> From: OrgPsych@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 23:52:06 -0500
>
> I have seen what is, to me, a potentially distirbing trend in much of the
> dialogue here. That is the tendency to try to fix "in stone" exactly what
> something is and what it will produce. One example of this is the
> definition of a learning organization. Another example is the whole
> subject of teams.
>
> Each person, and each group, learns in its own unique way. This way may
> share some common characteristics with the ways of others, but it is still
> unique to the particular person or group.
Right. All of that is true. However, if there is not some central
essence that is replicable, then we have no hope of inculcating the
positive aspects of LO or teams in new situations.
The question is, while celebrating the variability of individuals and of
teams, can we learn the central essence of what makes some successful and
others fail, and can we learn to use that knowledge to make future
individuals, organizations, or teams successful.
>From an operational perspective, if we cannot define a LO in such a way
that we have a chance of recreating it in a new context, then all we can
do is admire them when we find them. A very unsatisfying outcome.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234.3636@compuserve.com