1. Establishing a shared statement of purpose and a shared set of guiding principles, and
2. Developing infrastructures that support community building, and
3. Undertaking collaborative projects that focus on key change issues, and that create concrete contexts for further deepening common purpose and improving infrastructures.

Guiding ideas
Leading management thinkers from Deming to Drucker have pointed to the importance of constancy of purpose and mission as the foundation for any enterprise. Retired CEO Bill O'Brien, an influential elder within the SoL community, has argued that the core problem with most corporations is that they are governed by "mediocre ideas."(O'Brien 1998) Dee Hock says that it took two years to develop the purpose and principles that led to VISA's innovative decentralized design (Hock 1999). So, it was not entirely surprising that the OLC redesign team took almost as long to articulate its guiding ideas (SoL 1997 and Carstedt 1999 and SoL web page), such as

SoL is a global learning community dedicated to building knowledge for fundamental institutional change (who we are) -- specifically, to help build organizations worthy of people's fullest commitment (why we are here) -- by discovering, integrating, and implementing theories and practices for the interdependent development of people and their institutions (how we make it happen)
In addition, The SoL Constitution incorporates a set of 14 core principles like:

people learn best from and with one another, and participation in learning communities is vital to their effectiveness, well being and happiness in any work setting (learning is social); and

it is essential that organizations evolve to be in greater harmony with human nature and with the natural world (aligning with nature)

The potential impact of such guiding ideas comes form the depth of the commitment to them, and from how they become the foundation for day-to- day practices. Commitment comes alive in what we do not what we say. For this reason, much of the effort in the past two years has focused on developing the learning infrastructures that can help leaders at all levels to succeed in their change efforts and learn from and share their experiences.

Infrastructure for Community Building
There is a dramatic difference in the speed and likelihood of new ideas moving into practice in different fields, depending largely on the infrastructures that exist. For example, new knowledge in areas like electronics, biotechnology, and engineering materials move much more quickly from laboratory to commercialization than does new knowledge in management. One reason is the infrastructure created by venture capital firms, which enables people to continually search out promising new technologies and financially support practical experimentation in the form of new companies and new products. By contrast, in the social sciences and management there is infrastructure to support research (cf, foundations like the National Science Foundation) but little to support practical experimentation. This is the gap that the SoL community is seeking to fill, knowing full well that innovations in social systems may be inherently much more challenging to "move" from concept to capability than technological innovations. To date, there have been efforts to develop three types of infrastructure that better interconnect learning and working within the SoL community:

Type 1: Intra-organizational learning infrastructures revolve around specific projects and change efforts within individual organizations. For example, in 1996 a large US based Oil Company, OilCo, established a Learning Center. The intent was not only to support many education and training efforts but to be a catalyst and hub for a variety of research projects on learning and change. As one illustration, the Learning Center supported a learning history study of the "transformation" process at OilCo that began in 1994 (Kleiner and Roth 1997). The aim of the study was to help the 200 or so leaders directly involved and many others within the company to make sense of a complex array of changes in philosophy, management practices, and organization structure (Kleiner and Roth 1998). Unlike the typical "roll out" of corporate change efforts, leaders at the OilCo Learning Center sought to encourage broad based inquiry into the interactions among personal, team and organization changes involved in the multi-year process. The study focused on tough and complex issues, such as pursuing a new business model, diversity, establishing a new governance system that broke apart the traditional corporate power monopoly, and developing new management behaviors. The OilCo Learning Center continues to engage in a variety of studies on the multiple levels of significant change processes, including a recent study of the impact of "personal mastery " education programs (Markova 1999).In many SoL company projects, innovations in infrastructure are the heart of the project. For example, many teams have created "learning laboratories" as a core element of their change strategy. These are intended as "managerial practice fields" where people can come together to inquire into complex business issues, test out new ideas, and practice with new learning tools (Senge 1990). To illustrate, several years ago, sales managers at Federal Express created the "global sales learning lab," a learning environment aimed at bringing together FedEx people and key customers to explore complex global logistics issues.(Dumaine, 1994) Similarly, product development teams have created learning laboratories so that engineers from diverse expert groups can better understand how their best efforts at local solutions often end up being sub-optimal for the team as a whole, and the overall development effort (see Senge et.al. 1994, pp.554-560, and Roth and Kleiner 1996 and 1999).These and many similar experiences have underscored the crucial role of innovations in learning infrastructure in successful change processes. Managers everywhere struggle with how to integrate working and learning. Perhaps the most common symptom of this struggle is the familiar complaint that new ideas or skills do not transfer from training sessions to workplaces. This should come as no surprise. Traditional training efforts violate two key learning principles: learning is highly contextual and learning is social. As asserted in SoL's founding principles, people have an innate drive to learn if engaged with problems that have real meaning for them and with people with whom they must produce practical results. The reason that innovations like learning laboratories are so important is that they embed the learning process in the midst of the work process.

