Month: July 2010

Managing in Complexity

by

Formal training just won’t cut it any more as the primary means by which we prepare and adapt in order to get work done. Training isn’t dead, it’s just not enough, and cannot be the only tool in the box.

—

As Jay Cross stated in a recent interview:

Formal learning can be somewhat effective when things don’t change much and the world is predictable …

Today’s world is the opposite in every way imaginable …

Things are changing amazingly fast …

There’s so much to learn …

Today’s work is all about dealing with novel situations …

This image, from Cynthia Kurtz’s post, Confluence, clearly shows the challenge we face in our networked organizations competing and collaborating in complex adaptive systems.

The challenge is getting organizations that are used to dealing with the Known & Knowable to be able to manage in Complex environments and even Chaotic ones from time to time. As can be seen in Kurtz’s graphic, that means weaker central control which is, of course, scary for traditional management. This is not a training problem but rather a management issue. How can you be less directive and enable distributed work, and therefore distributed (and undirected) learning? Actually there are historical examples, including guerrilla groups; religious movements; and social organizations. We need to look back as well as into the future. There are lessons and examples that can help us once we cast off some of our industrial management assumptions.

Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management (1911) inform many of our current practices but there are other models and frameworks available. The first step is seeing that we have a problem and our current models are inadequate. This is a conversation that all business managers and organizational leaders need to have. We should be ready to have many informed conversations about managing in complexity and put forward some plausible options. For further reading:

General framework: Wirearchy

Background & Models: Gary Hamel: Future of Management; Thomas Malone: The Future of Work; Andrew McAfee: Enterprise 2.0

Ideas & Methods: Working Smarter Fieldbook; State of Learning in the Workplace

More conversations: The Smart Work Company; Internet Time Alliance blog;

Working Smarter 2010

by

The Working Smarter Fieldbook (June 2010 version) is now out. This is a collaborative effort by all of us at the Internet Time Alliance and was spearheaded by Jay Cross. Our intention is get the conversation focused on what’s important for business, including the training & learning department – working smarter. Learning is just a means and not the end, but this perspective has somehow been lost along the way in many organizations over the past decades.

A toolbox
Years ago, Stewart Brand published The Whole Earth Catalog to provide “access to tools.” It listed all manner of interesting and oddball stuff, from windmill kits to hiking sox to books like Vibration Cooking. The Catalog didn’t tell readers how to live their lives; it merely described things that might help them to do their own thing. Feedback and articles submitted by readers made each edition better than its predecessor.
The Working Smarter Fieldbook follows the tradition of The Whole Earth Catalog. Harold, Jane, Clark, Charles, Jon, and Jay provide access to the tips, tricks, frameworks, and resources that we’ve used to help organizations work smarter. Our goal is to put together an irresistible package of advice.

Quotable Week on Twitter

by

Here are some of the things I learned on Twitter this past week:

QUOTES OF THE WEEK:

@KareAnderson “Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will ~ Jawaharlal Nehru

“Most of what we know we learn from other people. We pay tuition to a few of these teachers … but most of it we get for free, and often in ways that are mutual – without a distinction between student and teacher … We know this kind of external effect is common to all the arts and sciences – the ‘creative professions.’ All of intellectual history is the history of such effects.” Does Milwaukee have enough college graduates to thrive?

@faboolous “Knowledge work thus requires that each party offer something with no guarantee that they will get anything specific in return”.

@bduperrin “The more social you are you [the] more opportunities you get, the more busy you are, the less social you become.”

@jonhusband “Unfortunately, HR is the home base for the management practices based on old mental models about work & motivation .. not synched with networked work”

@tdebaillon “Most companies aren’t designed for collaboration.” My Little Enterprise 2.0 Diffusion Framework

@umairh “The problem isn’t that we need new jobs. It’s that we need a better economy, composed of new kinds of companies, built for a higher purpose.”

