Discussion: View Thread

On 15 Oct 97 at 12:41, Ray Rasmussen wrote:
> >Shall we talk about the old
> >management professor who teaches traditional command and control
> >models to managers, in the guise of education, where EXACTLY the same
> >conditions apply (as you have described above)?
>
> Robert, I agree. I had meant to extend my criticism of practice to the
> university setting in particular. We are mostly into the memorization of
> ideas business. Neither good training, nor good education.

I guess I am confused...I thought we were taking off from the
training is for animals thread, and assumed you were talking about
training.


> >Robert wrote: I'm not sure I understand your question. Training and
> >education have
> >specific meaning, and that has been the case for decades (going as
> >far back as the 40's) We aren't relabeling anything..fads aside.
>
>
> Maybe you did miss my point. The distinction between T & E are easy enough
> to make, but serve mostly, I think to further the illusion that we're doing
> the right thing in the E business.

I agree completely, which is why I responded to the training is for
animals, education is for people message. The distinction, while it
can be made has little relevance to a work world where simple rote
application of skills without understanding or "education" fits at
all. The truth is that ;you can't train people without them learning
other things (well, I suppose it's possible if you keep them in a
barrel). Unlike animals when you train people, they don't cease to
think, unless they choose, and even then...actually the notion of not
thinking is pyschologically impossible.


> So, in my view, is anyone really doing E? And, if so, let's see the beef.
> Who on this list is encouraging genuine learning dialogues. If you think
> that you are, we should start seeing some learning approaches that make
> sense.

Up to this point, I think we are on the same wavelength. But here you
are equating education with a particular "method"--dialogue, and I
won't have it...I just won't <grin>. Such a confusion is ideological
and is restrictive...as in "if they aren't doing it MY way (eg.
dialogue) then it ain't education.

You and I have no right to redefine what learning and education mean
to fit our own philisophical bents, and then to call anything that
doesn't match with that bias, "less" than education and learning.

...and less of a right to impose that "model" on others as if it is
the ONLY way of learning or becoming educated.

That said, a number of my university professors in psychology
incorporated critical thinking dialogues in their teaching (much to
my benefit). And I do the same.


Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Sept.11, 1997*

>Robert said: But, the same occurs even in graduate programs, where
>learned professors will broach no thought or criticism of their
>particular model, or undergraduate programs termed "education".
>Shall we talk about the old
>management professor who teaches traditional command and control
>models to managers, in the guise of education, where EXACTLY the same
>conditions apply (as you have described above)?

Robert, I agree. I had meant to extend my criticism of practice to the
university setting in particular. We are mostly into the memorization of
ideas business. Neither good training, nor good education.

And, there's a special case akin to the Management Prof that we should also
discuss in the HR/Training/MgtDev business. I've seen organizations hire
very young persons to do inside training/development and consulting groups
composed of or sending young people to do management ed ... these are
people who lack experience especially in the interpersonal arena. They, in
particular, are prone to impose training models on the unlucky
participants. I did this for years in my own early practice. For that, I
think that I'll feel forever embarassed. I remember that I used to have
loads of 'problem participants.' No wonder.


>Ray Wrote: So, why relabel what we're doing with more politically correct
>terms like
>> "education" or as Senge and his group would have it, "learning". And, why
>> distinguish between the two, when there isn't much of the learning
>> orientation going on anywhere from what I can tell.


>Robert wrote: I'm not sure I understand your question. Training and
>education have
>specific meaning, and that has been the case for decades (going as
>far back as the 40's) We aren't relabeling anything..fads aside.


Maybe you did miss my point. The distinction between T & E are easy enough
to make, but serve mostly, I think to further the illusion that we're doing
the right thing in the E business. I think that most people who think that
they're into E are really into T. And, the skills that they're trying to
train up in the interpersonal/leadership areas are for the most part [as in
Covey's glib presentation] nonsensical and counterproductive.

So, in my view, is anyone really doing E? And, if so, let's see the beef.
Who on this list is encouraging genuine learning dialogues. If you think
that you are, we should start seeing some learning approaches that make
sense.

Ray

Dr. R.V. (Ray) Rasmussen
Chair, Department of Organizational Analysis
http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rrasmussen/
Director, Environmental Research & Studies Centre
http://www.ualberta.ca/~ersc/