Hello David
Thanks for your reply.
Yes indeed Tier 2 has been decimated but still there is noise, some
perceived, in the communication lines.
Our structure is now very flat and the defining lines around Tier 2 are
very blurry. There are open forums for the dissemination of information
from all aspects of the business and there is heavy union involvement in
the affairs of the organization. We are also trying to shake off the
effects of having had state involvement albeit some time in the past and
the very hierarchical management structure that went with it.
We are in a very competitive field and are struggling to survive. Union
involvement is positive for this reason, in fact they have sanctioned
multi-skilling and it is the direction I have been trying to take my
sector of the organization for 2 years. I have had some success.
In an earlier posting (LO20498) Diane Rumley, posed the question
"prioritizing who for formal learning" and in a subsequent one (LO20563)
briefly outlined Australia's 'National Training Reform Agenda'.
New Zealand has a similar strategy under 'The New Zealand Qualifications
Authority', and it was put in place for the same reason, "to become more
internationally competitive". Basically the requirement is that each
profession/vocation/industry consult with their practitioners and agree to
standards of competence expected of those who wish to work in them. The
standards are then posted to the National Framework of Learning and become
part of the 'National Education System'. For organizations and
individuals who wish to be part of this arrangement, and who meet certain
criteria, the government subsidizes the cost of "providers of learning"
(NZQA accredited).
The organization I work for qualifies for this subsidy. This is the path
myself in the training and development field and middle managers from our
sector of the complex have embarked on. The standards of competence for
our part of the process have recently become part of our national
education system. The 'Framework of Learning' is still in its formative
stages and has stiff opposition from some sectors. However there are
enough 'unit standards' from other professions/vocations/industries to
date (health and Safety, Resource Management, Computing, Accounting) for
us to select the skills we want according to the needs of our business
plan. We then package them and they are afforded a level (4) by the
national education system. (level 7 is a degree).
So "who do we prioritize for formal learning?" What we have been trying
to do is work with our work groups with union input and have them select
who and when according to the needs of the business. The marketing
concept "Customer satisfaction at a profit".
A number of our workforce have embarked on education programs themselves.
Our company policy states that if the course of study directly relates to
the job they are employed to do, their course fees will be refunded upon
evidence that they "passed".
How does this all fit with the contents of my Intro posting?
David you suggest we are really in trouble now! Maybe in the same amount
of trouble before we embarked on 4 quadrant leadership, then Statistical
process control, then analytical trouble shooting, then TQM etc, etc.
Nevertheless we are surviving for the moment while others in our field are
going by the way side. I suppose I'm saying the money we spent on
training courses in the past, that if targeted rather than the "spray and
pray" approach could have increased our distance from the receivers.
In terms of learning. An operator who has embarked on our Nationally
aligned program was trying to get an overview of the module referring to
our Resource Management Act. He presently operates a massive amount of
machinery from a computerized control room, for a considerable time prior,
his duties included the operation an effluent plant to treat water to a
standard where it was safe to discharge into the sea. He had been
"trained" to operate the plant to discharge only when a reading was below
30 parts per million. His personal transformation in the full light of
"understanding" (the effect on the food chain and environment) makes my
job worth doing.
Hopefully this is not to rambling (a feature of my MBTI they tell me) and
that somewhere herein is the makings of a learning organization that will
enable us to remain in employment for some considerable time. If and when
I fully comprehend the seven essentialities, I could measure our approach
against them?
Regards
Dennis.
--Dennis Rolleston <Dennisr@ps.gen.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>