Replying to LO24930 --
On June 20, Nancy Probst wrote,
>Why are you choosing training as an intervention? Is it based upon a
>sound needs assessment that truly points to training to solve a problem?
>Or is training what has been requested? What else is being done beyond
>the classroom to insure that whatever is learned in the classroom is
>supported in practice. Diversity training is a perfect example. Why do
>we do it? Does it work? Have we done anything else to understand why we
>are having problems? Have we made any efforts beyond the classroom to fix
>the problem?
I certainly endorse Nancy's words, and the questions she suggests need to
be asked. In many organizations, the request for training to solve a
problem is frequently a convenient way for managers facing a problem they
don't clearly understand to pass the buck. Then, everyone gets blamed
when the "solution" turns out to be ineffective.
This is a classic example of the archtypes, "Shifting the Burden" and
"Fixes that Fail," and IMHO points almost unfailingly to a failure to
explore the larger system. But saying this raises for me the next
question, which might be framed as, "How can we work most effectively to
influence the mental models of those who thought the 'training fix' was a
good choice?"
Your thoughts?
Malcolm
--"Malcolm Burson" <mburson@mint.net>
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.