Henry Mintzberg: “In a word, corporate America is sick.” – “A viable economy needs to be led by explorers, not exploiters.” – “The Problem Is Enterprise, Not Economics” via @jonhusband

Schwerpunkt: Management

by

Survey results from a 2009 Chief Learning Officer survey showed that 77% of respondents felt that people in their organization were not growing fast enough to keep up with the business. And what have the learning and development (L&D) specialists been doing about it? Not much it seems. Donald Clark reports that decision-makers at UK organizations feel that:

  • 55% claim L&D failing to deliver necessary training
  • 46% doubt L&D can deliver
  • less than 18% agree that L&D aligned with business

But let’s not blame just L&D. Human Resources (HR) seem to be out of sync with organizational needs as well, nicely summed up in a recent FastCompany article:

I think successful organizations are very rigorous and creative about getting profitable work from their employees, their managers, and their business units. The problem is, those organizations don’t expect as much from HR, hence HR is usually not overseen, not measured, and not judged for its performance. It’s the department no one wants to be responsible for. It’s the department that is not subjected to outcomes analysis.

But the real culprit is management and that’s what needs to change. Steve Denning blames the Harvard Business School mindset for holding back organizational progress and goes on to explain how senior management kills innovation in many areas, including knowledge management:

So even when an oasis of excellence and innovation is established within an organization being run on traditional management lines, the experience doesn’t take root and replicate throughout the organization because the setting isn’t congenial. The fundamental assumptions, attitudes and values are at odds with those of traditional management.

I’m seeing that all of our initiatives for increased knowledge-sharing, communities of practice, social business,  or networked learning are rather futile unless management itself changes. The real chasm at work is between the executive suite and the knowledge workers. I’m not sure how to change this, but the focus (or in German: schwerpunkt) has to be on three things — management, management, & management. Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Theories and Practices

by

@ADDIE_ID is a Twitter pseudonym for someone who discusses “Analysis-Design-Development-Implementation-Evaluation” and the “Instructional Design” model, and is really most sincerely dead, as are many training-related theories. A recent Tweet on multiple intelligences started off a chain-reaction in my mind:

I responded that many learning theories-in-use have become the hocus-pocus of the training industry. Here is what a quick search on multiple intelligences (which has a tendency to be linked with learning styles) brought:

Howard Gardner: The Myth of Multiple Intelligence

Gardner’s multiple intelligences have therefore been utilised to justify the development of broader curriculum opportunities and increased differentiation in teaching. The theory has also been aligned with learning styles. This paper raises serious concerns regarding the empirical basis for the theory of multiple intelligences and suggests that it has confused the social basis of intellectual activity with a proposed set of biologically based characteristics.

Occam’s Donkey: Mind Myth 7

Intelligence as a concept is generally associated with the kind of thinking capacity that make for success as school. Gardner’s labeling the aptitudes he proposed as intelligences, naturally led teachers to erroneously assume that they were fungible (one could substitute for another) and should be taught to.

Multiple Intelligences: The Making of a Modern Myth

In the end, Gardner’s theory is simply not all that helpful. For scientists, the theory of the mind is almost certainly incorrect. For educators, the daring applications forwarded by others in Gardner’s name (and of which he apparently disapproves) are unlikely to help students. Gardner’s applications are relatively uncontroversial, although hard data on their effects are lacking. The fact that the theory is an inaccurate description of the mind makes it likely that the more closely an application draws on the theory, the less likely the application is to be effective. All in all, educators would likely do well to turn their time and attention elsewhere.

Another theory that informs practice in the field of education and training is Bloom’s Taxonomy, which has major flaws, as I wrote in Better than Bloom’s [see comments for more references]. I’m sure that many others can be added, so feel free to comment or link.

I would like to see a serious discussion, online or in physical space, that gets at many of the theories we use and shows practitioners what they are based on, how they work and their validity in view of the current science and research. We should keep in mind that while, “All models are wrong, some are useful” ~ George E.P. Box. This discussion should not be a myth-busting exercise but more of a pragmatic approach on what works and why. For educators, trainers, developers, vendors, etc. – we owe it to our field.

