Talk:Learning organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Excessive focus on Senge?[edit]

Why the huge focus on Peter Senge? Organisational Learning has been kicking around in the scholarly literature since the 1970s or 1980s. Action Learning, Argyris and Schon, and a whole stream of articles about organisational learning in the 1980s. Discussing Senge is fine, but it reads more like an ad for him (to the extent that the article is coherent).

Might make some changes here . . . LMackinnon 05:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge this page with the Learning Organization page![edit]

They are both about the same thing! There is in deed two diferent pages titled "Learning Organization" and "Learning Organization (Peter Senge)" which are about the exact same subject and therefore they certainly should be merged. Watch out! Do not confuse with "Organizational Learning"! which is another page with a really different subject. Organization Learning is a process on the way to becoming a Learning Organization (LO), whereas a Learning Organization (LO) is the desired result.

Email addresses[edit]

What's the deal with all the contact email addresses?

<< Contacts: Singapore: Sheila (, Ding Seok Lin (, Dr Jacob Lee (, Jacqueline Wong (, Mirimba Giam (, Gavin Tan ( Hong Kong: Joey Chan ( United States: Peter Senge (, Michael Goodman (, David Stroh (, Daniel Kim ( >>

I would have thought that:

(i) it would be pesenting the addresses for harvesting by spambots and

(ii) many of those busy people may not want to be contacted by just anyone with any question at any time

Did these people consent to providing their email online?

I can see that it's useful to provide contact details, but perhaps institutional web pages with their contact details (that also describe who these people are and what theor learning organization skills are) or mailing lists that people could join would be more useful and polite?

Just raising the issue, I'm not overly fussed by the answer, whichever way it goes . . .

LMackinnon 04:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree - they should be deleted. And the rest of the 'article' needs a major cleanup.

I can't understand why you didn't delete them or at least comment them out. I've commented them out pending policy clarification on this matter. --Transhumanist 09:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

Less now than it did, the article still reads like a plug or promo for the author of the spotlighted book. It's like someone transcribed a brochure into the article. I did some clean-up, but it needs a lot more. --Transhumanist 09:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


The dispute is over this edit. One editor insists on including a lengthy essay section that does not conform to Wikipedia style (an essay essentially identical to one he has inserted on several other pages); two editors believe it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, as they have discussed at User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions. We look forward to outside opinions on the appropriateness of this section. -- TedFrank 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm here from the RfC, and I have to say the editors who have objected to the inclusion are correct. The inserted text was little more than a long rant, totally unsourced, only only generally related to the article's topic. --Haemo 03:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The first few paragraphs of this entry show an amazingly poor of military management systems. For example, the parts about killing the enemy and getting out and designed for the short term are ridiculous. The U.S. military's management systems have served successfully for over 200 years. How many Fortune 500 companies have survived as long? Further, the U.S. military systems were designed based on successful systems used in other countries that date back even further. If this is short term, what does the author consider long term? To say that military systems being designed to kill the enemy and get out is analagous to saying GE's management systems were designed to sell lightbulbs. It's ridiculously simplistic. This section should be rewritten to present facts and theories in a scholarly manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct -- the commentary on the military was both wrong and ignorant, also irrelevant to the article. Therefore it has been deleted. SunSw0rd (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Learning Organization"[edit]

Please note: I'm distinguishing between the idea of the Learning Organization & organizational learning. I'd really like to know who used the term "Learning Organization" for the first time and when. Almost every text I've read on the subject points to Senge (1990) but I'm not sure I can believe that. The topic of OL has been discussed since Cyert & March almost 50 years ago, so I suppose it's unlikely Senge was the first. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Starbuck, Nystrom and Hedberg were certainly using the term in the mid 1970s, when I first heard it. Hedberg, B., Nystrom, Paul C. and Starbuck, William H., "Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization," Administrative Science Quarterly 12:1 (March 1976): 41-65 Mmehlmann (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Marilyn Mehlmann

Clean up[edit]

I did substantial clean-up, copyediting for Wikipedia style according to our WP:MOS, removing some of the jargon, and removings (some) of the repetitions. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Barriers Citation[edit]

The first and second sentences of the barriers section are lacking a citation. Rosenbca (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)