Kent Myers challenges:
A. State an anomaly. (Within our subject matter).
B. Argue why the anomaly is not adequately explained by the paradigms
available to us. (No straw man arguments. Argue why the
BEST explanations known to you are inadequate.)
C. Create a different explanatory paradigm that is worth discussing.
(According to Kuhn, the new paradigm doesn't have to explain
everything that the prior one does, only the anomaly and something
else to ground it. It helps if the explanation raises new
questions.)
*** end challenge ***
I think we do this all the time. This is the essence of good dialog.
Tell me if I understand you correctly.
A. There are well documented examples of companies investing ever
increasing resources (money, people, time) in education/training (or in
training departments) with no discernible effect. One could create valid
alternative "A" statements by substituting LO, TQM, QR (Quick Response --
another field).
B. A number of alternatives are offered for this anomaly. 1) No
commitment. 2) Leadership resistance, 3) Centralized vs decentralized
effort, 4) Insufficient understanding of what LO really is, 5) Still not
enough resources for a critical mass, 6) LO does not work.
I have probably missed some. It is very reminiscent to the theory of
light that prompted Einstein to take another tack. At that time a
particular experiment failed over and over to prove what everyone
expected. The scientific community at large responded by developing ever
more sophisticated experiments. The "try harder" method. Einstein said
"maybe the data is right. What are the implications?" And he proceeded
to develop a new theory because the old theory was not enough.
C. LO by itself is not enough. In the past I have referred numerous times
to what I call "any reasonably complex situation". This is a situation in
which answers are not obvious, and most businesses are in this category.
There was a rich discussion recently about the environment, and a general
willingness to acknowledge that we don't know enough to manipulate the
environment positively. There are unknowable consequences. The same is
true in any "reasonably complex situation," and basically we are drowning
in "reasonably complex situations."
Well, my "C" is incomplete because I have not told you what is missing,
only that something is. I can provide only partial answers, because
otherwise, it would not be a "reasonably complex situation" any longer.
It would be completely understood.
Major inhibitors to LO success:
Lack of clarity about the goals of the organization.
Insufficient commitment to the goals.
Focus on LO rather than customers and results.
Specific personalities. Never underestimate the power of one individual
to lead a group astray.
Other factors in the situation offset the impact of the LO with no one
knowing it. Chaotic environment.
Failure to use LO on the big leverage points. We use it on the margins,
not at the core of the business. The core is too risky, but the reality
is that is where fundamental change can remake an organization.
We do not understand when LO is appropriate and when it is not. We use
it in inappropriate situations. We believe it is always valid.
We use LO to replace leadership. They need to complement each other, not
supplant each other.
What's missing is some new data that can help us analyze the symptoms of a
failure and change direction.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234.3636@compuserve.com