The Leader's Journey with Lee Thayer

The Elusive Laws of Communication - Excerpts From Chapter 15

...It may seem strange to be attacking the age-old shibboleth that "Experience is the best teacher." Or the assumption derived from that - that people "learn from experience."

But that's not my point. My point is that some people do and some people don't. And that some people do sometimes but not always...An old adage has it that there are a great many high-placed executives who, after 30 years, cannot claim to have had 30 years of experience. Rather, they may have had one-year's experience that was repeated over and over again during the 30-year period...

But what's at the basis of it all is the very simple fact that people don't learn from their experiences, but the might learn from their interpretations of their experiences.

The difference explains all of the differences...Whether or not people learn from their experiences depends on how they interpret those experiences.

...For example, oncologists have had the experience of witnessing the ravages of certain cancers caused by smoking (along with othe factors, of course). But oncologists and cardiologists are in general more inclined to smoke themselves than are other physicians in othe specialties. How rational is that?

...The "success paradigms" that get entrenched from the experience of success may be practiced until the person or the organization they are in fail. And, since many managers attribute their failures to causes beyond their control but their successes to themselves, they don't learn much from their failures...It is far more likely that a person will be struck by lightning than win the lottery. What would you say they are learning from their repeated "experiences" of not winning?...

All experiences have to be interpreted. It would seem obvious that most people are not capable of interpreting their experiences advantageously. That is, they don't learn from their experiences. Across the board, most people who experience what they take to be a bad marriage get remarried. The second marriage doesn't last as long as the first one. And the third one an even shorter time. What are they learning - about themselves or about how to do it better?...

People may have ready explanations that preclude them from learning anything from their experiences...People who can't learn, won't learn, from their experiences.

On Getting "a Job"

People used to have work to do that they could parlay into a career. Now, it seems, most young people are looking for "a job," not primarily to become proficient at it, but to earn enough money to support their lifestyles outside of work.

This is not something to be condemned. We're not going to change it. It's just the way things are. Nor is this about "the good old days." They really were not all that good.

This is about what's missing in a person's life by whoring this way, and what it is costing our civilization. It has become a lose-lose situation. A person is looking for "a job," a place to put in his or her time with the least possible effort and the biggest paycheck. At the same time, the typical company may be looking for someone to fill some job or another, at the lowest cost and with the greatest hope of ongoing return. We buy and sell everything else - why not ourselves?

The quality of a person' life is roughly equivalent to the quality of what he or she contributes to the life of the community and beyond. Seeing and performing one's work as merely "a job" is demeaning. It is dehumanizing. Children do not gain relevance merely by being "kids" or doing what kids do. They gain relevance by gaining in competencies, by learning - which is where growth of mind and character occur. If a person's "job" does not require continuous learning, both the employee and the organization lose.

We have put so many options before our young people that it may be impossible for them to choose. So they just opt out by getting "a job" or by dabbling first in one thing then another like lifetime diletantes. And it becomes obvious that the quality of their bosses is also diminishing - simply because so many bosses started out by getting "a job" and then being pushed up the ladder by default. How many burger-flippers take that "job" on in order to learn how to own or manage a restaurant?

By permitting this to happen, we have not only spoiled our children, but sentenced them to a life of decreasing relevance and thus decreasing quality of life. The Quakers may have had it right. How well you do your work is a measure of your life.

Maybe I am in the minority here. But I believe there is more to life than just getting "a job."

If life consists of what we are thinking about all day long, then there's not much life in having "a job" which does not engage heart and mind.