Replying to LO24458 --
It is interesting and depressing how groups do seem to go through cycles.
I had the good fortune to actively participate at the front end of the
rebirth of the quality movement in the US. I had the responsibility for
creating a Quality/Productivity Improvement effort for a Fortune 50
company before the advent of TQM, JIT, TCQ.....etc...adnauseum. I was
involved in the startup of an association called the American Productivity
Management Assoc. (later changed to the Quality Productivity Management
Assoc.). It was a fabulous learning experience for me. I had about 10
years experience and was surrounded by people with 25 and more years of
wise experience....their guidance saved my "butt" from being burned
(badly) many times.
Two things from that experience stood out in my mind that relate to this
question. When the rebirth of Quality was new there was a tremendous
amount of sharing that went on between companies. We were all learning
the experienced and the inexperienced.
As the Quality effort became more mature (as measured by the more acronyms
and more consultants on the street corners index) the experienced
practitioners became frustrated because new people kept coming in who
wanted to plow old ground (i.e., how do I get started....how do I get
management buy-in....etc.)
The critical mass on the quality movement grew beyond the early adopters
and the whole nature of our meetings changed. We no longer had people
with "clout" (Chicago word) and 25 or more years of experience coming in
to learn how to do something new. We started getting people with a few
years of experience, little clout, and a much narrower job description
that were showing up at meetings trying to figure out what they were
supposed to do. We never totally achieved peace or a sense of balance
with this problem and today the organization no longer exist.
While I have only been a participant on this list for a few years I have
also seen it go through cycles (I think I'm on my third long vs short
writing on the list). I also tend to selectively edit by the name of the
writer, what ever I pickup in the first sentence or two and my mood of the
moment.
The issue is important because if the seasoned veterans cease to learn,
they tend to go elsewhere and that would be a terrible loss to this
community. I do not have a simple solution to offer. We tried tracks in
our meetings (i.e., experts, newbies, etc.; more politely stated than
that), but everyone wanted to go to the expert track....yet they continued
to ask the newbie questions.
I can't imagine how Rick does it? The level of editing and list
management must be time consuming. It would be totally unfair and
unrealistic to ask for more. The new blood with fresh ideas is certainly
required for the community to sustain itself over time (assuming that is a
community goal). The grizzled veterans ultimately move on to other
pastures in this world or the next.
[Host's Note: Well, for one thing, I don't do any editing... Rick]
One way to do this is to require an apprenticeship. Your first six months
on the list are read only, maybe a goofy idea. I am willing to exchange
ideas with a group of people from the list if people feel this is a real
problem, and we could do this somewhere off line from the main discussion
group. The mixture of folks would need to include newbies, veterans and a
couple in the middle along with Rick.
Michael Bremer
Cumberland/Flow-Works
thecumberlandgroup.com
flow-works.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@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.