Jason Smith wrote in a very small part:
> Your speculations about the capabilities of people who work in and around
> learning organizations concern me. Are your concerns specific? What are
> the things you've really observed? (no need to name names, of course) Do
> you have leveraged actions to suggest to alter the dyanmics you observe?
> It's easy to sit in judgement of others. No attack is intended by this;
> I'm curious to see how far you've taken your thinking past simple doubts
> and generalizations.
Jason:
thanks for the extended answer and the "opening". Let me respond in the
very concrete. This listserv is an excellent place because of the spread
of ideas and the thought behind the postings. Let's start with one idea
and then we can add more as might be of interest:
The strength of the "I" seems to be most critical. It is hard for a person
to sit at the "table" if they do not know what they believe and have the
ability to articulate those beliefs or have the intellectual resources
internalized sufficiently to draw upon them as needed.
As an ex academic, a chemist, ( in fact but not in spirit) I have argued
that part of the fault rests with the education system which has
essentially eliminated "rhetoric" from the curriculum.
Today, an idea is valid only if one can quote a credible authority. Part
of my experience in this area has been with a major publisher and a seller
of management books both of whom are dependent on this thinking and are
forever grateful for either a fast demise of the books to refill the
shelves with the new; or they have The Best Seller.
The related experience comes from two recruiters, and a multinational
engineering firm. One of these was for a manufacturing firm of chemistry
based products. This recruiter said that they were looking for
"interdisciplinary" trained graduates but when students were interviewed,
in spite of what their transcript indicated, they basically could not
explain what it meant or what they could offer to the company. Rather
they would say, "I am a chemist" or I am a... and point to the specific
credits.
The other recruiter hired engineers. When he wanted management he would go
to the east and west coast engineering schools (no names) and when he
wanted line engineers he would go to the midwest.
The engineering firm with which we were working, bought a firm in India
where they shipped a lot of their basic engineering work. The Indian firm
worked for less but the engineers, US trained, were technically competent.
The company seemed indifferent to the fact they were shipping out
knowledge work since the training and competency, for basic design, was
the same in both places.
Recently we have been in discussion with several corporations about what
we call "long half-life" knowledge- liberal studies. We and some of their
management feel that this may provide a key ingredient in allowing the
corporations to deal with the "short half-life" knowledge of relevance to
the corporation and may be the "solvent" that will loosen the gears
between people's ears and get them to think and to be able to "sit at the
table".
This fits into a response that I made to "Doc" Re Learning Industries
LO19158. Here I might just add that cognitive skills and the knowledge
base beyond that which is "relevant" to the organization may now be just
as important as the short-half life knowledge base. This includes
individuals from the chair to the groundskeeper.
thoughts?
tom abele
addendum:
I will be giving two invited talks on this subject. The first will be on
the question of whether a technologist can survive in an ever increasing
technology driven world and the second will ask the question of whether
there is a difference between technology and nature.
--tom abeles <tabeles@tmn.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>