SoL, the Society for Organizational Learning, is an intentional learning community composed of organizations, individuals, and local SoL communities around the world. We are a not-for-profit, member-governed corporation.
SoL was created to connect corporations and organizations, researchers and consultants to generate knowledge about and capacity for fundamental innovation and change by engaging in collaborative action inquiry projects. While bringing together "specialists", our goal is more than simple collaboration -- we strive to develop the researcher, capacity builder and practitioner in each of us! As an action learning community, we generate real business and social system results, new intellectual capital and on-going personal and professional networks. Our purpose is to discover (research), integrate (capacity development) and implement (practice) theories and practices of organizational learning for the interdependent development of people and their institutions and communities such that we continue to increase our capacity to collectively realize our highest aspirations and productively resolve our differences. With this intention, organizations are truly worthy of the commitment of their employees and communities.
SoL was formed in April of 1997 to continue the work of MIT's Center for Organizational Learning (1991-1997). Peter Senge, author of the The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization is the founding Chairman of SoL.
In June of 2001, the original organizational sponsors of SoL's global network met in Marblehead, Massachusetts and discussed our progress to date and critical issues requiring cross-organizational and cross-sectoral learning and collaboration. (See full text of the letter written by the Marblehead meeting participants.) Members of the SoL community are committed to developing the capacity to address issues like these:
The social (and economic) divide: the ever-widening gap between those participating in the increasingly interdependent global economy and those not, both between and within different countries. The so-called "digital divide" is one dimension of this. But framing the problem in this manner tends to invoke technological responses, rather than deeper inquiries into the forces behind and consequences of globalization. The anti-globalization movement is growing not because people lack access to the internet but because they feel a profound sense of dislocation and threat. Moreover, the possibilities for collaborative inquiry appear to be diminishing as fear and distrust grows. What are leading corporations doing today to address these issues, and how are they making it part of their business? What are the ranges of innovations -- in market growth, human resources, and ownership and governance -- that must be considered for the future? What new relationships are developing among corporations, NGOs and local governments? The system seeing itself: the challenges for coordination and coherence in social systems, be they global corporations, industries, or still larger systems. Organizations traditionally oscillate between decentralization when business is good and centralization when it is not. On the one hand, autonomy by itself can produce a lack of clarity, waste, unnecessary internal conflicts, confusion and frustration for customers, and inability to work productively for the common good, both the firm's and society's. On the other hand, central control is inevitably limited in diverse, geographically distributed enterprises. Are there alternatives to central control in achieving high levels of coordinated action? What sorts of capabilities, technologies, and infrastructures need to be developed to help people better see how local actions impact extended, interdependent systems that are invisible locally, as well as the overall performance of the enterprise? How do we balance autonomy with health of the whole? Redefining growth: economic growth based on ever-increasing material use and discard is inconsistent with a finite world, and finite capacity to dissipate waste. Yet, our business and financial models depend on growth: if a company fails to grow in revenues and profits, it is out of the game and others who embrace growth will take its place. This dilemma may require rethinking how growth can be brought into harmony with the natural environment. Is there a way to reconceive growth and success? Is it possible to base healthy economies on continuing increase in value created rather than on continuing increase in material throughput? What are the implications of such a shift, for business, financial markets, customers, and investors? Variety and inclusiveness: developing inclusion as a core competence in increasingly multi-cultural and diverse organizations. Issues of diversity have been mostly seen as problems to be solved rather than strategic opportunities. But those organizations that learn to learn better across cultural, gender, and ethnic boundaries and learn to make differences in how people think and learn an asset rather than a liability will have unique advantages in today's world. Moreover, if corporations are to be a force for good in the world, they must reflect better the world's people in their composition.
