Some confusion comes from the fact that learning can be both means and
end. In most, if not all, definitions of the LO, learning is treated as a
means since the desired outcome is organizational adaptation and/or
effectiveness. I think this is the point that Marilyn makes in LO11761.
Confusion also involves not understanding the basis for substantiating
first principles.
My interest is not in first principles of the LO, since the latter is not
real but a social construct. My interest is in developing an empirically
valid theory of learning in organizations that will stand the test of
time. Anyone can propose principles, or disciplines of learning as have
all the normativists listed in my previous note of LO11714. I'd like to
know the basis/origin of these approaches - divination, inspiration, or
perspiration (ie.research).
Regards,
TonyD.
AJDiBella@Aol.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>