Cheryl, in response to your questions, let me tell you what we do -- or
wish we were doing. We are far less than perfect in our day-to-day lives.
In general we succeed enough, and we always wish we were succeeding more.
This descrption is vastly over-simplified, and in a sense far to
optimistic and favorable. But it honestly represents what we strive for.
Personally, I think we do use the LO concepts, but I steer clear of the
"LO" word. No one really understands what it is or what it is intended to
do. Actually, I should say, everyone understands, but no one agrees. The
word becomes a distraction. I subscribe to Demings, "DRIVE OUT SLOGANS."
We don't use shorthand phrases for complex subjects -- too often. They
tend to reduce thinking.
We encourage a traditional planning cycle, and we encourage people to
develop a hypothesis about what an outcome will be to a specific set of
actions or to an experiment. We encourage an assessment of the hypothesis
after the experiment. We encourage people to reflect on how to develop a
new experiment that will add clarity or dimension to their hypothesis. We
encourage them to understand what the implications are for the business,
for their work, and for their customer. We do not often talk about
paradigms, but we are clear that when an experiment fails to show what was
expected, it may be that the hypothesis was incorrect. After all, what is
a paradigm, except a viewpoint about how an experiment will come out? We
encourage people to consider alternative hypotheses.
If people do not want to change, mostly that is their problem. However,
we are always incrementally raising expectations of performance, and
non-participants tend to be static in their performance. Eventually, they
start to receive warnings, and then finally, they will be encouraged to
find another job. They are also made aware that they can participate in
something that may help them improve their performance, but few choose
that route. If we had a clear way to inoculate people with a desire for
self-improvement, we would do it. Personally, I view this as a failure of
management as well as of the individual, but until we find a better way to
deal with it, this will have to do.
Our organization is a business. We measure change ultimately in financial
terms, but we also assess experiments as described above to measure more
'localized' activities. We also argue passionately about what is the
right 'way' to do something, and what is the 'right' measure. This is
probably not in the spirit of reflective inquiry and dialog, but it tends
to be fun. Most of the time, arguements are not personalized, but
unfortunately, that is not always the case.
We have shared commitment to common goals, and we hold these passionately.
However, we still disagree about how to achieve those goals. Not everyone
holds the goals equally strongly, but in general the corporate culture is
a powerful and healthy one. Most people would be happy to be members of
our company I think.
We do centralized T&D well along the lines of organizational
collaboration, TQM, process management, process improvement, and so forth.
I personally am moving my organization to a drastically decentralized
approach to training. The people in my department understand their roles
better than anyone, so they are the best trainers. This is an experiment,
and I have described my hypothesis elsewhere. I have been discussing it
with my key managers in the last 2 weeks, and I think we are starting with
a good attitude.
Resources are all internal to the department. We use some 'train the
trainer' capacity, but sparingly. Over the years, we have hired many
people from different pasts. As a result, we have Geologists, lawyers,
lobbyists, gardeners, truck drivers, and lo, teachers. All these people
have specific values to add to the organization, ad we use former teachers
to supplement our training program.
Management already views training as an investment, not an expense. We do
not have to try to change them. "They" are 'we", actually. The rules of
accounting prevent us from capitalizing training so strictly speaking it
has to be an expense, but nevertheless we do not scrimp.
I have no way of envisioning the effective organization of 20 years hence,
so I plan to build flexibility. In fact, we plan flexibility as well as
budgets. We can be very responsive. We surprise ourselves from time to
time. This season is a good example.
My philosophy of adult LOs? Don't have one.
Critical factors for learning? Unknown. Fertile, friendly environment,
time, mentoring/teaching (speeds the process, does not make it work), open
students. Personality drives it ultimately.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234.3636@compuserve.com