Jon from the Netherlands asks: "don't we rank people anyway?"
Maybe people do, but it would be wise to know that what we are doing is
the best we can do, and ranking may not be the best we can do. It smacks
too much of discrimination. IMV, that's not healthy. The fact that it is
done doesn't make it more "right".
Also, Jon mentions:
> I find this a difficult question. I have been asked to help improve the
> quality of delivery of training for a large multinational. In order to do
> this, it seems I have to determine what we mean by quality and who is
> delivering it and who is not. I recognize that there are many factors
> that go into quality of delivery than have nothing to do with the trainer.
I would question whether the organization has a sufficient understanding
of what quality means, and what their aim (and yours) is in attempting to
"improve the quality of delivery of training", or anything else.
It is a difficult subject, too often left to the lower ranks without the
needed understanding and support of upper management.
My suggestion...use a reverse Isikawa diagram. Design the WORST possible
system and brainstorm for those ideas. When you are done, work to prevent
those negative factors from happening in your POSITIVE system.
And no, it doesn't mean people won't do things that are not good
for them in the future, only that they might have a better
appreciation for the damage that can result from doing so.
--Sincerely,
John Constantine Rainbird Management Consulting PO Box 23554 Santa Fe, NM 87502-3554 Rainbird@Trail.Com http:\\www.trail.com\~rainbird
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>