Type 2: Inter-organizational learning infrastructures support Type 1 infrastructures by linking people from different organizations to help, coach, and support each other. "Most radically new ideas and the skill sets or know-how that are needed to implement them," says Edgar Schein, " "are too complex to be acquired by practitioners from academics or consultants." Schein argues that although consultants or outside researchers may be useful in the initial stages of a learning process (through, for instance, introducing new ideas or starting a learning process toward new capabilities) "a second stage learning process is needed where the practitioners learn from others... who understand the opportunities and constraints afforded by the culture of the occupational community in which they operate."(Schein 1995, 6-7) This same sentiment is expressed in SoL's principle of "cross-organizational collaboration."Examples of SoL's inter-organizational infrastructures include the Annual Meeting, during which members reflect on progress in the community as a whole; capacity building programs open to all members; company visits (especially useful for new members); periodic meetings hosted by member companies. The importance of these as community-building gatherings cannot be overstated. Participants in SoL's 5-day "Core Competencies of Learning Organizations" course frequently remark that they are surprised and relieved to discover how many other organizations struggle with the same problems. "I thought we were the only 16ones who had this problem," said a sales manager from a Fortune 100 firm. "It is really useful to discover that people from other very successful corporations have the same issues, and to see how they are wrestling with it." Such gatherings can be surprisingly generative. Some of the OLC/SoL's most significant change projects were inspired by ideas generated from these cross-company visits and learning journeys. Today, SoL has a new sustainability consortium -- a group of companies working together to apply organizational learning tools and principles in order to accelerate the development of sustainable business practices -- in part because executives at the semi-annual Executive Champions' Workshop have spent the past two years exploring stewardship and the evolving role of the corporation. Similarly, one of the larger corporate SoL members has today a major company wide "re-invention" process that is, in many ways, inspired by what happened at OilCo in the mid-1990s. The executive VP of Marketing learned about OilCo's efforts from OilCo executives who hosted a SoL meeting in 1996. "I was very impressed with the depth of conviction and willingness to experiment of the people (at OilCo)," said the executive. "Two years later, when it became apparent that there was an opening for deep rethinking and renewal in our company, I remembered what I had seen at (OilCo)."From our experience, creating effective inter-organizational infrastructures depends most of all on the quality of conversations that such infrastructures enable: their timeliness, relevance, and depth. In all the examples cited above, a real effort was made to create an environment of safety and personal reflection, so that people focus on what they truly care about, rather than on making impressions (as happens all too often in many cross-company meetings). The result is twofold: conversations that are candid and generative, and an evolving web of deepening personal relationships that is the manifestation of genuine community.

