La Formazione in azienda è misurabile?

I Modelli di formazione in azienda condividono il modello di guida dell'azienda stessa: emozione (Vision) e/o preparazione sono i due fronti su cui è importante lavorare.
Le aziende in generale limitano la loro azione solo alla preparazione tecnica dimenticando di creare lo "spirito di corpo" necessario al miglioramento.

Io trovo nella domanda "La Formazione in azienda è misurabile?" un'analogia all'altra annosa questione aziendale: i leader si formano o nascono leader? Mi spiego meglio, molte aziende vengono gestite, pochissime sono guidate da veri leader (alcune, onde sgombrare il campo da falsi miti, falliscono anche se guidate da veri leader).
La formazione misurabile per mia opinione condivide lo "spirito" del management, la formazione non misurabile condivide quello della leadership naturale.
Quindi farei distinzione tra un tipo di formazione emozionale, non misurabile se non per un'idea generale che può rispondere solo ad una domanda emozionale del tipo: "ti è servito?" - e che in generale può permettere l'avviarsi di un ciclo di formazione funzionale più efficace perché orientata ad un sistema "emozionato" positivamente - da un lato e la formazione funzionale stessa che crea il salto "tecnico" (anche se si tratta delle cosiddette "Soft skills" tipo vendite, marketing, buona comunicazione etc.) necessario al miglioramento, dall'altro, e che sicuramente è più facilmente misurabile.

Perché dell'Executive e Vision Coaching?
Sono d'accordo che una certa fomazione debba essere misurabile, ma deve essere sempre introdotta da una "formazione" (la metto tra virgolette perché esula parzialmente dalla formazione com'è intesa normalmente, trattandosi spesso più di una ricerca interiore) emozionale, che non è mai in generale misurabile se non a lungo termine.

Teorema sulla formazione
Con questo posso tranquilamente enunciare un nuovo teorema sulla formazione che ho qui parazialmente "dimostrato":
Se una formazione è a lungo termine (a livello di Vision), è in gerale non misurabile!
(questo può benissimo essere correlato con un mio post sulla complessità).


A solo titolo di esempio anche le competenze relazionali, nel mio modello, sono competenze misurabili, mentre sviluppare il desiderio di allargare il proprio mercato verso un'area dove potrebbero apprezzare la qualità di ciò che facciamo, rientra nel campo della formazione non misurabile (che è fondamentalmente Executive e Vision Coaching!)

The N-Dimensional Real World

A brief theory about what is the opposite of a stupid assertion.


I was discussing with my mother about intelligence, geniality and stupidity when I asked my mother about what was the opposite assertion of a stupid assertion. My mother (85 yo) answered to me: "It is obvious: it is an intelligent assertion!". I was so sorry, but I had to confute this assertion as a naive assertion - I could not obviously say: "it is a stupid assertion" to my mother! When we discuss about philosophical matter I have great respect for her! -. I said her that we are never sure that the OPPOSITE OF A STUPID ASSERTION is not another stupid assertion. The opposite of a stupid assertion can be another stupid assertion! And that is not so trivial!

WE ARE LIVING IN THE REALITY!
Indeed we are living in the Reality and our discussion was thought into that.
The Reality, when it is analyzed, has a particularity: it has a so huge number of facets that we cannot take into account of everything discussing of it.
Better: Reality has a multidimensional model and every time we argue on Reality, we are able to take into account of a limited amount of variables.

MANICHEISM
When colloquially we - my mother and me - were using the term "the opposite" I was deliberately permitting us to use a typical approach like that in disputes are currently set in Italy: "is it either fault to Corporation or to Trade-Unions?" or maybe "Is it either fault to Government or to General Economical situation?".
Typical Italian approach is to set the two things onto two opposite ends of a line just to split Good Guys Vs Bad Guys; so, apparently, Co and Trade-Unions, Government and General Economical situation appear to be on the same line as opponents: we, Italians, are all Manicheans, we love to put ourselves amongst good guys. So we absolutely need Bad Guys somewhere in front of us!
Avoiding and refusing for a while my breed's instincts, I guess that the correct approach to it, is to place the two concepts on independent dimensions instead, having, this way, two independent responsibilities impacting the Reality. This way we avoid a pretended opposition of good and bad guys that belongs to policy and not to a serious approach to the Reality.
Indeed, when we speak about Reality every person has his own approach: which one is the best one? I guess that higher is the number of variables we are able to gather about the problem and more the model is precise (or less erratic/random is its behavior).

QUANTUM THEORY OR ZENO'S PARADOX?
Collecting all those variables is not a simple task. We can find them in a small amount if we simply are focusing on the problem (without disturbing New-Age theories about Quantum physics on "everything is resonating" which is a charming though impossible to use theory).
Yet, when we assume as a base of our theories a limited number of variables, we are normally able to easily cope with them.
We can artificialy and suitably reduce the number of, so we can demonstrate almost everything (Zeno's Paradox of "Achilles and tortoise" is one of the most famous), but our goal here should be a better perception of the Reality and its rules, to have a better forecasts.

INVESTIGATING PERTURBATIONS IS STILL THE BEST WAY?

To gather more variables we have to investigate on anything is a perturbation of the standard process carried on with the known variables: the way was used in Quantum theory. Differences between expected behavior and resulting behavior give us evidence of unknown perturbing variables. In this way we can maybe find new informations but we spoil a lot of time and efforts also.

An help can come from perception of different persons working together (brainstorming is one of the most famous activities to gather variables): that yields a better harvest. Every person, indeed, focuses on his own particular facets of a problem and more person cover a wider range of facets.
But the tricky thing (or think?) is to find them in a more effective or maybe predictable way.

EMPIRISM or PREDICTABLE FINDINGS?

A problem can be considered complete when the distance between expected and resulting variables narrows sufficiently. There is no guarantee that a sufficient number of persons find the necessary amount of variables when they act in a freewheeling way. There are other means to discover them in a more predictable way: using different exploring ways for Problems, Mind and Thinking: a true methodic wandering in the problem.

Ask me for it