Ben Compton <BCOMPTON@novell.com> responds to the issue of preventing LO
from becoming another management fad with some good questions:
>...
>First, we need to ask ourselves: Why have other management fads (I'd
>prefer to call them "management practices" proven ineffective? Here's a
>short list of possibilities:
>
>* Because the theory behind the management practices were shallow, or
>perhaps unaligned with reality?
I would suggest that MBO, TQM and BPR were all reasonably well-grounded
>* Those who created the theory were simply more intelligent than those who
>actually used the practices within a corporation? (If one accepts the
>basic premise of the book "The Bell Curve," this is quite a feasible
>hypothesis.)
This is probably true. So we need some way of establishing a certified LO
practitioner much like we have accreditation for heart surgeons!
>* If we accept that many companies live and breath on current and/or
>near-term profits, then the fact that many management practices take time
>to implement could be the reason they're discarded so quickly -- and often
>abruptly. Are companies unconsciously addicted to quick fixes?
There are significant examples of companies with a long term perspective.
Most TQM efforts were accepted as longer term although perhaps the obvious
example of Japanese supremacy in so many fields served as a major
motivation. LO must be tied to a timeframe and not presented as the silver
bullet. Would three years be a minimum commitment for LO?
>Second, what is it that differentiates a Learning Organization from other
>management practices such as Total Quality and Business Process
>Reengineering? Are the theories underlying the Learning Organization any
>better than those that underlie other management practices?
I have a belief that theories are only as good as the results they
generate. Maybe that makes me a pragmatist! Theories without quantified
results are for people other than me. Can anyone else shed light on this
question? Are there proofs for LO theory working anywhere?
>Third, how does a moving toward a Learning Organization help overcome the
>problems that caused the death of so many other management practices? Are
>the theories, tools, and methods of a Learning Organization sufficiently
>simple that they can be effectively and immediately used by a wide variety
>of people (such as those who may not be as intelligent as Senge, Argyris,
>ritz, etc.)? Are the theories behind the Learning Organizations better
>aligned with reality than other management practices? If so, are they
>aligned sufficiently well that they will be effective and essential
>unchallenged for an extended period of time? Will moving toward a Learning
>Organization help a company that has serious financial problems today? If
>not, the company will die long before it makes any real progress is
>becoming a Learning Organization.
I think you are asking about the business case for LO? Any takers?
Then Christian Giroux <lmccgir@LMC.Ericsson.SE> continues in
Management Fads LO8995:
>...
>Now, as Keith asks, will that happen with LO ? Will those who faithfully
>implement it and understand its intricacies be able to expect unintended
>consequences and read weak signals of their buiding up manifestations ?
>Maybe the key is there...
The laws of physics apply to systems. One can assume that any action will
generate unanticipated reactions. The trick is to anticipate that nothing
is static and build in the sensors to read the reaction and take measures
to compensate (the feedback loop) for these inevitable reactions on an
ongoing basis.
IMHO this is at the heart of the thinking and can make this "fad"
different???...Keith
--Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>