Type 3: Organization-transcending learning infrastructures support Type 1 and 2 infrastructures by creating the larger contexts, such as the formation of SoL itself. The creation of inter-organizational connections cannot be left to chance. But there is a real dilemma as to who has the responsibility and ownership for making it happen.In addition to articulating a theory and a set of guiding ideas, the two year process that led to the creation of SoL established a novel concept of organizing: a self-governing society based on equal partnership of companies, researchers, and consultants. SoL is incorporated as a non-profit membership society with individual and institutional members in three categories: practitioner, research, and consultant. It is governed by an elected council composed equally of the three types of members. The SoL organization exists to serve the SoL community in pursuit of its common purpose.Moreover, the intent underlying SoL is to not to create a single learning community but to establish a foundation that can allow for a global network of learning communities to emerge. The way that people in different parts of the world will pursue SoL's purpose and principles will vary naturally. Each SoL community, or fractal, represents a distinct embodiment of a common pattern, while also being unique. In enabling this sort of growth, SoL is seeking to embody a core growth principle from nature: unending variety of forms from simple building blocks. Unlike a franchise or other structure that is replicated, each SoL community has to generate itself out of its interpretation of SoL's purpose and principles. In effect, the commonality among the global community emerges from the underlying theory and guiding ideas, not from an imposed common form. While the commonality comes from adherence to the purpose and principles, the variety comes from the "environment" from which each SoL fractal emerges.Throughout all of these changes, a consistent message is the importance of common purpose beyond self-interest and shared responsibility-- the foundations for true community. Each group that incorporates a SoL assumes responsibility for its form, function, local strategy, staffing, budget, and membership. The SoL global network provides help, mainly through interconnecting with other SoLs around the world. The SoL global network is itself governed by elected representatives from the member SoL communities. In this way, SoL very much resembles VISA, what Dee Hock sometimes calls a "bottoms-up holding company." But whereas a holding company is typically bound together by a common goal of business profit, the SoL community worldwide is bound together by the common purpose of building and sharing knowledge for organizational transformation.

