>Tim suggests that there is no need to call it learning if the
>organisation is already engaged in it. I think this is not so.
>I remember talking with a coach who had the best winning record in
>basketball. Someone suggested he didn't need to talk about
>"teamwork" because it was already the best team and everyone knew it
>was about teamwork. He said, "No. We need to talk about it all the
>time. That's the only way you keep it present."
>The secret is in *how* you talk. Just talking *about* won't do it.
>The point I was wanting to make is that they talk a lot about
>learning. Like measure, report, explore, structure for, invest in,
>etc. What they don't talk about is "being a learning organisation".
>Why? I think because *that* term doesn't mean anything if you're
>actually doing it.
I didn't mean to imply this, Mike, but rather to offer an explanation for
why, in the organizations you cited originally, there was no talk of it.
Whether or not it is necessary is another question, and I find myself in
agreement with this post on that matter.
-- Timothy Smith Partner, Wheelwright Associates Organization Transformation Consultants P.O. Box 221668, Carmel, California 93922 Phone/Fax (408) 624-8138 email@example.com