Objections to Learning Organization LO24055

From: Presser, Dennis (dennis.presser@dot.state.wi.us)
Date: 02/24/00

Replying to LO24035 --

Jan writes:
>Now in some cases it is very sensible not to have a LO: the life
>threatening cases and the unimportant cases. In case of acute danger: do
>not try to learn, but manage the problem. Firemen and soldiers in the
>field are examples.

I tend to disagree: these are exactly the cases when LOs are most
sensible. Firemen and soldiers both need to act (or react) to immediate
danger. Soldiers spend an inordinate amount of time "training," i.e.,
learning how to react appropriately -- or think clearly -- despite lacking
complete information about the danger they face. After action reports are
standard procedure for the U.S. Army, and probably most others. And for
soldiers sometimes even the "trained" or learned action is the wrong one,
because your enemy is also learning. I assume the same is true of firemen
and police officers.

[Host's Note: I believe the U.S. Army calls them "After Action Reviews."

Dennis Presser
Office of Policy and Budget Phone:(608)
Wisconsin Department of Transportation Fax: (608) 261-8626
4802 Sheboygan Ave., P.O. Box 7910
Madison, WI 53707-7910

There are no wrong turns. Only wrong thinking on the turns our life has
-- Zen saying


"Presser, Dennis" <dennis.presser@dot.state.wi.us>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.