Def of Learning Org LO4533

Roy Winkler (rwinkler@iquest.net)
Mon, 01 Jan 1996 09:55:31 -0800

Replying to LO4493 --

carold.whisnant@astd.noli.com wrote:

> 1. You described an organization destined to experience the problems
> you suggest they experienced.

I guess I'm confused. Normally when I use an example, I craft the
example to fit the purpose for which it's intended. In this case, I
wanted to exemplify an organization which does not fit your contention
that all organizations are learning organizations.

> 2. You project failure into the organization instead of projecting
> success.

If the failure you are mentioning has to do with learning to
potential, then I agree. However, the organization I described may or may
not fail completely. I simply contend that it cannot learn effectively at
all levels.

> 3. You assume that learning is taking place only at the top.

In 30 years of consulting, I have never encountered an
organization such as I described that learned otherwise. Learning goes on
in the lower echelons, but that learning frequently has nothing to do with
furthering the goals of the organization. It more often has to do with
tribalistic resentment for authority.

> 4. You end your response with a socialistic conclusion.

If you mean that I conclude that hierarchical bureaucracies do
poorly when it comes to learning from within, then you are correct.
However, I can't see what you mean about that being a socialistic
conclusion.


> This is a real shock - you are at the top and you have made a
> hell of a lot of promises you want to keep. Things look bleek. You
> are experiencing a significant learning as you figure out what to do.

Hmmm. You are at the top and you are experiencing significant
learning. That sounds familiar. (grin)

> You are experiencing a learning as you find that
> things do not always turn out the way envisioned and you learn to do
> more than your previous share.

This sounds like disillusionment.

> You are working much harder than they. You
> wonder if upper management cares. To you these people are taking
> advantage of you and you have to work hard to keep up with yours and
> theirs. You do not want to quit because it took so long to get hired.
> >From your perspective, upper management is not learning from this
> ssssssssssssssssss. These people are learning that things are not as
> you always perceive them to be. The actual job may call for more than
> in the ad.

Whoa. You just described the exact scenario I predicted. You
seem to be including *all learning* as viable criteria for judging a
learning organization. In my definition, a learning organization promotes
learning that furthers the goals of the organization. Learning that does
otherwise is natural, but not the essence of a learning organization.
What I've gleaned from your organizational description is that
those at the top are learning hard lessons about economic viability in the
business world. Those in the lower echelon are learning that the boss
doesn't keep his promises, all of the work isn't described in the ad, and
the world is a cruel place.
I think that's exactly what I said.

> THIS IS A LEARNING ORGANIZATION.

Not in my definition.

> THEY ARE LEARNING AT DIFFERENT
> LEVELS,

Yes, in a multi-tiered hierarchy, it's very difficult to do
otherwise.

> THEY ARE LEARNING DIFFERENT THINGS,

Yes. Upper management is learning that the lower echelons are
losing their enthusiasm. They may feel frustration at not being able to
get the "workers" to work harder. They may wonder if they could simply
increase efficiency whether that would please the banks. They likely will
blame middle management, who will likely blame the workers.

> THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
> THE SAME THING.

I disagree. In this kind of hierarchy, management is concerned
with status, bonus and promotion. The lower echelons are concerned that
management doesn't seem to care about them. They may feel alienated and
resentful.

> We have to find a better way to share the learning.

We have. Flatten the organization as much as possible. Diminish
class distinctions within the organization so that positional power
interferes less with upward communication. Create an environment that
tolerates risk-taking and failure. Reward at all levels of the
organization. And so forth.

> Because an organization is not sharing their learnings with each other
> for mutual benefit does not mean the organization is not learning.

Certainly individuals within the organization are participating in
learnings. However, if they are not sharing their learnings, how can you
say that the *organization* is learning?

> Please do not limit your paradigm. Life is whole and everything in it
> is whole.

Maybe you can help me understand how I'm limiting my paradigm.
I'm not sure you understand my statements well enough to judge whether I
am paradigm bound or not. However, I appreciate that you cared enough to
write about this and try to help me out. Thank you.

-- 
@__Roy_J._Winkler,_AAS,_BSM...
@__Consultant:_OD/HRD/Group_Dynamics
@__UAW/GM____Anderson,_Indiana___USA
@__E-Mail:  rwinkler@iquest.net