Joe DiVincenzo writes: "In Ivan's response to Rol he talked about 'doing
your magic thing with LO". Going back to LO being a "distraction" I wonder
if that distraction is really an undiscussable. It was stated that
"everyone understands but no one agrees" back at the 'office'. Is
'Steering clear" of the word LO just reinforcing the fact that becoming a
LO and opening ourselves up is really too threatening and therefore an
undiscussable?"
That was not what I was trying to say, although others may agree with that
perspective. What I was saying was similar to what Deming always said --
that slogans get in the way of thinking and learning. Similarly, the
words of the Masters also get in the way of thinking and learning. When I
used to teach mathematics, I didn't tell them about Newton's approach to
the Calculus because then they would try to understand what Newton was
doing. Instead, we developed the Calculus concept together ourselves.
When we got done, we felt like we understood it, and when I said, "ok, you
just did what Newton did," then they felt pretty good about themselves as
well.
I think my department is a learning organization, but whether it is or not
is not important. What is important to me is that people work highly
effectively as teams, (either permanent or temporary), they deal with
adversity in a healthy way, they are comfortable with ambiguity although
they strie to overcome it, they learn effectively as a group and as
individuals, they think -- and act -- systemically, and finally, they are
highly focused on some key goals that are easy state but difficult to even
know how to achieve.
We did not get this way by setting out to create a learning organization.
We got this way by developing a set of skills, some working values, and so
forth which taken in the aggregate meet my personal criteria for a LO.
I personally believe that if instead, we had consciously set out to create
a LO, we would still be struggling to understand what it is. Why? Many
reasons. Fear of creating something new. Personal resistance to change.
Lack of clarity about what it was. A focus on doing what someoe else
describes as a LO instead of developing deeply held convictions of our own
about what a LO ought to be for us in our environment. Deeply held
convictions are far more important than an intellectual concept,
especially if the concept is ambiguous.
It is important to determine what makes a high-performance team, and
therefore what is required of a learning organization. I am glad some
people are struggling with this issue. However, from an implementation
perspective, it does not add any value to consciously bring LO into the
development process. Instead, the concept becomes a distraction.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234.3636@compuserve.com