Areas of Interest

Human Resource Development (HRD)
Learning Organizations: intro + chronology of LO concepts
Performance Technology
Training & Development

Chris Argyris (1993): Knowledge for action, p.52 "Organizations come alive through the thoughts and actions of individuals acting as organizational agents and creating the organizatonal world in which work gets done"

Doubleday released the Dance of Change (1999), a sequel to the Fifth Discipine (1990) and The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (1994)

Peter Senge (1999) : The Dance of The Change "......Most change initiatives fail because organizations don't foresee the obstacles that arise naturally wherever growth and learning take place. Predictable and interconnected, these challenges go hand in hand with any step into the unknown, and must be anticipated and mastered in order for sustained growth to occur"

"If a seedling has no room to grow, it will never become a tree," says management guru Peter Senge (1999). "Most leaders instigating change are like gardeners standing over their plants, imploring them: 'Grow! Try harder! You can do it!' If leaders don't understand the forces that keep significant change from taking root and growing, all their entreaties, strategies, and change programs will produce more frustration than real results."

Learning-Org Apr1996: Intro -- Gerrit Visser LO6893

An interview with Peter Senge in Training & development (Oct. 1991) first
drew my attention to the concept of the Learning Organizations. In
conversations about this article I soon discovered the impact of the 'Fifth
Discipline' and realized that the concept was more than another hype.

As a professional knowledge worker at a corporate library I read about the
origins of this thinking, traced Senges article on metanoia organizations
in New Management (1986), the Harvard classic 'Planning as learning' of Arie
de Geus (1988), Chris Argyris contributions on organizational learning
(1978), Robert Fritz theory on creativity in 'The path of least resistance'
(1990), Nonakas 'Knowledge creating company' (1991) and Peter Druckers
'Coming of the new organization' (1992).

Those publications showed me that above all the concept of the Learning
deals with the practice of management, teamwork, collective learning,
systems thinking and last but not least with effective communication
through dialogue.

On March 30 1993 Peter Senge presented his findings in Amsterdam during a
congress on learning organizations. I had the priviledge to attend and became
impressed by Senges dynamic presentation. On that occasion I seized the
opportunity to meet Senge, exchanged a few words with him and had my copy
of his book autographed.

International training & development-sources kept me informed about the
divergent discussions this MIT-concept evoked in the world of learning.
Now, six years later, I'm still interested in the different ways organizations
implemented the concept, in reviews on Senges Fieldbook (1994) and in
results of others concerning the learning organization.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =

Understanding What exactly is a LO?

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:35:05 -0800
From: Peggy Stuart <pstuart@c2t2.ca>
Subject: What exactly is a LO? LO25934

Hi all:
During my journey to understand what exactly is a LO, I realize now that I
could have separated my quest into three questions:

1. What is the difference between a LO and OL?
2. What does the literature say about LOs?
3. What sets a LO apart from any other organization i.e. what is unique
about a LO?

I would like to quickly share with you an overview on what I have learned
so far and would greatly appreciate your thoughts on any of the points I
am trying to make.

1. What is the difference between a LO and OL?

This has stumped me a number of times. I think I can safely say that you
can find OL embedded in any successful, sustainable organization. But does
that make that organization a LO?

One of the books I like that helped me was "Organizational Learning - From
World-Class Theories to Global Best Practices" (Schwandt and Marquardt.
2000).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574442597/learningorg

The authors say that organizational learning is a process that may
or may not result in a LO. They see the difference between the two as OL
is a processes where a LO is a product. A LO is a representation of a
desired end. OL is a representation of the "dynamic human process required
to increase the cognitive capacity of the total organization." Schwandt
and Marquardt believe that OL is the possible bridge to becoming a LO.

2. What does literature say about LOs?

As a business professional, most of the literature that I have read
quickly goes over my head into a body of knowledge I know little about -
so far. :-) In addition, there seems to be a number of well-recognized and
credible authors that have different perspectives on the same thing. So
wading the through the literature can be a little frustrating at times.

One of the books I found that helped sort things out was "According to How
Organizations Learn" (DiBella and Nevis. 1998).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787911070/learningorg

The authors of this book
state that describing an LO is dependant on the mind-set of the person
doing the describing. They say that if you ask the question "what is a
learning organization", you will probably get any number of replies based
on differing perspectives about organization and learning. DiBella and
Nevis say there are three principle perspectives about learning
organizations.

a. Normative - This perspective holds that organizational learning takes
place only under a unique set of conditions.
b. Developmental - The developmental perspective is that LOs represent a
late stage of OD.
c. Capability - This perspective presumes that learning is innate in all
organizations and that there is no one best way for all organizations to
learn.

