All For You

To develop is to internally reorganize you.  Learning is different from development.  Learning is learning new techniques in your existing framework and development is to move from one framework to another.     Framework is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality. To stay within your framework of thinking while trying new techniques is learning.  To move from your framework of thinking into a new framework of thought is development.  This way of looking at these two different concepts are very different for me.  I have never looked at learning as new techniques.  If you keep trying different techniques with no results at some point in time you have to move on to development.  You can not stay in your existing framework with no results, you may have to drastically change your way of thought through development to see results.

In order to develop it must be done over time.  If you look at most management development programs they are done in a day or throughout any given week.  This is clearly not enough time to develop managers within their existing framework.  Most times they are canned programs and do not allow for custom building.  Every framework is different therefore it would make sense for the framework to match up with the techniques being learned.  Surely managers can learn new techniques in a couple of days however; it is not enough time to test out the new techniques to see if they work.  This is true with regards to internally reorganizing your self. 

To develop your self requires time to reflect.  The act of blogging for class allows us to develop ourselves through reflecting.  Mirroring was added as an additional requirement of blogging.  Reflection is most effective when other individuals can provide their perspective.  We all provide that perspective through mirroring each other’s blog post.  In my opinion, it is so refreshing to be practicing what the book preaches.     There are so many times in the working world when your hands are tied with regards to practicing what the book preaches and/or your personal philosophy.

Up until now I took for granted that the client was the person receiving the service. It was my opinion that knowing who the client “really” was, was a matter of common sense. I sure was wrong in my assumptions according to Chapter Four in the Schein book. There are so many variables in accessing who the client is that must be considered.

I have been in many situations where I was requested to help individuals with their training needs and never really took the time to figure out the client’s needs. I have also gone out and took it upon myself to figure the issues out without even considering the concerns, suggestions, or ideas of the individuals that were affected by the intervention.

On many occasions I have interviewed the primary and unwitting clients by “accident”. I refer it as an accident because I really didn’t ensure that this was done for every intervention. In the past, if I was charged with providing a service with no background information than I would seek input from my primary and unwitting clients. However, contrary to that scenario if background information was provided up front than there have been times where my clients were not involved in the planning of my intervention. The readings this week has given me a broader view of “who the client really is”.

     It occurs at the interfaces between people, organization units, organization, and environment.  These subsystems must be able to confront others who have constructed different meanings.  Diverse differences brings about organizational learning, however we must be open to receiving those differences.  From this interaction, the organization members must form an interpretation of the information. Each person involved is influenced by the meanings others hold and in turn influences the meanings of others.  This process is called collective interpretation. 

     The outcome of collective interpretation does not have to have total agreement in order for individuals to act in concert.  There must be fully understanding of the reasoning behind the proposed action.  Also there needs to be an opportunity to influence that reasoning.  There is a huge loss of learning when the reasoning people contribute is not used.    We all have a responsibility to work actively towards the learning of others.  If I want to know more than I will have see to it that you know more.  Organizational learning is as good as the organization’s ability to use their employee’s entire mental capability to create the kind of processes that will improve its own learning capacity.

     All three case studies were interesting, however I must admit the case most interested me was Chaparral Steel. This case seems to reside closer to home as one of their locations was located in Petersburg, Virginia. I also have a past relationship with the Petersburg’s Human Resource Manager as she was hired as a new Human Resource Manager for my previous employer. 

     My pervious employer was relatively small in size and was rapidly growing in numbers of employees. It was her task to give the organization a new Human Resource face. The organization was a German based company with very little focus on organizational learning. Now knowing the history of Chaparral Steel it is probably safe to assume she was hired because she was coming from a successful organization with a culture focused on learning. 

     My organization at that time was very similar in structure as all operators had rotating shifts, employees were salaried with no time clocks, and the organization’s hierarchy was flat. The only person standing in between the CEO and myself as a Training Specialists was my immediate manager. This may sound to most as giving employees an environment for owning problems and the autonomy to solve it. However, contrary to belief this was not the case for my position. I owned many problems as a Training Specialist however; the autonomy to solve it was not easily given. Due to budget constraints there was little an individual at my level was able to do own their own with limited resources.

     It was my task as a one man show to train all existing and new employees on the companywide enterprise operating system. Each employee was given a certain amount of time to develop a working knowledge of the system’s intricacies. This working knowledge was left up to my ability to reach each learner’s learning style. Without any formal education on how to best handle each learner’s learning style this task became increasingly harder. My frustration grew into resentment of the position in which led me to seek other employment that enabled me to grow both professional and academic. It was my hope to find an employer with an established training department from which I could learn from as well as them to learn from my past experience of running a one man department.

     Because of my past experience I can appreciate larger well established organizations versus smaller organizations with lots of autonomy. In some situations autonomy with limited resources can bring about frustration and resentment.