Robert Bacal asks, in response to Mike Lee, the following questions:
>How does their use encourage individuals to improve and learn?
>How does their use impede learning and improvement?
>How does their use affect an organization as a whole?
These three questions presuppose an answer to the precursor: Who is
responsible for increasing an individuals competence?
If we take the definition of a Learning Organization to mean that a
company is to use it's resources to create competency then I'd have to say
I don't want to work in a Learning Organization. If, on the other hand, we
mean that a Learning Organization invests it's resources in employees who
have already achieved a certain level of competency then I'm fine. I
believe the only person responsible for their incompetence is themselves.
If I were a manager, I'd do everything in my power to drive out
incompetent people and reward the competent ones.
>Those questions seem to have the potential to lead us somewhere
>worthwhile.
It only lead us somewhere worthwhile if I'm willing to accept
responsibility for someone else's actions. I'm not. I will only be
responsible for my own actions. Of course, if I were a manager and I had
told someone to do something stupid then I'd have to take responsibility
for it.
>> I think Ben Compton might agree with me that there is such a thing as
>> generalized incompetence, and that its roots are moral.
>
>How does that belief move us along somewhere useful?
Do you want to work in a moral or an immoral environment?
-- Benjamin Compton DWS -- "The GroupWise Integration Experts" (617) 267-0044 ext. 16 E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>