Keith asked if rate of change might be a measure of an LO.
I think this is an interesting question for me because it surfaces a
tension between my espoused and acted on positions for me. I have written
and thought and felt (!) that yes, of course that increased openness to
change or more appropriately heightened changeability of an org is closer
to what I view as a LO. When I think more carefully about it, the first
obvious thing is that there is likely to be a useful connection between
the level of external change and the changeability of the internal system,
i.e. the standard need for adaptability argument (which also speaks to
boundary permeability, etc, etc).
However I also became aware of my own linear thinking - in that I had not
challenged the fact that much learning could (and is) actually be used to
maintain status quo. In other words, a business could learn how to detect
external change in such a way that allows it to maintain its most
important metrics, e.g. cash flow, market share, etc. Or the business
could make some small change in direction that removes the need for a
major change later. All this really relates to the "camping on seesaws"
non-linear thinking that cleverly eludes me tooo often!
Therefore, learning, at least for me suddenly becomes more complex as a
construct. Especially if one has a felt need to measure it in some way to
"prove" the strategic development of the LO. So much learning may be at a
tacit level that provides the automatic pilot circuitry and is unnoticed
or at least very difficult to correlate to anything in a meaningful way.
Thanks for the question Keith, especially if my increased confusion is a
measure of quality!
Tony Kortens
Practioner
- --
--Tony Kortens <tkortens@stmarys-ca.edu>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>