Hi Kal ... Do you mean to assert that some of the things Maple is interested in doing couldn't be learned from a mentor (for example), or does that fall under the realm of structured in your opinion? I think there's a balance - a lot of important things are learned at "the water cooler." It's not formal or structured, but tacit knowledge is how a lot of people can learn a lot of important things... after all, isn't that what we're sharing now?

I think maybe the key is that *Maple* should have a structured plan for what needs to be learned to do a particular job well, and then seek out a variety of means to acquire, practice and apply the necessary skill/knowledge.

No, FF. I'm not discounting the value of mentoring or "water-cooler learning." I agree that a lot of info important to a job can be and is learned that way. But I do not think that one should learn the entire field of OD, for example, "at the water cooler," or even from a good mentor - and nothing else. (I'm assuming a definition of mentoring as something that is unstructured and not a formal, planned training event.)

The problem with learning everything "at the water cooler" or informally, is that it is very inefficient, it subjects the person to "learning" much that is wrong - and the person might not ever realize that it is wrong, it disrupts others in the workplace, the person produces little of value for the organization while "learning," and the quality of the work that is produced while learning might not be all that good.

Another problem with it is that not all learners are skilled at seeking out the "means to acquire, practice and apply" the correct skills and knowledge. And who is going to make sure the learner knows what skills and knowledge to pursue in the first place? I guess that would be dependent on who one's mentor is and how much the mentor knows that is right. What if the mentor had a bad mentor who taught them, etc.? It's just way to haphazard for me. It is possible to learn everything you need in OD without formal training, but why chance it? Seems to me that learning anything is too important to leave to chance. Like you say though, there's a good balance in there somewhere.

I suppose I'm expecting that anyone seeking ideas for career path options knows to seek out information on what skills, knowledge and competencies he/she needs to be in the position he/she wants to acquire... is that naive?

Hi, FF:

Thanks a LOT for offering to look at my resume and then helping me to figure out the most appropriate career path. If you’d like, here is my email address: isdesigner@yahoo.com. Send me a note and then I can email you my resume.

I agree with you that a lot of my skills are learned from my mentors and informal training. I’m lucky to have supervisors that are willing to share their best practices. I really like your idea of having a structured plan for what needs to be learned to do a particular job well (I included one in the post to Kal below). To an extent, this seems the way how a learning organization starts from gap analysis to plan the detailed employee training. I used to go to Occupation Outlook online and locate those job titles to get a picture of specific knowledge, skills and competencies required in a particular field. This may also help to identify the “passion” and “interest”, as you mentioned earlier.

Are there other means to find the required competencies in your opinion?

Thanks again for your help!

Hi, Kal

I read your post yesterday and it kept me thinking of the best way to acquire the new knowledge and skills. You mentioned four examples of “Structured OBJ”. I did receive those in some companies, which may or may not directly relate to our specific jobs. I agree it worked really well especially when we were trained on the new processes, software, or tools.

Your example of "watch what Jane does, and copy her” portrayed a scene of an assembly line with a group of monotonously working people. I thought it was funny. But it does happen a lot in daily work, especially when a person just starts, he/she is often given some sort of orientation teaching them how to do things in that company. I do believe it is a necessary part to be effectively creative in the future.

I usually learn the theoretic knowledge from the textbook and readings on my own. However, when it came to a specific task, I found the supervisor always had concrete vision and guidance, which may or may not follow the traditional theory path. In addition, different companies have different processes to follow too. These make me think the “knowledge” from the book or systematic learning is not always that practical.

You asked “how do you plan to "learn" to do OD? Who will be the trainer?” Here is my vision:
1. If I happen to get hired in the OD field with no prior knowledge or experience (well, sometimes it happens in the real world), I’ll plan to:
1) Copy “Jane” at the beginning
2) Read the OD books/journals on my own to get a systematic understanding at the same time.
3) Join a local chapter to connect with the OD professionals and participate in structured trainings.
4) Evaluate if the current way how the job is done is appropriate or efficient.
5) Propose to the management the new way to get the job done more efficiently, if any.

2. If I have some time before I officially get into OD field, I’ll do the above 2) and 3) up front, and then get a part-time job in the OD field to “test the waters” to see if I really like it.

What are your thoughts about it?

Anyway, thank you for making me ponder on “training” from a different perspective. This is a very good “brain exercise” for me.