Replying to LO26904 --
Julie Beedon writes:
> The whole idea of training or competence development is one aspect of LO
> which bothers me. It seems to me that we have taken some things which
> are/could be deep human yearnings
> to understand our world and the bigger picture (systems thinking)
> to share with others in creating something bigger than ourselves (shared
> to grow and learn (personal mastery)
> to building meaning and share understanding with others (mental models)
> to connect with others and develop relationships (team learning)
> and made them into things we judge others by.
> In doing so we risk the failure of the endeavour........... for we become an
> ideology with true believers and nonbelievers or a training programme with
> levels of expertise. In doing so we create a gap between those who do and
> those who don't which increases resistance.
> Better by far that we tap into what people want to discover for themselves
> rather than judge them against set criteria and set them up to be judging
> each other........??
Take a look at the "deemster problem" messages from September 1998
(http://www.learning-org.com/98.09/thread.html -- look for "The "deemster"
problem" about 1/3 of the way down). I think you'll find some interesting
resonances with your points; let us know if you find useful connections.
Some of us might find it worthwhile to have another round of this topic.
[Host's Note: It's at http://www.learning-org.com/98.09/thread.html#107 ]
Don Dwiggins "Unless you fail at more than 10% of the things you try, email@example.com you aren't trying enough things." -- Jack Cohen, coauthor of "The Collapse of Chaos"
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.