"Bob, why do you spend so much time teaching
people how to do a Maxi-LCA in your 4-day Latent Cause Experience when few if any will ever lead one?”
Ahhhhhhhhh!
The Latent Cause Experience is NOT a class designed to teach people how to do Maxi-LCA’s (although it does teach that). (Maxi-LCA's are investigations of large, catastrophic events).
It’s also NOT a class designed to teach people how to do
As a VP from a client-company said, the purpose of the 4-day Latent Cause Experience is to “change the way people think about themselves and their surroundings.”
People ought to walk out of the LCE “seeing things differently,” and according to much of the feedback I receive, they do. Although this is going to sound awful,
“I could care less about teaching people
how to do a Maxi-LCA.”
I mean that. It’s like eating. If the goal is to eat, a person will get fat. If the goal is to be healthy, a person will most certainly eat and a lot more. The goal of the LCE is NOT to merely teach people how to investigate catastrophic events. If that's all you do with your investigative efforts, your company will get fat and DIE.
The LCE class was designed for a
CROSS-SECTION of people in an organization, not just engineers and potential investigators, and the most common comment I
receive is:
I’m not saying this to boast, or to try to get more business, but instead to make a point. The LCE is was designed for EVERYONE. Many class critiques routinely say "I wish my wife (or husband) went through this class with me," or "I wish I would have experienced this a lot earlier in my life."
The people that understand this, and say "this class is for everyone" are usually the lower-level people -- the people in the field where the "real stuff happens." The vast majority of these regular folks see the experience as a eureka that opens their eyes to all kinds of things. That’s the intent.
Amazingly, the folks that typically are responsible for a company’s investigative efforts usually don’t see this. They typically think the 4-day class is a Maxi-LCA training class. Why is this? Are the people responsible for driving investigative efforts detached from the reality in the field, and too absorbed in the bureaucracy of managing the numbers?
My newest client is a large Canadian firm. They are “cracking my shell” in the way I see them handling their LCA’s. Almost all of their LCA’s are being handled as Maxi-LCA’s. They have stakeholder meetings for all their LCA’s, even for Mini-events. At this point in their journey, they see little or no value in doingMidi
or Mini-LCA’s. Again, they do Maxi-LCA’s on Mini-Events.
It’s the sharing of evidence that occurs in a stakeholder meeting that they
find of so much value, and then answering the question “what is it about the
way I am contributed to this mini-event.” They are passing all the people
in their company, from foreman-level up to the President, through the
LCE. They know the LCE is not about doing Maxi-LCA’s on maxi-events.
“everyone needs to go through this experience.”
I’m not saying this to boast, or to try to get more business, but instead to make a point. The LCE is was designed for EVERYONE. Many class critiques routinely say "I wish my wife (or husband) went through this class with me," or "I wish I would have experienced this a lot earlier in my life."
The people that understand this, and say "this class is for everyone" are usually the lower-level people -- the people in the field where the "real stuff happens." The vast majority of these regular folks see the experience as a eureka that opens their eyes to all kinds of things. That’s the intent.
Amazingly, the folks that typically are responsible for a company’s investigative efforts usually don’t see this. They typically think the 4-day class is a Maxi-LCA training class. Why is this? Are the people responsible for driving investigative efforts detached from the reality in the field, and too absorbed in the bureaucracy of managing the numbers?
My newest client is a large Canadian firm. They are “cracking my shell” in the way I see them handling their LCA’s. Almost all of their LCA’s are being handled as Maxi-LCA’s. They have stakeholder meetings for all their LCA’s, even for Mini-events. At this point in their journey, they see little or no value in doing
The “crudest” culture I’ve ever experienced is at a US-based
drilling company. I struggle every time I go there to work with their
people (I have NEVER heard such filthy language). They have also passed all
their folks, foreman and up, through the 4-day class. They flat-out told
me that they need to change their culture, i.e., the way their people see
themselves and one another. That’s the reason they send their folks
through the class. They don’t send foreman to the class so that they can
be Maxi-LCA leaders. They send them to the class to help "change the way they think" about themselves and their surroundings.
But I am obviously doing something wrong. Too many people in responsible positions see the Latent Cause Experience as merely a “class to train
people on how to lead Maxi-LCA’s.”
What am I doing wrong?
3 comments:
At the end of the LCA training course I just completed yesterday, I indicated that an opportunity to practice being the Principal Investigator would be of value. On your previous blog (I haven't read it, just saw the headline), I see "the path to profound learning is through personal struggle". What just occurred to me, is that role of Principal Investigator is what a person does for Mini LCA's, especially in their personal lives. Hence, my request can be satisfied by taking the learnings from your course and being the PI for my own LCA's. This may seem like a duh! moment, however, it surprises me that I didn't make the connection during the class and I wonder how many people do? If they do, then where does the mentality of "this is just for Maxi-LCA's" comes from? --- Denis
At the end of the LCA training course I just completed yesterday, I indicated that an opportunity to practice being the Principal Investigator would be of value. On your previous blog (I haven't read it, just saw the headline), I see "the path to profound learning is through personal struggle". What just occurred to me, is that role of Principal Investigator is what a person does for Mini LCA's, especially in their personal lives. Hence, my request can be satisfied by taking the learnings from your course and being the PI for my own LCA's. This may seem like a duh! moment, however, it surprises me that I didn't make the connection during the class and I wonder how many people do? If they do, then where does the mentality of "this is just for Maxi-LCA's" comes from? --- Denis
Bob,
I don’t think you are doing anything wrong. On the contrary, you are doing it right to the point where you see our shell. Now, those of us that attend the 4-day seminar are likely experience some shell cracking (I do every time I attend), but it seems the comment that has gotten you stirred up is from someone that hasn’t attended the seminar, or maybe they did and failed to pay attention. As I facilitate LCAs in my organization, I am learning that LCA stakeholder meetings can’t be merely introspection exercises, these are good, but I need to be more assertive in the evidence presentation to make sure the shell of understanding cracks.
For the LCA seminars, the shell cracking may be a facet that does not get fully developed in some groups. If there is a lack of the “cross section” you mention, the in-class discussions may not induce the cracking needed. Perhaps it might help if you would look at your seminar as a “Stakeholder Meeting” where the problem is the attendee’s ignorance of LCA, you lay out the evidence in a shocking manner and ask folks to get introspective regarding why the Latent Cause mentality didn’t exist prior to the seminar. This might help you and us understand what really is standing in the way and/or reinforcing the goal of “changing the way people think about themselves and their surroundings”.
Post a Comment