> I've had success in two plants that I service by creating a menu
>of courses that we expect everyone to take. However, we also include
>elective courses or workshops that provide opportunities for personal
>enhancement. The subject then crafts an improvement plan for
>himself/herself that has a flexible timetable and a comprehensive outcome
>in personal improvement.
> My thinking was that the dependent culture of the workplace is a
>lot like high school. If authority says you will do something, you do it.
>You may grouse about it, but you'll probably follow along and may even
>learn something from the required courses. The elective courses provide
>some ownership in the overall plan and allow for individual interests to
>emerge. I also tried to capitalize on teambuilding opportunities in the
>elective courses in particular, thereby getting more bang for the buck.
This message sparked memory of a debate between myself and
a group of co-workers. At the center of the discussion was whether
it would be effective to mandate a core set of classes to enhance
interpersonal development.
The corporation allows us a significant number of hours for training
through a Continuing Developement program, per year. In my particular
organization, I believe we probably have enough data to support my claim
that the vast majority of people do not take advantage of this. There are
many classes offered in different subjects. We can take technical
classes, as well as, what would be considered "soft-skill" classes. Based
just on my observations, of those co-workers who took classes, most or all
had taken them from the technical side. Some technical training, related
directly to our work has been mandatory, like when the software we use is
updated.
My friends and I were talking about a number of things related to pure
interpersonal ineffectiveness -- in meetings, in one-on-one sessions, in
dealing with conflict, even in communicating ideas and opportunities for
improvement. We talked about interdependence, or lack thereof. Then
the conversation turned to "available training." We asked ourselves
why "soft-skill" training, at least 4 or 5 basic classes in communication,
managing conflict couldn't be mandated. If we are suppose to work in
teams, why wouldn't we want to mandate a class or two to teach people
what makes teams effective and ineffective? All of us felt that some
mandatory training would be good.
A couple weeks ago, the subject came up again. This time one individual
felt very strongly that mandating classes would not lead to the kind of
improvement we would hope for. He was basing this on the argument that
"only those who want to learn will learn." I had a difficult time with
this and brought up high school. Most of us did not want to be there.
Given the choice we would have chosen to be elsewhere. Despite being
forced to be in school for 12 years, we did learn to read, write, and do
mathematics, along with many other things. How then, can one argue that
if an organization forces it's people to take classes in "soft-skills",
the individuals will not learn. He also felt that it should be up to the
individual to take the training they want -- not what someone else wants
them to take. He explained further that the reason he felt this way is
because they would get the most out of the class.
I know there are others who feel this way -- maybe even some on this list.
In some respects, I struggle with the issue myself. I can understand what
he is trying to say and I do believe that people will learn more when they
are making the choice to learn. Is it possible that if management makes
people go to class that more will choose to learn since they are already
there?
There is another aspect to this debate. When people work together, do we
not have a right to expect that others will continue to develope. Some
people say that if an individual refuses to better himself/herself, they
are affecting only themselves. I disagree with this. If we are talking
about systems and "wholes" then, one individual is part of that system.
If a running back on a football team chooses not to practice, does he
affect only himself? Or, does the team suffer as a result of one player's
choice?
All of this comes back to whether it is effective to mandate some
training. If we are allowed many hours of training, maybe management is
responsible for choosing a portion of that curriculum each year. It may
even be of value to conduct survey's that pinpoint cultural attitudes with
regards to that which is interpersonal.
My friends and I are tired of the players who choose to not come to
practice.
Are we in left field on this? Is there something we haven't considered
that I could take back to enhance the discussion? Since we are now
involved in cross-level teams, we want to take advantage of the
opportunity to communicate what we feel.
-- Diane Korzeniewski ToCOLLABR8@aol.com