Jon said:
>Let us say in 75 or 100 years there is no training department and no
>training is outsourced.
>The organization, its units and employees continually expand their
>capacity and their sense of fulfillment. What are the conditions,
>attitudes, structures, policies, etc. that are necessary for this to take
>place?
Jon,
I want to answer your question in part and also pose another question to
the readership. THIS IS A LONG POST!
1. On time to...no training.
I believe the time is upon us now! The time lines and historically
extrapolative assumptions we are using are based on linear history. The
major problem with this is moore's law. EVERYTHING is being changed
(while at the same time some things stay the same) by the technological
developments brought about by faster computer assimilation.
[It may be outlandish to consider, but we will have part human, part
machines within our lifetimes. While this is not the point, it is a
concern that many of us attribute to only movies. The evolution of our
socioeconomic system will be a more important barometer than we realize.]
What will this look like?
The only way to match radical change is with changeability, hence all
functions would move to the point of demand and training would be JIT/JIC
and not a function of a department who assessed and delivered. The
assessment would be individual and driven by the customer.
How do we enable this paradigm?
Information access would be universal.
Knowledge transfer would be resident in intranets so anyone in the system
could have benefit of the company mind. The global mind would be
accessible as knowledge gained would be transferred into the
internet/suprastructure based on fees or held by university "systems" in
the form of on-line seminars, consulting and by private knowledge
companies such as Arthur Andersen, McKinsey, Ernst & Young who have
migrated to providing knowledge instead of service.
Companies would leverage the power of "hyper-organization," through the
resultant effect of commutation (Am de Lange). [Organizations that may be
hybrids of virtual association but more importantly--knowledge
associations-which interact to assimilate further knowledge, like the
threads on a discussion list advance thinking along a particular line of
inquiry].
Identity becomes omnipresent and ubiquitous, therefore enabling power to
be distributed in an amalgam of process-centered, systems oriented, fluid
and evolving organizational associations. The boundaries of which
enlarge, expand and contract based on customer demand, process competency
and relationships.
Why training will change?
Training has always been an attempt by management rather than a
requirement by the individual. As we move to organizations that
"associate" self-employed individuals, training is moved to learning as
management no longer assumes the "responsibility" to create learning among
its members.
I realize I do not speak about ALL organization as there will be remnants
of machine-like organizations in various forms that exist for some need?
However, these organizations have one major disadvantage-speed. Even as
we view the training function as training is evolved into learning and the
power and responsibility to learn is distributed in order to adapt to
radical changes in the movement of capital towards fulfilling customer
needs, speed will dictate success.
If we understand that as Drucker states, "the only true profit belongs to
the innovator," we will have organizations that attempt to evolve as
quickly as the marketplace in order to maintain growth in innovation, much
like Microsoft. The emphasis will no longer be on hiring, training and
molding "good employees," it will be recruitment and deployment of
knowledge through knowledge workers. This is not new and we see the
fruition of this postulate daily as companies leverage greater numbers of
knowledge workers in ever-increasing numbers. Hyper-organization results.
>From this leverage emerges responses to the marketplace in ways that was
previously unknown--a merging of the known/practiced and the underlying
order-implicitly.
So this evolving edge of chaos will speed up in terms of its ability to
adapt to environmental stimuli, setting a torrid pace for those who seek
to attract capital. Instead of this being an isolated phenomena, we will
see organizations formed for precisely this mission rather than going
through the normal stages of development.
What will occur will be much like the "28 day" Lilly story, where on days
1-26, there is very little indication of what is happening whereas on day
27 HALF THE POND is covered and on day 28 we have complete coverage. I
think this allegory explains what may happen. What this example serves to
explain is that training will be TOO SLOW for the process. Learning will
occur on the fly as the time it takes a "training division" to assess,
formulate, format and deliver training will require TOO MUCH CAPITAL in
terms of "lost advantage." AS we become more technically able, resident
learning will occur in smaller bits and seem integrated with daily work as
opposed to the separateness of the training-learning-experience model.
As Asia comes on line after the millenium, the paradigm of recruit, train
will be replaced by recruit, replace as traditional training evolves and
permeates everyday life vs. impact sessions. Training will evolve as does
the ability to organize. It will be more integrated into daily actions
such that it looks like from the traditional lens it has disappeared. It
has not disappeared just evolved to a new form along with technology,
communication and organizing ability.
The reasons why this type of organization will occur?
Capital is extremely mobile unlike the past.
The spread of capitalism will ignite the latent potential of the second world.
Self-interest will provide the building material for emergent phenomena to be
exploited both in the environment and as a response to the environment.
Knowledge transfer will become widespread rather than cocooned.
Ubiquitous information will create "free association."
Widespread global communication will create new wealth.
Learning will become integrated and DISTRIBUTED.
Take these musings with a grain of salt as they are just insights not
facts!
The second question I have for you is what will leadership look like under
these conditions. If we begin to embrace the concepts of Implicit and
Explicit Order, we have to begin to look at emergence and leading
emergence, as linear extrapolation and extension of present models will
not be adaptive enough either in speed or wealth creation and attraction
to maintain growth in the high-profitability quadrant of the lifecycle.
These types of organizations will present new and unknown challenges to
leadership.
2. What does leadership look and feel like in this type of organization?
If anyone would like to respond, you can respond to me personally as this
may be a topic that is tangential to the list. Your comments would be
appreciated!
Mike
PS Obviously there are broad concerns as to whether organization will
continue to be governed by socioeconomic systems which are in place.
Looking forward to the discussion of Kohn, there maybe some insights into
the type of assumptions that will govern "parts" of this order as it
transitions out of the machine-age into the living-age.
Obviously there are concerns which affect each and every individual in an
organizational environment where learning will be the "ticket to the game"
rather than a result of a process. As the need for personal responsibility
increases, there are effects from the current socioeconomic system which may
or may not be translatable into the new "emerging" system that will "connect"
spirit/economics/sustainability and humanity into one system.
--"Mike Jay" <Quarterback@msn.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>