Tom Dell, in replying to John Constantine, frames then poses a couple of
interesting questions...
...snip...
>Among the helpful advice offered by members of this
>list were several recommendations that I consult David W. Noer's book
>"Healing the Wounds." In it Noer made a strong case (I'm paraphrasing
>here) for the existence of a workplace paradigm that's vastly changed from
>the one we Baby Boomers grew up and began our careers with. According to
>this paradigm, the individual employee is essentially self-employed -- a
>"temp" whose skills are being utilized by an organization for an
>indefinite but limited period of time. As a result, one must consider
>learning and professional development an essential part of one's paycheck.
>And, of course, the whole concept of loyalty takes on a new meaning.
>
>If so, does an organization composed of "temps" with minimal (if any)
>loyalty have the ability to learn that's needed in a constantly changing
>environment? Can and should it develop systems to insure that the
>organization as well as its "Me, Inc." workforce learns, grows and adapts?
The large-scale, ongoing use of "temps" (literally or figuratively) is a
disguised form of outsourcing. It does not, however, necessarily result
in downsizing or reduced costs. Temp hours and overtime both go up and,
as Tom notes, loyalty goes down. Larry Wilson, founder of Wilson Learning
is noted for saying something like, "You can love your company until
you're blue in the face but it will never love you back." This lack of
loyalty and "Me, Inc." mentality not only makes the worker less inclined
to share learning but it also puts the organization in the position of
being less able to insist upon capturing what has been learned. In my
consulting days, I regularly offered to "transfer the technology" as part
of a consulting contract. That referred to making certain that one or
more of the client's employees came away from the project knowing how to
do what had been done. What I did not offer, was to also share what I
learned from the project. Thus, I was always in the position of sharing
what I already knew but not what I was learning. It was my reasoning that
sharing what I knew was a good way of forcing myself to focus on learning
and thus keep my own knowledge base fresh and renewed.
As for Tom's second question, I think it's a double bind: the
organization cannot afford not to, else it won't be able to compete on the
basis of performance; on the other hand, it might not be able to afford to
because it couldn't then compete on the basis of cost. In other words, I
think there is a cost-performance tradeoff lurking in the second question
and I'm not sure how to make it.
Thanks, Tom, for the thought-provoking question...
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@worldnet.att.net
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>