This reading felt all too familiar. Learning but not really developing often is the way for me in my life outside of my group. Taking in information, learning it, but not really using it to develop from it. Examining the reading to start with – the study showed the differences with Company A and B, where company A reported a higher incidence of self reported “development” 27% when its employees came from non university backgrounds and public school education. In comparison, Company B constituted of engineers reported an incidence level of only 11%. Also the level of “turbulence” will determine opportunities for managers to learn from. Developing and non-developing cultures also appeared to influence the incidences. Development may been due to the type of role the manager has.
This development or non-development is evident in my group. As above, with different roles, different members have experienced more or less turbulence and have had to learn and then depending on circumstances, develop from there. In terms of our backgrounds, I do not know where my other group members went to school but this may also be a determining factor. Given our culture within the group where we want to learn and then develop, we have shared knowledge and assumptions, conclusions and ideas to make the next week better. We know the essence of our decisions prior to our group meetings, and then we share our knowledge based on our own learning and development throughout the weeks, and then learn and develop as a group. Again, I would say roles are a factor in who has developed most and can bring the most knowledge from development.
The analysis of Mintzberg’s “New Job Pattern”, using Katz’s naming of the stages presented a critical analysis of managers and their development after they have been in their job for some time. This is something we may be able to see in our final rollover, however, the theory itself suggests years before the decline takes place.