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
>this?
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, art@well.com