Rol wrote:
>I may be missing your point here, and if so, please correct me. I believe
>you are suggesting that different people have different mental models of
>life or of specific tasks which inevitably lead to different levels of
>"competence" at certain well-defined tasks.
Yes, your interpretation is correct. I also think they have different
mental models of the environment in which they work contributing to the
different levels of competence. These mental models do not only affect
well-defined tasks, but all activities.
>At the risk of appearing hard-hearted, there is a way in which I am
>uninterested in the mental model of the person. I am, after all, paying
>for results. I expect results, and I actually get results from most of my
>staff. So if someone cannot provide results, even though they are in
>essentially the same position as others doing the same work, then that
>person is not performing.
>
>Part of my task as leader is to discover and correct the impediment to
>their ability to perform. It is my responsibility to _make_ them perform.
>However, if I cannot do it, then it is my task to find them other work
>that they can succeed at. While it is my responsibility to make them
>perform, it is also their responsibility to learn how to perform. You may
>be right about their mental models. While this may be an important thing
>to consider in trying to help them improve, ultimately it is irrelevant to
>the issue. They must perform.
It is precisely here that I believe the mental model of their work
environment is critical. The less competent person may have a view of the
organisation that impedes effective contribution. These views are often
built on perceived experiences. Unpacking these mental models may lead to
significant change in competence. I think instead of making them perform,
if one were to contribute to environment in which they can perform, and
this would include understanding and (for the individual) reviewing and
perhaps altering mental models, "productivity" will likely improve.
I do accept that there may be instances where individuals are just not
suited to their current tasks. In these cases it may benefit the
organisation to either "re-deploy" the individual, that is provide an
environment within which they do exhibit competence, or fire them. Since
learning organisations benefit from a broad range of perspectives and
experiences both within and external to the organisation, "re-deploying"
would likely be the less costly option, and provide the best opportunity
for improvement.
I hope you feel that this contributes to our conversation.
Les
--"Leslie Lax" <leslax@cnx.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>