Collaborative projects
Guiding ideas and infrastructures for learning are necessary conditions for community building, but the process of community building centers on people engaged in meaningful collaborative work. In order for learning communities to take root and continually renew themselves, people must be excited about what they are doing together and accomplishing, not just about their common ideals and processes.Yet, there are deep dilemmas in how such collaborative work comes about within a diverse, distributed learning community. On the one hand, if a centralized agent, like the SoL organization, tries to initiate collaborative projects, we have found that the response is lukewarm. All too often, the project focus reflects what a handful of people are committed to rather than where there is a genuine critical mass of commitment in the larger community. But, "self organizing" cannot always be left to itself. Often, even though there is a common issue of broad and deep concern, little happens without help. In particular, if the issue area represents a long-term, systemic set of challenges, it may be the very type of issue which organizations find themselves unable to confront effectively, given the relentless pressures for day-to-day performance. Discovering and nurturing change initiatives where there is broad but latent commitment may prove to be one of the core competencies for effective community action research.The newly formed SoL Sustainability Consortium may hold some keys to what is required for creating effective collaborative projects. Starting in 1995, several efforts initiated by a small group of consultant and research members to form such a consortium failed. In each case, there were individuals from member companies who participated and expressed interest. In each case, the meetings failed to generate momentum to carry the group forward. Finally, after a particularly disappointing meeting involving exclusively top managers, including several CEOs, from eight different companies, the organizing group was forced to rethink their efforts. Several conclusions were reached. First, while top managers were good at representing their organization, they were not necessarily very good at getting things done, at least not by themselves. The key was getting the right people together, not the right positions. Second, we were fragmented in our focus because several of the participating companies in each meeting were there to "check out this sustainability stuff." They were not deeply engaged already. This deleted energy from those who were already convicted and wasted time that might be spent on more concrete and action-oriented conversations. Third, we were talking too much at an abstract level and not connecting enough to concrete problems with which people were already engaged.What gradually emerged from these assessments was a distinct strategy. First, it was essential that the collaboration be initiated by practitioners, not consultants or researchers. Second, we needed the initiative to come from companies which already saw environmental sustainability as a cornerstone of its strategy. Third, we needed to make sure that those who came to the meetings were not only deeply interested in sustainability but had first-hand experience in achieving transformative breakthroughs as line managers. Only this would guarantee a sense of confidence that real change was possible.We started by recruiting Interface to become a SoL member, a firm widely known in the US for its commitment to recycling (Anderson 2000). We then asked BP-Amoco, a founding member of SoL UK to join as a co-convenor with Interface of the consortium. Jointly we developed an invitation that said that the purpose of this collaborative was to bring together companies for whom environmental sustainability was already a cornerstone of their strategy, or who were seriously moving in that direction. We didn't want to have any more "tire kickers." We focused the meetings on real accomplishments and real struggles of the member companies and had the companies host the meetings. For example, the September 1999 meeting was hosted by Xerox, a world leader in design for re-manufacturing, and much of the meeting involved dialogue with team leaders of the "Lakes project," a recently introduced, fully digitized copier that is 96% re-manufacturable. Lastly, we hand picked attendees at the meetings to include some of the most experienced line managers with organizational learning tools and principles. After this new group had held two meetings, a host of collaborative projects began to develop spontaneously.Obviously, there are strong parallels between the insights of this story and cornerstones of action research -- like focusing on the issues which are most salient to practitioners, and keeping working sessions aimed at concrete problems. But, the aim of also seeking to foster collaboration among practitioners from multiple firms greatly increases the complexity of the task. For example, striking a healthy balance between the concrete and the abstract is extremely challenging. In a collaborative setting, this balance must be achieved through identifying common learning imperatives across diverse organizational contexts. This requires that the practitioners operate more like researchers, stepping back from the idiosyncrasies of their organizational setting and pondering more generic issues. Lastly, collaboration, especially around helping one another through difficult change processes, is always about relationships. Probably the most significant accomplishment is to create a climate in face-to-face meetings where people begin to disclose their personal and organizational struggles, and feel comfortable sharing their genuine aspirations. For the SoL Sustainability Consortium, this began to happen at Xerox, through people talking in candid terms about their personal journeys, as well as their organizational challenges. When this started to happen, the meeting was no longer a typical business meeting, and a distinct level of trust started to form. Eagerness to work together arises as a natural byproduct of perceived mutuality and trust. Without these, expressions of interest in learning together remain superficial, and little deep change is likely to actually happen.

Frontiers
As the SoL community begins to become established, several common themes are emerging that may constitute the beginnings of new theory, method and know- how.

1. Two Sources of Learning: Reflecting the Past or Presencing Emerging FuturesOne insight from our more recent work is that there are two modes of both individual and organizational learning: reflecting on past experiences and "presencing" emerging futures.These two modes of learning require different types of processes, learning infrastructures, and cognition. no, this is not a problem. I suggest to leave it as it is. cosThe temporal source of reflective learning is the past--learning revolves around reflecting on experiences of the past. All Kolb (1984) type learning cycles are variations of this type of learning. Their basic sequence is:
1. action,
2. concrete experience,
3. reflective observation,
4. abstract conceptualization, and new action.
The temporal source of emergent learning is the future, or, to be more precise, the coming into presence of the future. In emergent learning situations, learning is based on a fundamentally different mode of cognition, which revolves around sensing emerging futures rather than reflecting on present realities (Bortoft 1996). The basic sequence of the emergent learning cycle is:
1. Observe, observe, observe;
2. becomestill: recognize the emptiness of ideas about past or future;
3. allow inner knowing to emerge (presencing),
4. act in an instant, and observe again (Jaworski and Scharmer 2000).
While Organizational Development and organizational learning have been mainly concerned with how to build, nurture, and sustain reflective learning processes, our recent experiences suggest that companies are now facing a new set of challenges that require a new source of learning. These challenges are concerned with how to compete under the conditions of the new economy; namely, how to learn from a reality that is not yet embodied in manifest experience. The question now is how to learn from experience when the experience that matters most is a subtle, incipient, not-yet-enacted experience of the future (Scharmer 1999).The key difference between learning from the past and learning from emerging futures lies in the second and third steps -- becoming still, and allowing inner knowing to emerge (presencing). These do not exist in the traditional learning cycles. Whereas reflective learning builds on inquiry based dialogue and reflective cognition, learning through presencing is based on a different kind of awareness --one that Cszikzentmihaly (1990) describes as "flow," that Bortoft (1996) describes as "presencing the Whole," that Rosch (1999) characterizes as "timeless, direct presentation (rather than stored re-presentation)," or that many people encounter in generative dialogue experiences (Isaacs 1999 ).Today, we find ourselves operating with both learning cycles. However, our main focus of work has shifted towards helping companies operate with possible leadership principles of emergent learning, like authenticity, vulnerability, and "setting fields" for heightened awareness.(Jaworski et. al.. 1997, Jaworski and 22Scharmer, 2000) These ideas are beginning to establish a foundation for a new approach to strategy as an emergent process, based on the capacity to "presence" as well as to reflect .

