Joe, the examples you give of "self-organized learning" seem to me to be
more like SIGs of organizations; that is, groups of people who want to
meet or otherwise communicate "to find out more". Sometimes these groups
*do* get into deeper inquiries aimed at learning, but more often the
learning is simply incidental to the acquisition of information.
Nevertheless, your identification of the mode by which inquiry frequently
arises in our society resonates with Diane's description of the formation
of the Learning Community, and indeed is mirrored in the existence of this
list.
Which brings me full circle to the issue of hierarchy, because I believe
it to be an important category in the study of leadership.
The contribution of Rick Karash to the success of this list is
inestimable, but clearly gigantic.
Diane's contribution to the existence of TLC, and perhaps to its
perpetuation as well, is similarly significant.
Personally, I am engaged in trying to be as non-intrusive as possible
while maintaining the energy behind a SIG in a national organization. I
feel I need to know a lot more about how this is done, because I am
feeling that it is critical to the life of organizations. Elsewhere,
Mariann said something like "use as little as possible but as much as you
need."
I guess what I'm getting at here is a question: "What do leaders need to
do to engender self-organized learning in organizations?" A corollary
question: "How can people accept authority for their own behavior
(self-direction) when the authority has been "granted" in a hierarchy
(empowerment)?" And finally, "If we believe all behavior to be
essentially self-organizing (as I do) what can we possibly mean by
leadership, and what is the function of hierarchy?"
-- Jack Hirschfeld I like a Gershwin tune, how about you? jack@his.com ----- Host's Note: Thanks, Jack!