At 5:44 AM 10/7/95, Michael McMaster wrote:
...find a company that
>is demonstrating remarkable improvement in quality, marketshare,
>production gains, etc. They will either have great HR people or have
>managed to develop a management aproach (and managers to go with it)
>that are their own HR source.
That's a fairly bold statement. Do others agree with this? It suggests
that a conventional HR department, in itself, can prevent an organization
from improving its performance.
>I have so far found none of these who refer to themselves as Learning
>Organisation nor have I found any in my excursions into what
>identifies itself as the Learning Organisation community. Why is
Michael, are you saying that the most interesting innovations are taking
place OUTSIDE the Learning Org. community? I'm fully prepared to believe
that case, given the evidence. I suspect that there's lots of innovations
brewing lots of places, some informed by "learning organization"
traditions, others by other intellectual traditions (Tavistock/sociotech,
O.D., software engineering, "chaos management," etc.) Each of these have
their more and less useful variants.
Personally, I would hate to think that the self-described "learning
organization community" felt its boundaries so tight that it locked out
awareness of other innovations.
-- Art Kleiner, email@example.com