Replying to Ben and many other comments made, e.g. LO9316
Ben, I was starting to get worried about your perspective as I read your
message about Murray and his ideas expressed in the Bell Curve (along
with the late Herrnstein) - which raised great angst in many circles.
I was glad to see you do not support their suggestion/s.
Actually you are in good company - as a group of UC Berkeley sociologists
recently reviewed the Bell Curve data and found that the analysis that
Herrnstein and Murray made was empirically wrong. Apparently many other
independent reviewers have reached the same conclusions that some errors
were made. The six sociologists, Fischer, Swidler, Hout, Jankowski, Lucas
and Voss are publishing a book next month (Princeton U. Press), called,
Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth.
It is clear that certain groups do score lower in the tests, and as stalwart
system thinkers we can agree that there are many possible reasons for this
to be so. Sociologists tend to point to the systemic factors in society,
such as economic status, racial inequality, health, family structure,
etc. as the causal reasons for lower scores.
I would also like to further Chip's points about intelligence and
equality. I also suggest reading Gardner's Multiple Intelligences book,
it fits really nicely with the current stress on accelerated learning,
multiple modalities of learning, etc, etc, - which have to be of critical
relevance to concepts of LO's.
I am also very concerned with the potential for "eliteness" of the LO and
or any other management/org theory/practice which can act to further stratify
our society/ies. America is currently described as, " the most unequal
society in the western world" (Claude Fischer, Sept 96)
As system thinkers we have to be clear that anything we do to accelerate
such a trend - even if we do it with the very best of intentions, can
only return to "kick us in the butt", albeit it with a time lag (remember
the Beer game). For example, a key data set - hot on the press two days
ago, is that 50% of the people living in poverty in the USA are children.
My argument is if we use (or CEO's use) LO concepts in a purely
instrumental fashion with a simplistic capitalist value set, we may not
be walking our talk - i.e. thinking AND acting systemically and/or
responsibly.
To be more positive I do see clear benefits in the LO construct -
(otherwise I would not be here). Obviously the emancipatory principle of
improving everyone's intellectual capacity - as Handy (Age of Paradox)
points out, this added capacity is owned by the individual, not the company.
I think that dialogue can help us move towards a greater realization of
corporate social responsibility. Appropriate decentralization of control,
more permeable org boundaries and hierarchies, removing boundaries to
self-organization of COP's, etc, etc, all seem very useful and hopeful
ventures. I do believe and support Senge's notion of corporations driving
social change- I also see it as a sometimes paradoxical and difficult road.
(Thats why we are here for support - isn't it?)
A final comment about IQ. In my not humble opinion (this time), IQ can be a
very slippery and problematic measure. I am often prompted to agree that the
only"thing" that IQ tests measure is how good you are at taking that particular
test. However this is a polemical stance, and maybe only partly useful.
It is however a superb example of the dilemma's of how a measure, once it
is established, can then be used and abused beyond belief. To again
quote the UCB professors, the very notion of "intelligence" as used by
the Bell Curve authors, " is an inaccurate and old-fashioned measure.
Modern psychology's understanding of intelligence is much more complex
and renders a lot of the debate about I.Q. tests - which group is higher
than which group - sort of meaningless".
Don't forget that Argyris has tried to show us many times that smart people
can be incredibly talented at not learning. The ability to unlearn one's
reductionist training and then struggle to progress one's incompetency skills
(Vail) i.e. to think systemically and to reflect in action (Schon) seem more
useful concepts.
--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/>