2.From Exterior Action Turn(Explicit) To Interior Action Turn (Tacit)
As the source of learning expands from reflecting on experiences of the past to looking at emerging futures, the attention of managerial and research action must likewise expand, from focusing solely on exterior action to examining interior action. "The success of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervenor" says Bill O'Brien (November 10, 1998, private conversation), formerly CEO of Hanover Insurance. The question is: how can action research adequately study the interior dimension of managerial action? Or, how can we integrate "first person research" (Bradbury and Reason, Finale; Torbert Chapter 23) into the everyday routines of research and practice?One example that highlights the interior action turn was recently given by asenior consultant considered to be one of the most outstanding interviewers in the SoL community. The deep listening interview process developed by this consultant, which usually takes three to four hours for each interview, have turned out to be life changing event, in the assessment of many interviewees. Asked about the personal practices that allow such a unique conversational atmosphere, the consultant responded, "The most important hour in this deep listening interview is the hour prior to the interview," when the consultant opens his mind for the conversation. For this particular individual, this hour is always reserved for quiet preparation, which involves a combination of reviewing prior thoughts and meditation.

3. Three Types of Complexity
The OLC's research agenda focused on helping leaders to cope with problems that are high on both dynamic complexity (Ackoff's "messes") and behavioral complexity (Mitroff's and others' "wicked problems"). We referred to this class of problems as "wicked messes" (Roth and Senge 1995). Today we believe a third dimension needs to be added: generative complexity.Dynamic complexity characterizes the extent to which cause and effect are distant in space and time. In situations of high dynamic complexity, the causes of problems can not be readily determined by first-hand experience. Few, if any, of the actors in a system are pursuing high leverage strategies, and most managerial actions are, at best, ameliorating problem symptoms in the short run, often leaving underlying problems worse than if nothing at all was done.Behavioral complexity describes the diversity of mental models, values, aims and political interests of the players in a given situation. Situations of high behavioral complexity are characterized by deep conflicts in assumptions, beliefs, world views, political interests, and objectives.These two types of complexity guided our research activities throughout the first half of the 1990s. However, during the course of the second half of the decade, many of SoL member companies found themselves moving into the business context of a new internet-based economy, and management and leadership teams faced need to continually reinvent and reposition their business and themselves. In the new economy, generative complexity arises from the tension between "current reality" and "emerging futures." In situations of low generative complexity we are dealing with problems and alternatives that are largely familiar and known -- wage negotiations between employers and unions are an example of high dynamic and behavioral complexity but low generative complexity (non-obvious causality, different interests, given alternatives). In situations of high generative complexity we are dealing with possible futures which are still emerging, largely unknown, non-determined, and not yet enacted (non-obvious causality, different views, not- yet-defined alternatives).In retrospect, throughout the 1990s, our research focus has steadily shifted from traditional "wicked messes" of medium or low generative complexity to wicked mess that are also high in generative complexity. As also illustrated in Gustavsen's (Chapter 1) case of learning region dialogues, the challenge in this kind of environment is how leaders can cope with problems that
a) have causes difficult to determine,
b) involve numerous players with different world views, and
c) are related to bringing forth emerging futures?