3. What sets a LO apart from any other organization i.e. what is unique
about a LO?

I haven't found any information specifically on this - yet. I have found a
number of sources listing characteristics of a LO, but which still doesn't
gives me the information I need to distinguish a LO from a TQM, High
Performance Organization (HPO) or any other successful, sustainable
organizations. I think all the LO characteristics I have read so far are
based on coincidence only. Any organization can adapt quickly to change,
be risk-friendly or flat and/or decentralized. Or have OL, empowered
employees, collaborative processes and cultures that have such freely
operating values as learning, openness and trust.

What seems to me to be the answer lies between what goes into an
organization (product, mission, vision and values, strategies, people and
structure and whatever else I am not thinking of right now) and what comes
out i.e. the sometimes measurable outcomes of their activities
(product/service, ability to adapt to change, innovation, competitive
advantage, profits, etc.).

Within that area you have two things. The climate and culture. Some would
say they are the same. I think they are different, though interconnected.
The article "A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement Initiatives
in Organizations" (Detert, Schroeder and Mauriel. Oct. 2000) says culture
is "...a system of shared values defining what is important, and norms,
defining appropriate attitudes and behaviors." I believe climate has more
to do with the environment, which although influenced by the culture, can
also influenced by the work place layout and ergonomics, stress, workload,
etc. (By the way, I am no organizational behaviorist - that is my next
grad degree!)

So where is that nugget that is unique to a LO? (Or even is there one?
Does such a thing as a LO exist? If you have taken the capability
perspective, then you would probably believe that organizations can not
"become" a LO because learning is on ongoing process.) This is where I
believe lies the problem with trying to accurately define a LO.

Well, I think (and I have read this somewhere, I just can't remember where
to find it again - DARN!) it is in the organizational culture. Now where
you can find that nugget in the culture - I have no idea! Detert,
Schroeder and Mauriel's article lists eight general dimensions of
organizational culture used most commonly in extant research, which gives
me some structure for my search. It says that LOs " ...will have their own
ideal-type cultures derived from some or all of the general dimensions."
And that specifically, LOs would need, "cultures that value collaboration,
shared decision influence and fact-based decision making"

And herein lies the end of my learning journey -- so far. :-)

I hope this helps people out on similar journeys and look forward to
reading your thoughts, critiques, etc.

Have a great day,

Peggy
- --

Peggy Stuart <pstuart@c2t2.ca>

[
Organizational Learning From World Class Theories to Global Best
   Practices
   by David R. Schwandt, Michael J. Marquardt (Preface), Betty S. Beene
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574442597/learningorg

How Organizations Learn : An Integrated Strategy for Building Learning
   Capability (Jossey-Bass Business and Management Series)
   by Anthony J. Dibella, Edwin C. Nevis (Contributor)
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787911070/learningorg

.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =

Chronology of Learning Organization Concepts

1938: In his book "Experience and Education," John Dewey publicizes the
concept of experiential learning as an ongoing cycle of activity.

1940s: The Macy Conferences -- featuring Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson,
and Lawrence Kubie -- bring "systems thinking" to the awareness of a
cross-disciplinary group of intellectuals.

1940s: Scottish psychologist Kenneth Craik coins the term "mental models,"
which later makes its way to MIT through Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert.

1946: Kurt Lewin, founding theorist of National Training Laboratories,
proposes idea of a "creative tension" between personal vision and a sense
of reality.

1956: Edgar Schein's research on brainwashing in Korea paves the way for
an understanding of "process consultation."

1960: "The Human Side of Enterprise," by Douglas McGregor, is published.

1961: Jay Forrester publishes "Industrial Dynamics." This book, the first
major application of system dynamics to corporations, describes the
turbulence within a typical appliance value chain.

1970: Chris Argyris and Donald Schon begin work on "action science," the
study of how espoused values clash with the values that underlie real
actions.

1972: "The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on
the Predicament of Mankind," by Donella Meadows and Dennis Meadows, is
published. The book draws on Forrester's theories about system dynamics.

