Rol asks:
>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.
I've been tending recently to distinguish between the original
"definition" of OL which, depending on who you talk to, goes something
like "the capacity of an organization to expand its ability to create its
own future in an unpredictable world" and the Five Disciplines, which is
ONE proposed set of methodologies to get there.
I find the original definition to represent at least a new application of
the ideas of robustness, chaos and sustainability to learning in
organizations. I would say that the Five Disciplines is much more of a
conceptual package of the good work of a number of theorists and
practitioners. In fact, it is a broad package that allows a lot of people
to frame what they have always been doing under the currently favorable
title of "Organizational Learning."
I try to keep my eye on the original definition as my ultimate test of
whether or not I am contributing to a new form of learning in
organizations. I also think that focusing on the intention rather than the
accepted methodology allows me the flexibility to recognize other
contributors to effective organizational learning.
Thanks for posing the question, Rol.
Marilyn Darling
Signet Consulting Group/GKA
mdarling@warren.med.harvard.edu
--mdarling@warren.med.harvard.edu
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>