4. The Shadow Side of the New Economy
Last, but not least is the issue of the shadow side of the new global economy. We are increasingly aware that organizing around knowledge communities in the world of business is a double edged sword. On the one hand, these patterns of relationships can become genuine communities as described above. On the other hand, many of these communities are part of a global economic structure that, at the same time, undermines the social and ecological foundations on which not only the economy but all social living operates (Schumpeter 1962). We do not view knowledge generating communities in the world of institutions as a substitute for more traditional communities that appear to be under great stress around the world (Castells, 1997). The question that follows from this is: How can we successfully participate in the current reality of business such that what we do does not undermine, but nurture the social, ecological and spiritual foundations of the world in that we life? This is emerging as a core question being addressed within SoL worldwide, as evident in new developments like the SoL sustainability consortium.ConclusionIt is widely recognized today that knowledge creation and learning have become keys to organizational competitiveness and vitality (de Geus 1997, Brown and Duguid, 1998). Yet, knowledge creation is a very fragile process. Knowledge is an encompassing notion, embracing concept and capability, tools and tacit knowing. Knowledge is not a thing and is not reducible to things. It is neither data nor information, and cannot be "managed" as if it were. Unlike traditional sources of competitive advantage like patents, proprietary information, and unique processes, it can be neither hoarded nor owned (von Krogh, 1998). Moreover, knowledge creation is an intensely human, messy process of imagination, invention, and learning from mistakes, embedded in a web of human relationships. The more firms try to protect their knowledge, the more they risk destroying the conditions that lead to its generation. Thus, organizing for knowledge creation may be very different than organizing for traditional competitive advantage. Few managers and leaders have come to grips with these distinctions and the need for radical departures in organizing for knowledge creation. Community action research represents one approach to this challenge.At its heart, community action research rests on a basic pattern of interdependency, the continuing cycle linking research, capacity building and practice: the ongoing creation of new theory, tools, and practical know-how. We believe this pattern is archetypal, and characterizes deep learning at all levels, for individuals, teams, organizations, and society. This is why we use the term "fractals" to characterize different embodiments of the SoL concept, each enacting this common pattern in unique ways. The unifying feature of all is a commitment to integrating the knowledge-creating process to sustain fundamental social and institutional change, be the focus local schools or multinational corporations.Is community action research an idea whose time has come? It is too early to say. But one thing seems clear: industrial age institutions face unprecedented challenges to adapt and evolve, and we seriously question the adequacy of present approaches to the task. The well-being of our societies and many other of the living systems on the planet depend upon this.

