Доброго дня, мене звати Йозефа і я живу у Великобританії. В мене є друг в Україні (Львів) який допоміг мені знайти цей сайт, присвячений менеджменту у вашій країні.
Сферою моїх інтересів та професійної діяльності за останні 29 років були управління людськими ресурсами та розвиток людських ресурсів як у приватному так і державному секторах, і зараз я працюю незалежним тренером та університетським лектором у одній з топ бізнес шкіл у центральному Лондоні.
Частиною мого особистого розвитку на даний момент є робота у Європейському Консорціумі, що спеціалізується у просуванні знань про Корпоративне Навчання та фокусується на проблемах пов’язаних із управлінням змінами та на допомозі іншим у дослідницькій та прикладній діяльності у новітніх областях що стосуються даних тем.
Я скористалася можливістю зареєструватися у форумі на цьому сайті, щоб довести до вас низку ідей та розробок від E.C.L.O. та надіюся, що ви дозволите мені поділитися із усіма вами своїми думками та роздумами.
Мій друг погодився перекладати мої повідомлення отже вони з’являтимуться тут англійською та українською мовами.
Я також із радістю відповім на питання (знову ж він перекладатиме їх для мене) які можуть з’явитися у вас щодо робіт які я роблю тут у Великій Британії та щодо того як E.C.L.O. підходить до відновлення інтересу та розуміння до Організації Навчання та Корпоративного Навчання, Академій та Університетів.
Я дуже надіюся на розвиток такого тристороннього спілкування із вами у наступні місяці.
Із найщирішими побажаннями,
Йозефа (Jozefa)
Hello, my name is Józefa Fawcett and I live in the UK. I have a friend in Ukraine (Lviv) who has helped me to find this site about Management in your country.
My background for the last 29 years is in Human Resource Management and Human Resource Development in both the private and public sectors and I now work as an independent trainer and University lecturer in a top business school in Central London. As part of my ongoing development, I am involved in a European Consortium (www.eclo.org) that specialises in advancing understanding about Corporate Learning with our main focus on change management issues and how to help others undertake research and practitioner applications into ground breaking areas around these topics. I have taken the liberty of registering on this website forum to bring to you a range of interesting ideas and developments from E.C.L.O. and hope that you will allow me to share my thoughts and thinking with all of you.
My friend has agreed to translate my postings and so these will appear in both English and Ukrainian. I am also happy to answer questions (again he will translate these for me) that you might have regarding the work that I do here in UK and how E.C.L.O. is re-energising understanding about the Learning Organisation concept and Corporate Learning, Academies and Universities.
I very much look forward to developing a tri-partite communication with you over the coming months
Відредаговано (07.03.06 11:51)
Re: Corporate Learning in the Context of Corporate Culture
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this Ukrainian forum.
May I ask you first questions?
Hear, in Ukraine, a lot of companies coming to conclusion to create special entity (corporate university?) to enhance corporate transformation and, of course, to raise general level in management and special (professional) knowledge and skills. Is it a right way to proceed? Shall we work more with MBA (local and international), or create own structure. It looks like MBA often has priorities, which cannot lead us to our goals from one side, and from another - we need to create OWN culture with our values and priorities.
Thank you in advance.
Max
Re: Corporate Learning in the Context of Corporate Culture
Thank you so much for your response to my posting, I am delighted to enter into conversation with you about Corporate Universities as it is an area I am undertaking research as part of an ECLO/ECUANET project which is a Trans-National Leonardo Da Vinci Action Research Project - www.ecuanet.info
You raise an excellent question, and as there is so much in it, I think I will make a response in three parts, and post each in turn rather than one LONG post to make it easier to read.
Firstly, I will answer your question about whether organisations should indeed look to create their own Corporate University as opposed to the more traditional MBA route.
Secondly, I would like to open up the discussion about what exactly is a Corporate University
Thirdly, the issue about whether the corporate culture can sustain such an organisational learning approach is one worth progressing further
These three postings may in fact raise as many new questions as they offer answers, so I look forward to a long and detailed debate with you.
