Bill,
I stand by my observations and my warnings. I am not saying they are
inevitable but I am saying they are likely.
I ran an organisation that introduced the very word "breakthrouhg" to
business language, had hundreds of consultants doing nothing but that
and had very powerful approaches (technologies) for producing
reliable results that were seen as breakthroughs.
Does that make me right? No. But it gives a certain ground for my
speaking.
Your references to learning and its seeming separation from "immediate
need for results" and similar concerns is what I was addressing in my
post.
The pursuit of creating "a learning organisation" might take years.
(It's not my interest so I don't have much to say about it.) The
pursuit of organisational learning, however, doesn't take any time at
all. That's why I prefer the phrase and the approaches that go with
it.
I also have a personal bias. I can't imagine a breakthrough being
achieved without learning occurring. I also, personally, don't care
if breakthroughs are achieved by clients if something more profound
and lasting (which involves a different order of learning) isn't also
achieved.
Don't take this as judgement or my view of "the way it should be".
It is just what turns me on, interests me and engages me.
--
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
"I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity
but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
attributed to Chief Justice Brandeis
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>