Re: LO as Hype/Fad? LO3031

Julie Beedon (julie@vistabee.win-uk.net)
Mon, 02 Oct 1995 11:39:44

Replying to LO2856 --

Re: LO as Hype/Fad? LO2733, 2759, 2784, 2808, 2856

>Replying to LO2720 -- was: Intro -- Julie Beedon
>[...Subject line changed by your host...]

I have followed this thread with some interest as I believe it came
from something I said in my intro to quote myself:-

>>I sometimes worry that 'learning organisation' will become the
>>next hyped thing which people will dabble with and then say does
>>not work - why is it that we try new things for a few months/years
>>and then move on to another fix?

Am I right - am I wrong??

Interesting for me that I expressed a sense of concern and it was
interpreted as something different. Some people certainly
thought I was right:-

>You're right, Julie. Management _does_ have a penchant for 'quick
fixes' LO2733 from Duncan Sutherland

which received another affirmation from Barry Mallis LO2759
> isn't LO another
>coinage, a way for someone to sell a few books about relatively
>long-standing ideas under a new, grab-it-up-now name?
>
>Deep down, my answer to myself is yes. And as long as we admit that,
>we're OK, we're avoiding unnecessary self-aggrandizement

Iris Tiemessen LO2784 was grateful for the acknowledgement of a
thought that was in her mind and noted that:

>The point being, this is not a great "ah ha" of new activities. It is the
>collection of processes that we already understand, mixed together in a
>different formula and put into a new, relevant context. If we would all
>keep in mind what it is that we are specifically looking at we would do a
>greater service to the business community who does not need another fad to
>hide behind.

and Joyce D'Ambrosio was struck ever so gently
to reflect on learning and organisations

>Now you may say well I agree; however, it's only a matter of perspective.
>Yes, it is. And maybe now is the time for businesses and the people in
>them to consider a different perspective.
>
>Senge has looked to the writings of Argryis; he has quoted Deming as well
>as many others. Maybe there are no new ideas in the universe, only their
>re-definition, re-clarification, new synthesis, perspective- whatever.
>

and David Markham LO2856 was clearly feeling LO was no fad....
>It is my gut level feeling that LO is not a fad but the real thing. I say
>this because my understanding of Senge's ideas about the LO are systemic
>and not reductionistic. The days of the Newtonian, mechanistic models, are
>over and the more wholistic and systemic models are emerging from quantum
>physics, to health, to psychotherapy, to organizational theory.
>
>The understanding that interrelatedness and interdependence are core
>concepts is here to stay.

Then I think I lost track because I thought I say something about
Taylor in response to David's comments but I lost that..........

So where have my reflections taken me.... am I right or am I
wrong....

I am not sure that I had made up my mind - nor have I now - I
think I can see something in each of the points made:
- things become fads and LO could
- if LO can sell books people will jump on the 'band-wagon'
- LO is not new - just bringing togethr and developing years of
learning
- what we have learnt from LO so far we will never lose only build
on

I still worry.............
perhaps organisations wrestle with change .....
and find something which works for them...........
then it gets a 'name'..........
others use the name like a mantra and hope it will work.........
without ever understanding it............
say they 'did it' .........
and the name is a fad............
except to those who really understand ...........
who keep on learning...........
and develop thinking into new avenues.....
which organisations who are wrestling with change...
find works forthem.............
then it gets a 'name'............

yet nothing is ever the answer.........
there are only questions to wrestle with and learning

I have really enjoyed thinking about this.

--
Julie Beedon <julie@vistabee.win-uk.net>