negative image is replicable by those who like what is printed.
Barry
-- "Barry Mallis" <bmallis@quickmail.markem.com>