In LO 14150 Gaye Mara asked about research on the percentage of time
people in learning organizations need to have free to devote to learning
activites - stepping back, reflecting and sharing experiences, particiapte
in training programs, etc.
I am interested in what numbers come out of the question, but I also
wonder if the question itself may be a little misleading.
Organizations that seem to only value production of work outputs are
sometimes seen as the opposite of those whose priority is learning. I
don't think these have to be polar opposites - the real trick seems to be
to use the pressure for results to create a "market" for the techniques of
organizational learning.
In William Hobler's recent message (LO 14135) he provides a good example
of this . He described the practices of the nuclear submarine navy
regarding learning from failures to achieve expected results. The
overriding objective of the Navy probably has something to do with the
ability to fight, not to learn. But a clear focus on its overarching work
priority probably drove the Navy's use of tools like double loop learning.
Time and budget numbers for "learning-related" activities may be
misleading in the absence of such a results context. I think learning
often happens best when it is subordinated to a broader purpose.
Bob Tomasko
RMTomasko@aol.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>