In the message from Dave Bufferbarger, he includes this example:
Second example: Management IMHO is reluctant to espouse and follow the
Learning Organization disciplines. To justify not doing so, they say very
few organizations are entering into this domain. And, until they see broad
scale application, they cannot know its value.
Here is something to contemplate with regard to this idea of whether to
embrace the learning organization disciplines (as far as I am concerned):
Rather than consider these ideas (i.e., the systems view, etc.) as
something you can choose to believe, consider them as the definition of
what organizations do to operate as organizations. The issue then becomes
not whether one is practicing these disciplines but how well. Think about
the idea of learning organization as a continuum. At one end is
traditional management practice. At the other is the learning org
practices.
Then look at results of the organization in terms of performance in the
marketplace, the quality of life in the organization, the efficiency of
the organization's processes, and so on. If the learning organization
model is correct, then we should see better and better performance by
those companies at the learning org end of the continuum. Why? Because
this is a more realistic explanation of how organizations operate. In
other words, mediocrity comes from not understanding the principles that
explain how to succeed and those doing a poor job of practicing those
principles. Note that I did not say NOT practicing them but practicing
them poorly. Ideas such as those articulated by the learning org model
only have value if they not only help us understand what to do to get
better but if they also explain why things don't go so well in those
places that do a poor job of putting them into practice.
That's all for now.
-- John Woods CWL Publishing Enterprises Madison, WI jwoods@execpc.com