LO:
Juan makes a particularly cogent point in pointing out the inadequacy of
the use of sports (or war for that matter - I'll save the use of the war
analogy for another post if an inspiration occurs!) analogies in business,
and indirectly identifies a few shortcomings of any LO: history and
heuristics.
Our history (experience) sets up events and results that produce
heuristics which impact our future experience. Together, history and
heuristics produce "learning" -- or do they?
I'll be danged why we use sports analogies at all in business . . .
I have always found it odd that we (we in a sense that it is mostly men)
use sports -- predominantly physical events -- to describe or assist us in
understanding business (people) -- events that are predominantly emotional
and intellectual. Oh sure, the former NJ Senator, Bill Bradley was
referred to as the "thinking man's" athlete but hey, sweat is still sweat
whether it's being produced by a Rhodes scholar or a road worker.
So, if we are using inadequate or incorrect terminology to describe our
LO, are we really describing a LO?
Best regards to all,
Steve Levy
Principal
outside-the-box, inc. -- "lateral thinking for a 'straightforward' world"
organizational effectiveness performance planning and coaching
career development for technology organizations
tel (203) 853-2147
--SMLevy1 <SMLevy1@aol.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>