LE>carold.whisnant@astd.noli.com wrote:
LE>> 1. You described an organization destined to experience the problems
LE>> you suggest they experienced.
LE> I guess I'm confused. Normally when I use an example, I craft the
LE>example to fit the purpose for which it's intended. In this case, I
LE>wanted to exemplify an organization which does not fit your contention
LE>that all organizations are learning organizations.
Response; Organizations fail to exist when there are no people within the
organization. The organization has a life cycle as a result of people's
learnings and actions. The organization does not learn. The people
within the organization learns. As we all have experienced in grade
school, high school, college, graduate school, etc - everyone learns at a
different rate and to different levels. I think our differences are our
perspectives on learning.
LE>> 2. You project failure into the organization instead of projecting
LE>> success.
LE> If the failure you are mentioning has to do with learning to
LE>potential, then I agree. However, the organization I described may or may
LE>not fail completely. I simply contend that it cannot learn effectively at
LE>all levels.
Response: The point is that at times people within an organization set
out to fail for what ever dysfunctional reason. If the members of an
organization set out to succeed then they will succeed. The members will
all be learning, yet at different rates and different levels. Their
vision, mission, and goals are the same or supportive of each other.
LE>> 3. You assume that learning is taking place only at the top.
LE> In 30 years of consulting, I have never encountered an
LE>organization such as I described that learned otherwise. Learning goes on
LE>in the lower echelons, but that learning frequently has nothing to do with
LE>furthering the goals of the organization. It more often has to do with
LE>tribalistic resentment for authority.
Response: You and I are pretty well in agreement. You and I were viewing
two different organizations. You described an organization that was or is
on the road to failure. My response reflected they did not have to fail.
Where we do have different perspectives is in the learning at the top and
the learning at the bottom affect each other. I find it very difficult to
accept that they have nothing to do with furthering the goals of the
organization. People, even the bad apples do not want to destroy their
jobs.
LE>> 4. You end your response with a socialistic conclusion.
LE> If you mean that I conclude that hierarchical bureaucracies do
LE>poorly when it comes to learning from within, then you are correct.
LE>However, I can't see what you mean about that being a socialistic
LE>conclusion.
Response: I could have been to quick on the draw. My emotions took over
and I concluded you thought everyone should be the same, sort of robotic
and obeying without a questioning atttitude.
LE>> This is a real shock - you are at the top and you have made a
LE>> hell of a lot of promises you want to keep. Things look bleek. You
LE>> are experiencing a significant learning as you figure out what to do.
LE> Hmmm. You are at the top and you are experiencing significant
LE>learning. That sounds familiar. (grin)
LE>> You are experiencing a learning as you find that
LE>> things do not always turn out the way envisioned and you learn to do
LE>> more than your previous share.
LE> This sounds like disillusionment.
LE>> You are working much harder than they. You
LE>> wonder if upper management cares. To you these people are taking
LE>> advantage of you and you have to work hard to keep up with yours and
LE>> theirs. You do not want to quit because it took so long to get hired.
LE>> >From your perspective, upper management is not learning from this
LE>> ssssssssssssssssss. These people are learning that things are not as
LE>> you always perceive them to be. The actual job may call for more than
LE>> in the ad.
LE> Whoa. You just described the exact scenario I predicted. You
LE>seem to be including *all learning* as viable criteria for judging a
LE>learning organization. In my definition, a learning organization promotes
LE>learning that furthers the goals of the organization. Learning that does
LE>otherwise is natural, but not the essence of a learning organization.
LE> What I've gleaned from your organizational description is that
LE>those at the top are learning hard lessons about economic viability in the
LE>business world. Those in the lower echelon are learning that the boss
LE>doesn't keep his promises, all of the work isn't described in the ad, and
LE>the world is a cruel place.
LE> I think that's exactly what I said.
Response: I continue to maintain that all learning of members of an
organization affects that organization either directly or indirectly.
LE>> THIS IS A LEARNING ORGANIZATION.
LE> Not in my definition.
LE>> THEY ARE LEARNING AT DIFFERENT
LE>> LEVELS,
LE> Yes, in a multi-tiered hierarchy, it's very difficult to do
LE>otherwise.
LE>> THEY ARE LEARNING DIFFERENT THINGS,
LE> Yes. Upper management is learning that the lower echelons are
LE>losing their enthusiasm. They may feel frustration at not being able to
LE>get the "workers" to work harder. They may wonder if they could simply
LE>increase efficiency whether that would please the banks. They likely will
LE>blame middle management, who will likely blame the workers.
LE>> THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
LE>> THE SAME THING.
LE> I disagree. In this kind of hierarchy, management is concerned
LE>with status, bonus and promotion. The lower echelons are concerned that
LE>management doesn't seem to care about them. They may feel alienated and
LE>resentful.
Response: Please, my heart is bleeding. The same argument could be made
either way.
LE>> We have to find a better way to share the learning.
LE> We have. Flatten the organization as much as possible. Diminish
LE>class distinctions within the organization so that positional power
LE>interferes less with upward communication. Create an environment that
LE>tolerates risk-taking and failure. Reward at all levels of the
LE>organization. And so forth.
Response: I can agree with this. However, what is wrong with the
reward being that you have a job?
LE>> Because an organization is not sharing their learnings with each other
LE>> for mutual benefit does not mean the organization is not learning.
LE> Certainly individuals within the organization are participating in
LE>learnings. However, if they are not sharing their learnings, how can you
LE>say that the *organization* is learning?
LE>> Please do not limit your paradigm. Life is whole and everything in it
LE>> is whole.
LE> Maybe you can help me understand how I'm limiting my paradigm.
LE>I'm not sure you understand my statements well enough to judge whether I
LE>am paradigm bound or not. However, I appreciate that you cared enough to
LE>write about this and try to help me out. Thank you.
Response: I will gladly say you may or may not have paradigm
paralysis. I could only draw conclusions from what you wrote. The
document I read appeared to come from a disgruntled employee who was
not looking at both sides. What you described came across as
management and non management infighting which is not the organization.
I am glad you added some clarification. I think that our greatest
differences of opinion is in the basic definition of a Learning
Organization. We could debate the different definitions and never
reach agreement.
LE>--
LE>@__Roy_J._Winkler,_AAS,_BSM...
LE>@__Consultant:_OD/HRD/Group_Dynamics
LE>@__UAW/GM____Anderson,_Indiana___USA
LE>@__E-Mail: rwinkler@iquest.net
LE>
-- carold.whisnant@astd.noli.com