Here is a thought-provoking post from Patrick Dunn of Networked Learning Design about our mysterious job! I recognise myself and my colleagues in some sections, find myself rejecting parts, congratulating myself occasionally and emphatically saying "I wish!" now and again. How about you?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Karyn, I share your sentiment although I am not yet as experienced as you are! Am still sheltered by the umbrella of 'formal training' so what I have to date is what people typically say 'only on paper'! I think Patrick has done a good job there and his piece is worth pinning up on our walls or attached to the FAQs in our client development packs! I wanted to take this opportunity as well to let you know that I have been following your blog since the end of last year, but couldn't find your email address. I enjoy reading your thoughts and find the links you provide useful for my own development. One more thing, I like your new photo!
Thanks, Adele! Good to hear from you. If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time you have commented on this blog. I hope it will prove to be the first of many. It's always interesting to hear from someone with a different perspective on the role we play.
Patrick has a lot of good things to say, and his blog is worth reading. There's a major downside in the fact that there is no RSS feed that I can see, though - so you have to remember to check it out manually every now and then, which slightly defeats the object, I would have thought ;-)
Oh, and thanks for the comment on the photo - the previous one was getting a bit out of date!
Hi Karyn,
The RSS feed for Patrick's blog is at :
http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/atom.xml
Thanks, Mark - I have now added Patrick's blog to my Bloglines.
Dunn's right to question a lockstep approach toward instructional design, though I think he oversimplifies in his dichotomy... only so much creativity to a four-box paradigm, after all.
I think many of us who work in corporate / organizational training (however defined) can deliver value through a broader, performance-improvement view (as opposed to, say, seeing Dick and Carey as St. Peter and St. Paul, or browbeating clients into hundreds of orthodox Mager-style objectives).
Not everyone gets to parachute in to the executive level, where a few key conversations / conversions can lead to breakthroughs (or CEO fad-adoption).
As for "a small piece of research...based on the popular MBTI," I don't think corporate astrology adds much value and can even detract as people substitute type for thought. (One colleague describes himself as a GFNJ -- "Guy From New Jersey.")
Corporate astrology. What a wonderful analogy! I love it, but probably only because I am not an adherent of either management/personality/learning styles or astrology.
Post a Comment