Why a learning organization LO10375

Dr Ilfryn Price (101701.3454@compuserve.com)
Tue, 8 Oct 1996 08:14:14 -0400

Replying to LO10349 --

Rol, building on your/ Chris's question reproduced below the statement
rings true for me also. But then as others may have realised I am a
proponent of the view that Learning is literally evolution. For me it is
the pace rather than the process that has speeded up, to the point where
it behoves us to have a handle on the process and an ability to guide it
[I do not think we can *control* it] rather than be victims of it. Senge
and others have given, I believe, a better insight into how that can be
achieved in practice: one which works whether or not you subscribe to
Learning as evolution as either fact or metaphor.

If Price
Active Personal Learning
Pewley Fort Guildford UK
101701.3454@compuserve.com

================
Chris Speyer said in a recent post about "why LOs", that basically
evolution demands it. I think I am about to reopen an old can of worms
that we have never answered satisfactorily, and that is does the LO
concept as expressed by Senge and others constitute a 'new' form of
learning (emphasis on systemic thinking, personal mastery, etc) or is a
conceptual package explaining how lerning occurs or can occur in an
organization? I personally have always tended toward the latter view, ie
that Senge is espousing a new form of learning, but not with a lot of
certainty.

The answer to this question is relevant to Chris's statement. Evolution
of thinking has been occurring for hundred, thousands of years, so
evolution does not require some new concept of LO to occur. On the other
hand, if we accept the narrower view that LO is a conceptual package
explaining how learning can occur effectively in organizations, then
Chris's statement rings true for me.

Any thoughts?

======end quote======

-- 

Dr Ilfryn Price <101701.3454@compuserve.com>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>