Suggested tag for Delicious, Twitter, et al – lrntheory

Role Shift

by

The last time I looked at roles in education I was inspired by Anil Mammen to create a table based on his definitions. I think some of the descriptions can be used in a prescriptive way of getting out of our industrial, hierarchical mindset and moving to an enterprise 2.0 or wirearchical culture. In networks, learning is the work, so a critical part of this culture shift is viewing learning as quite different from traditional training. The objective is to become a wirearchy:

a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on information, knowledge, trust and credibility, enabled by interconnected people and technology

Though incremental change may not always work, it might be easier for established organizations to move to a transition zone in getting there:

Hierarchical Getting There Wirearchical
Training – Learning & Development – Organizational Development – HR
Representative of the establishment. Guide Peer in learning.
Responsible for imparting approved knowledge. Knows what to teach, when & how. Continuously learn & unlearn.
Omit & modify as necessary.

Collude with the establishment.

 Knowledgeable on a given subject.

Interpreter of information.

 Provocateur

Connector

Workers – Learners – Employees – Associates
Powerless receiver of knowledge. Empowered to find knowledge. Critical Thinker.

Democratization of knowledge.
Studies out of fear of failure, reprisal, or displacement. Closing of teacher-learner divide.
 Decentralization of authority.
Selfish motive to learn – job, money, fame, power, desire to appear smart. Opportunities for self-directed learners. Seeker of truth.

Engaged professional-amateur.

Arete* [via Stephen Downes]

* Arete in ancient Greek culture was courage and strength in the face of adversity and it was to what all people aspired.

Connecting the dots

by

Here are some of the things I learned via Twitter this past week:

@Louisvancuijk – “Knowledge is only a rumour until it is in the muscles.”

Connected, a declaration of interdependence by @tiffanyshlain

Combining powerful visuals, humor, animation, irony, and serious messages, Connected explores the visible and invisible connections between the major issues of our time — the environment, population growth, technology, human rights, and the global economy – demonstrating how they are all interdependent. Following the filmmaker’s exploration of her own place in the world during a transformative set of circumstances in her life, Connected exposes the importance of personal connectedness in relation to understanding global conditions, ultimately showing how all of humanity is invested in today’s crucial issues.

Online Communities are Changing my World – by @edavidove

#1 – I was organizing a conference in London UK for a client. I researched the internet (blogs, discussion threads, social networks, etc.) and found 2 very interesting speakers to participate. One was from Finland and one was from the USA. The first time we met in person was at the conference. We continue to network and collaborate to this day. One of the speakers connected me to an incredible career opportunity.

Birthing; midwives; knowledge management; organizations & structures – by @johnt

What I got out of it is that midwives are facilitators in uncertain situations.

No two births are alike, and nearly all births don’t fall on the planned date.

Every “mother to be” is different and the midwives both have to deal with people and their situation. They don’t know what to expect as they have not seen the “mother to be” going through a birth, either has the “mother to be” if it’s their first (even if it was the second or third baby, not every birth is the same anyway, so not even the “mother to be” knows how she will react to new circumstances, especially in different environments).

Performance Consulting: finding the best solution from the training, informal learning, performance support mix – by @c4lpt

When confronted with a learning or performance problem, the normal and traditional response from L&D is to create a training solution, probably in the form of an all-singing, all-dancing content-rich e-learning course. For a long while I’ve compared this approach with using a hammer to crack the proverbial nut!

Steve Denning: HBR: Rushing to the 20th Century – via @RossDawson

Want to kill your firm quickly? Then study the current issue of Harvard Business Review. Imbibe its philosophy, its attitudes and its values. Implement everything it says. In so doing, you will be well on the way to turning your organization into a fully-fledged 20th Century organization, with a life expectancy of around 5-10 years.

Competition is overrated: Startups are primarly competing against indifference, lack of awareness, and lack of understanding — not other startups – via @sebpaquet

1) