I think Tony DiBella (is that the 'good' Tony?) and Kent Myers (LO8910)
have their fingers on a major problem in linking LO principals with
religions. That is most of us associate religion with an institution, the
Church. My experience is that these institutions are hierarchial and in
many cases self serving. Any challenge to their dogmatic ways is not
acceptable. Yet IMO many of their problems could be solved through simple
reference to their people, (the church) again many solutions (another
thread sets this as 90%) are available if 'managers' would just listen
openly.
Does this mean that double loop learning is not normal in the Church? I
think so. Does this mean that double loop learning is available in the
church? I think so.
But take religion, any religion, and seek its wisdom. Then compare that
wisdom with the wisdom of the five disciplines. I assert that you will
find very close matches in all.
The journey to a LO is one of relationship with one's self and with
companions on the journey. It is of the same stuff as religions, our
spiritual stuff. Leadership, followship and stewardship are all 'soft'
concepts. Double loop learning is somehow based in an environment is
which these concepts prevail.
IMO the value in considering religions valuable to LO thinkers is that
much LO wisdom is present in our religious literature. Look behind the
dogmatic bureaucracy of Churches into the lessons learned over centuries.
Look for the challenges to 'traditional wisdom.'
--bhobler@worldnet.att.net Bill Hobler
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>