"The false correlation of learning with training or education is one of
the most common and costly errors in corporation management today."
- (John Seely Brown, Xerox Research Center)
Then a colleague of mine asked "why is that so?"
It didn't occur to me that people unfamiliar w/ LO concepts could ask such
a question. Frankly, I was having a hard time explaining it to him. The
line that I tried was as follows.
"To be feasible, training typically deliver less than the amount of
knowledge/skill that the trainees _need_. The trainee will then
understand only a certain percentage, and even less will be absorbed and
retained. Therefore, "learning" outside of trg is different & important."
I know this explanation is simplifying a bit, but I viewed it as the
easiest to understand for my colleague, w/ his particular background.
My question is, how would you explain it to your colleagues of differing
backgrounds?
Slamet Hendry (sh@earthling.net)
Change is certain. Progress is not. (E.H. Carr)
--"Slamet Hendry" <sh@earthling.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>