After several months of lurking here enjoying the conversation, debate,
and information I am ging to venture my first post to the group. While I
agree that all organizations do have learning processes (albeit some
better than others) I do not personally find the term "LO" redundant.
Similarly, all people are in fact "educated" but I do not think that we
equate the "University of Hard Knocks" with say Harvard (or any other
school) when we refer to a person as educated. Likewise, simply attending
a school does not make one educated anymore than declaring your
organization an LO makes it one.
>Tony DiBella says:
>......all organizations have embedded learning processes. Consequently,
>for me the notion of the "learning organization" makes little sense except
>as a redundancy.
>I agree that the terminology is confusing. What Senge is referring to as
>LO is considerably more than what is meant by the conventional definitions
>of the two words "learning" and "organization". Different words might
>convey the differences more accurately, or at least with less confusion.
Dr. Charles Taylor Grubb
Director, Quality Improvement
Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Services
325 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 733-3295 (office)
(919) 733-6259 (FAX)
"They said it couldn't be done, but that doesn't always work." Yogi Berra
Charles Taylor Grubb <ctgqalty@Interpath.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>