Mr. Holloway has a different approach. Lets make some assumptions: (1)
the leaders have the time to read, study and become involved in "formal"
training; (2) that the "department head is behind the movement" to be
used; (3) the need to at least shorten the gap between needs and budget
is not pressing very hard. Given these, a structured, facilitated process
may well work better. If the three assumptions can not be made, of these
three, number 2 is the highest priority for attention. Pick the battles
well. To propose formal or informal training to managers who have a
problem prioritizing budgets that circle around formal and informal
training seem like a fight that may not go very well. To propose a numbers
associated, risk assessment, prioroization shema, may well hit their
comfort zone. (Thereby creating a learning environment, giving visible
support to the aattack on the problem and an thereby "demonstrating" to
the managers the ( or a) value of the HR department.)
I do not get the drift of the quote on the end of the note:
"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult, more doubtful
of success, more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system.
For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the
representation of the old institution, and merely lukewarm defenders in
those who would gain by the new one." -Machiavelli
Is there application to the question at hand?
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>