The three postings will be in English first and as my friend has time he will translate them and they will be posted again so that others that read this forum can also follow the discussion
Дуже Вам дякую за відповідь на моє повідомлення, я із задоволенням поспілкуюся із Вами про Корпоративні Університети, оскільки це галузь у якій я займаюся дослідженням, як учасник проекту ECLO/ECUANET, що є транснаціональним Trans-National Leonardo Da Vinci Action Research Project - www.ecuanet.info
Ви піднімаєте чудове питання, та, оскільки воно є досить об’ємним, я думаю, що відповім трьома частинами, замість одного великого повідомлення, щоб було легше читати.
По-перше, я відповім на Ваше питання про те, чи дійсно необхідно організаціям займатись створенням свого Корпоративного Університету у порівнянні із більш традиційним шляхом отримання MBA.
По-друге, я хочу у дискусії підняти тему, що власне є Корпоративним Університетом.
По-третє, питання про те, чи може корпоративна культура бути опорою для такого підходу щодо організаційного навчання, також вартує подальшого обговорення.
Ці три повідомлення можуть підняти таку ж кількість нових питань на яку вони вже відповідають, отже я очікую на довгу та детальну дискусію з Вами.
As promised here is my first response to your question about whether organisations should indeed look to create their own Corporate University as opposed to taking a more traditional MBA route?
This is an interesting dilemma, because there is a danger that Corporate Universities are seen as just the ‘big thing’ for the moment and once set up creates a financial burden and responsibility upon the organisation to maintain and support through difficult financial times.
Of couse they do not need to be expensive and there is much that can be done (look at the second question that I will post seperately which raises the question, what in fact is a Corporate University as it can take many different forms, as I am finding out during my current research).
But for now, the response to the key part of your question - which seems to be asking: Do you create the learning options and programmes yourself inside your organisation or do you simply put your managers on a traditional MBA programme and have these delivered externally?
There are many benefits with both of these approaches, and as you can imagine both carry a certain financial commitment and risk.
There is much to say in favour of multi-disciplinary groups learning on a traditionally produced MBA programme (or similar) particularly with the mix of participants and the wide range of different experiences that they bring which are as valuable as the curriculum itself. The difficulty arises when they need to transfer that learning and apply it back into the workplace. I was talking about this very issue last night at my University in London where I teach on Monday evenings, the participants there also find it hard to take the learning back and apply it in their workplace.
Offering all management training and development learning ‘in-house’ might be seen as a better way to control what is learned and relates better to the vision and culture of the organisation. It of course means that you need the specialists to design and deliver this level of training and ensure that it relates to key organisational needs. There is of course still the question, “does it promote real growth in understanding or does it perpetuate more of what has been done for years and years?”
In other words is it the best way to affect change and organisation(al) transformation?
Józefa
Відредаговано (07.03.06 12:51)
Re: Corporate Learning in the Context of Corporate Culture
Here is my posting in response to the second part of your question that of what exactly is a Corporate University?
I thought it might be useful to see some examples of Corporate Universities in action, admittedly, they are all big corporations and I have yet to find those operating in smaller organisations.
Here are some to look at (sorry they are all in English):
BANK
http://www.barclays-university.com/buinfo/index.htm
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
http://www.unipart.com/cms/ugcexweb.nsf/vCategory/6DD5C7528E9AC05F00256F5F004E6254?OpenDocument
When you look at the different approaches to Corporate Universities, it makes you wonder whether it is just an extension of a very effective training (HR) department.
CU’s maybe have more technology (for eLearning) and internal learning management systems (LMS) that monitor and track attendance and what is being learned and a wider range of programmes and collaborative ventures with other providers. You can of course set up this infrastructure without the expense of a full blown CU, and maybe this is the place to start for those organisations that are serious about their workforce and enabling them to learn so as to put something back into the company.
I have previously been a training manager in private retail sector and a Head of Workforce Development in the UK NHS (healthcare) sector and run a wide range of learning provision and eLearning as well, but with no formal CU in place. It seems that this is the next step for organisations who already have exploited all they can in their own HR/Training provision and want to go that step further in ensuring that their staff learn what is of use to the business and use what they learn to support service and business improvements.
Józefa
Відредаговано (07.03.06 12:29)
Re: Corporate Learning in the Context of Corporate Culture
Here is my final posting in response to the third part of your question the issue about whether the corporate culture can sustain an approach such as a Corporate University?
This s mainly about whether the organisation is ready to utilise what it is encouraging its workforce to learn or not. I have just a few questions that can be quickly asked to test the culture?
