The fault of the English language is sometimes that a context must be
understood in order to understand the intended meaning of a word (or
phrase) used by the sender of the communication. A language that gives
context to a thought by the use of a specific word that conveys context is
a blessing. Or maybe not, take the number of words used by the Eskimo to
convey the meaning of specific types of ice. I've heard as many as 23, not
sure, but the point is the same.
Now that I understand that you would ask the question using "begruenden"
then okay. Actually, even then I think an assumption is made that the
receiver knows exactly what the sender is meaning. Anyway, the problem of
prioritizing training and education still gets back to the ability of the
organization to articulate up front the desired direction of
organizational development and the organizational culture, goals, and
objectives that will get it there.
Now I am not a fan of the statistical analysis of return on investment
indicators, ISO 9000, Six Sigma and other numbers driven "management
programs." So to base decisions on who goes to training and who doesn't on
tightly examines numbers bothers me. But, these are one or several
criteria. These and other criteria must fit inside what some call the
organizational "band of excellence." This band permits some efforts
(resource expenditures) to be less productive, but not a waste. The band
allows for the development of the understanding that when humans are
involved, so are emotions. And pure numbers alone do not convey the value
of the effort.
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>