1971 to 1979: Erhard Seminars Training ( EST ) demonstrate the kind of
powerful attitude shifts that can occur during a seminar that lasts
several days.

1979: Consultant Charlie Kiefer, Forrester student Peter Senge, and
researcher-artist Robert Fritz design the "Leadership and Mastery"
seminar, which becomes the focal point of their new consulting firm,
Innovation Associates.

1982: Senge, Arie de Geus, Hanover Insurance CEO Bill O'Brien, Analog
Devices CEO Ray Stata, and other executive leaders form a
learning-organization study group, which meets regularly at MIT.

1984 to 1985: Pierre Wack, scenario planner at Royal Dutch/Shell, spends a
sabbatical at Harvard Business School and writes two articles about
scenario planning as a learning activity.

1987: Peter Schwartz, Stewart Brand, Napier Collyns, Jay Ogilvy, and
Lawrence Wilkinson form the Global Business Network, with a charter to
foster organizational learning through scenario planning.

1989: Oxford University management scholar Bill Isaacs, an associate of
quantum physicist David Bohm, introduces Senge to the concept of dialogue
as a process for building team capability.

1989: "The Age of Unreason," by Charles Handy, is published.

1989: The Center for Organizational Learning is formed at MIT, with Senge
as director and with Ed Schein, Chris Argyris, Arie de Geus, Ray Stata,
and Bill O'Brien as key advisers. The staff of the "learning center," as
it's called, includes Bill Isaacs, Daniel Kim ( whose research involves
linking the learning organization work to the quality movement ), and
research director George Roth.

1990: "The Fifth Discipline" is published. The book draws on many
influences: system dynamics, "personal mastery" ( based on Fritz's work
and the concept of creative tension ), mental models ( based on Wack's and
Argyris's work ), shared vision ( based on work done at Innovation
Associates ), and team learning ( based on David Bohm's concepts ).

1990: Daniel Kim founds the "Systems Thinker," a newsletter devoted to
"fifth discipline" issues. The following year, the newsletter's parent
organization, Pegasus Communications, launches an annual conference series
called Systems Thinking in Action.

1993: Harvard University professor David Garvin publishes an article on
organizational learning in the Harvard Business Review, arguing that only
learning that can be measured will be useful to managers.

1994: "The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook" is published. Authors of the book,
which Senge edited, include Charlotte Roberts, Rick Ross, and Bryan Smith
( president of Innovation Associates of Canada ), and Art Kleiner ( who
serves as editorial director ). The "Fieldbook" becomes a new
management-book genre.

1994: The use of "learning histories" as a method of assessment begins at
the Center for Organizational Learning.

1994: The first major Organizational Learning Center projects reach
completion. Many of them have produced remarkable results. But a few have
resulted in disappointing career prospects for some of the line leaders
who were involved in them.

1995: Working with Dee Hock, the Organizational Learning Center begins a
two-year process of building an ambitious international consortium called
the Society for Organizational Learning, with Peter Senge as chairman.

1996: "The Age of Heretics," by Art Kleiner, and Synchronicity: "The Inner
Path of Leadership," by Joseph Jaworski, are published.

1997: "The Living Company," by Arie de Geus, is published.

1999: "The Dance of Change" is published.

Alan Webber (May 1999) "Learning for a Change" Fast Company magazine.
Issue 24, page 178

Source: History of Learning Organization LO25873 , 12 Jan 2001 , Peggy Stuart, pstuart@c2t2.ca

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =

Mark McElroys Papers on organizational learning and knowledge management

On Febr. 3, 2000 Mark W. McElroy, principal, IBM Knowledge Management Cons announced in the LO23877 that he granted permission to download from the Learning Organization List server three landmark papers of his.

The title and description of each paper, along with their respective URLs, are provided below:

1. "Complexity's Killer App" - A paper which explains the relationship between organizational learning and knowledge management, as well as the profound relevance of complexity theory to both:

2. "Second-Generation Knowledge Management" - A paper recently published in Knowledge Management Magazine which introduces a new brand of KM that focuses on an OL-inspired approach to community-based knowledge creation. This is KM's most compelling value proposition, which only its 2nd-generation form can fulfill:

3. "Double-Loop Knowledge Management" - A paper published in Systems Thinker Newsletter which positions knowledge management as "an implementation tool" for organizational learning:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =

Canoeing in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wildernes

Harry Drabik (1996) "...The secret is simplicity, and simplicity is the joy"