In my experiences in training and organizational development, aversion to
the word "vision" is only slightly more pronounced than the general hatred
of such over used phrases as, "TQM", "empowerment", "embracing change" and
"quality". Who knows, perhaps the term "learning organization" might
someday be as well worn as "vision" is today - and for the same reasons:
1. The term is misused and misidentified. I saw an amusing comment
recently that said shallow airline magazine articles about the latest
management fad are to blame for more corporate problems than any other
source. It is good to see so much emphasis in this group on practical
definitions of LO.
Once a concept or term is labeled incorrectly we may be stuck with it,
or as Ben Franklin might have said, preventing a cliche is worth a pound
of cure.
2. The term itself is not a commodity but part of a system. Anyone who
wants a box of TQM will realize what I mean.
3. Too many people have unrealistic expectations for the tool they
select or they confuse one tool for another. I have heard this expressed
by outside consultants as, "All clients know what they want. They just
don't know what they need".
On the positive side though, just because a name or phrase is seen by some
as trite or annoying, it does not diminish the concept behind it. Thank
goodness or we would lose such lovely thoughts as "I love you" , "do unto
others...", and my favorite, "Don't worry, be happy".
Lon Badgett
lonbadgett@aol.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>