1. Is learning seen as the normal way to do business in the company and widely encouraged?
2. Is it acceptable to look for learning opportunities in both project work and in areas of failure (without apportioning blame)?
3. Do managers see learning as a vital component to organisational change and business improvement or a necessary evil that just wastes time and doesn’t actually change things in the workplace?
4. Is HR/Training widely respected as a business partner that is seen as a vital contributor to organisational targets?
5. Do staff get an opportunity to put into practice new things that they learn?
6. Is there a policy supporting organisational learning approaches?
7. Is the policy monitored and maintained in an innovative and proactive way? (rather than just being policed and seen as a negative rule)
8. Does all training, learning and development clearly link to the business aims and targets of the organisation?
If the answer is NO to any one of these, then there is much more work to do such as;
> establishing the strategic vision for organisational learning BEFORE trying to put in place a structure
> considering the function and purpose of organisational learning BEFORE trying to work out the form that learning will take
Both of these actions could be seen as a good way to start to build a more receptive culture that is willing to accept the notion of a Corporate University.
Over to you now, am interested in what responses my comments will provoke.
Thank you very much for such comprehensive approach to answer my (I agree, complicated) question. It looks like we can go deeper into this theme.
I agree with your definition of one of the first problems with MBA – most of value in the MBA classroom comes from communication with peers from different industries and backgrounds. Whish is very useful in general, but not always works for own company, unfortunately. Even executive cannot apply new knowledge at own company (no critical mass of understanding), so person starts to think to find new employer, for example. After such MBA programs almost everyone in class starts to look for new job, because he/she got new level of knowledge, ambitions etc., but why previous employer (here it’s often) paid for this exercise, if it doesn’t help him at all?
And from another side – internal corporate training center, lead by someone who understands company’s strategy, needs, even in hands of HR function, with outsourcing from consulting companies, or business-schools, universities, can focus and optimise these activities – to get results FOR company.
I know - sometimes several companies, non-competitors are forming special programs together, to create learning environment (best from MBA) and spend recourses only on “right” subjects and teachers. What do you think about this? And this allows get more on subject then in business-school if we really need it.
I found what you wrote about the problems with MBA and applying new knowledge at your company (as an example) very interesting and wanted to respond to just this point today. You mentioned ‘no critical mass of understanding’ and in part this is true and can prevent ongoing discussions and keeping the recent learning alive. However, this is only part of the problem regarding transference of learning. There is the bigger issue of how the organisation plans to use what its workforce is learning and for me, this is of greater importance and touches upon Organisational Development and Change issues.
To illustrate this better, let me tell you a story…
Цитата:
"I used to work in a Mental Health hospital in the UK Healthcare system (NHS) and part of my role was to teach middle managers about the newest management techniques and styles of approach. Most of them were from a clinical background, though there were some administrators amongst the group. The sessions were always very well attended and my manager and I delivered the programme mostly in-house but worked with a local University to provide the formal qualification (which was a lower level than MBA but just as demanding). When it came to application of what they were learning, many of them complained of reaching a ‘brick wall’ in terms of what their managers and the system would allow them to apply. Ultimately, when they had to do a work-related change project, they would excel at exploring solutions to real-time problems but when it came to them presenting these back to the organisation, it was somewhat reticent about listening to their ideas. After the programme finished a significant amount of the managers left to go to other healthcare trusts and take their new found knowledge with them. Whether this was a successful development programme or not, depends on your perspective, however it certainly was for the managers but not for the organisation paying the fees.
What is the moral of this story?
If an organisation is willing to pay money from its valuable budget to fund learning for its managers, then it must also invest time in listening to what they are learning and find ways to apply this to real business improvement issues, thus ensuring a better return on the initial investment, something many Financial Directors would warmly welcome."
How does this story relate to experiences of management participants in the Ukraine?
Your story reminds me a lot from our culture as well. It is always the question - what managers of the company really expect from participants to get from their learning - to do things better, to know HOW to do the same things or to introduce new ideas. My feeling that it is expected that trained middle managers should support system as it is now, with the same rules and principles.
And it looks like any reliable teacher/trainer/coucher will try to teach how to think out of the box, and what can be done with the system in a new way.
So, conflict from the very begining in knowledge getting process. The key is what - strategy or leadrship style, or change phase in company?
