Second, our last weekly earned us some comments so you should go back and check them out.
With regard to the comments raised, I just wanted to say that if anything my post was not supposed to be a diatribe against the development program per se (in fact it changed considerably from it's first iteration, mostly thanks to Mike's guidance).
It was meant to provoke you to do one of two things:
- Respond by providing evidence of why the program they are in was beneficial or motivating
- Push your development program into a more innovative space.
I suppose that in a small way I am trying to make amends for falling victim to the herd mentality when I was helping out on the design and implementation of development programs in the past. To be fair, I knew a lot less then than I do now.
If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read Etienne Laliberte's follow up, entitled: Leadership in a Culture of Compliance.
I found some of the quotations he references about adaptive vs innovative workers to be very insightful, my own personal favorite:
Organizations become adaptive (or innovative) mainly because people leave or stay according to whether the organization suits their personality. This leads to more entrenched positions, adaptive organizations becoming more adaptive and vice versa. More adaptive styles reduce the range of responses available to the organization and lead to it becoming less flexible in its search for solutions, with the dangers this implies in a world of conflicting and rapidly changing pressures.If you didn't catch it, you can check out the #cpsr links (those that would make up the round up if I had time to do one this week) in you browser by clicking here, or in your RSS reader by clicking here. Furthermore you can do this at anytime by using the buttons on the top of new left hand sidebar. (Hint, there are some there right now, including some comments made by Wayne Wouters of TBS re: efficiency)
See you tomorrow when we drop the Weekly. This week's column: The GCPEDIA Challenge.