<<<<<Torna a Parte I

References

Anderson, R. (forthcoming 2000). Reflections On A Transformational Journey: ACEO's Perspective. In: Reflections. Vol 1, No. 4, Fall 2000.
Argyris, C. and D. Schoen. (1996). Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Bortoft, H. (1996). The Wholeness of Nature. Goethe's Way towards a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press.
Bradbury, H. (1999). Moving from the Center to the Periphery: A Learning History for and about the Society for Organizational Learning. Case Western Reserve
University, Weatherhead School of Management, Department of Organizational Behavior Working Paper Series WP 99
Brown, J. Seely and P. Duguid (1998)- Organizing Knowledge. California Management Review. Vol. 40, No. 3, Spring 1998: 90-111.
Carstedt, G. (1999). About SoL, Reflections, The SoL Journal; Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press; first issue: August 1999.
Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publisher.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, N.Y.: Harper Perennial.
Deming, W.E. (1982). Out of Crisis, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Dumaine, B. (1994). Mr. Learning Organization, Fortune October, 17, 1994: 147-157.Forrester, Jay. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fuller, B.(1976). Synergetics: The Geometry of Thinking, New York: MacmillianPublishing.
Geus, A. de (1997). The Living Company, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Senge and Scharmer
Hock, Dee (1999). Birth of the Chaordic Age, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Isaacs; W. (1999). Dialogue, The Art of Thinking Together, New York:Doubleday Currency.
Jaworski, J., K. Gozdz and P. Senge (1997). Setting the Field: Creating the
Conditions for Profound Institutional Change, Working Paper, Society For
Organizational Learning, Cambridge,MA.
Jaworski, J., and C.O. Scharmer (2000). Leadership in the New Economy: Accessing
Another Cognitive Capacity, Working Paper, Centre for Generative Leadership, Hamilton, MA.
Kim,D.H. (1993). The Link betweeen Individual and Organizational Learning. Sloan Management Review. Fall 1993: 37-50.
Kleiner, A. and G. Roth. (1997). How to Make Experience Your Company's Best Teacher," Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct 1997, 172-77.
Kleiner,A. and G. Roth. (1998). Perspectives on Corporate Transformation: the Oil Co Learning History. SoL Learning History 18.009, 1998, available through SoL-ne.org. (forthcoming as book from Oxford University Press)
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall.von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in Knowledge Creation. In: California ManagementReview. Spring 1998, Vol 40, No. 3, 133-153.
Lieber, R. B. (1997). AT&T: Consultant junkie. Fortune. 135(7): 1997 Apr 14: 160.
March,J.G. and J.P. Olsen. (1975). The Uncertainty of the Past: OrganizationalLearning under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research . 3: 147-171.
Markova, D. (1999). "Assessing To Learn, Learning to Assess: A Methodology for Determining the Effectiveness of Short-Term Courses in Personal Mastery."Unpublished paper. Society for Organizational Learning, Cambridge Mass., June16, 1999.
Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New
York: Oxford University Press. Senge and Scharmer
O'Brien, W. (1998). The Soul of Corporate Leadership. Guidelines for Values-Centered Governance. Innovations in Management Series. Waltham, MA: PegasusCommunications.
Richardson, G.P.(1991). Feedback Thought in Social Sciences and Systems Theory.Philadelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press.
Rosch, E.(forthcoming 2000). Spit Straight Up -Learn Something!": Can Tibetan Buddhism Inform the Cognitive Sciences," In B. A. Wallace (ed.), Meeting at the Roots: Essays on Tibetan Buddhism and the Natural Sciences. Berkeley, Ca: University of California Press in press.
Roth, G. and A. Kleiner. (1996). The Learning Initiative at the AutoCo Epsilon Program. SoL Learning History 18.009, available through sol-ne.org.
Roth, G. and A. Kleiner. (1999). Car Launch, New York: Oxford University Press.
Roth, G. and P. M. Senge (1995). From Theory to Practice: Research Territory,Processes and Structure at the MIT Center for Organizational Learning. Journal ofOrganizational Change Management. 9 (1), 92 ­ 106.
Scharmer, O. (1999). Presencing: Shifting the Place from Which We Operate, paper,presented at the 1999 Academy of Management, Chicago.
Schein, E. H. (1999). Process Consultation Revisited. Building the Helping Relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. (1995). Learning Consortia: How to Create Parallel Learning Systems for Organizational Sets. SoL Working Paper 10.007, available through sol-ne.org
Schumpeter, J. (1962). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harpercollins.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline, New York: DoubledayCurrency.
Senge, P.M. (1993). Transforming the practice of management. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 4(1): 4-32.
Senge, P.M., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, and B. Smith (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: DoubledayCurrency.
Senge and Scharmer Shewhart, W.A. (1931). Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product.
New York: Van Norstrand.SoL Constitution (1997). available on webpage: SoL-ne.org.
Waldrop, M., Complexity. (1992). Complexity. The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York, NY: Touchstone Book.
Wyer, J. and G. Roth (1997). The Learning Initiative at Electro Components. SoL Learning History. available on webpage: SoL-ne.org.