After several months of lurking here enjoying the conversation, debate,
and information I am ging to venture my first post to the group. While I
agree that all organizations do have learning processes (albeit some
better than others) I do not personally find the term "LO" redundant.
Similarly, all people are in fact "educated" but I do not think that we
equate the "University of Hard Knocks" with say Harvard (or any other
school) when we refer to a person as educated. Likewise, simply attending
a school does not make one educated anymore than declaring your
organization an LO makes it one.
>Tony DiBella says:
>
>......all organizations have embedded learning processes. Consequently,
>for me the notion of the "learning organization" makes little sense except
>as a redundancy.
>
>
>I agree that the terminology is confusing. What Senge is referring to as
>LO is considerably more than what is meant by the conventional definitions
>of the two words "learning" and "organization". Different words might
>convey the differences more accurately, or at least with less confusion.
Dr. Charles Taylor Grubb
ctgqalty@interpath.com
Director, Quality Improvement
Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Services
325 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 733-3295 (office)
(919) 733-6259 (FAX)
"They said it couldn't be done, but that doesn't always work." Yogi Berra
--Charles Taylor Grubb <ctgqalty@Interpath.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>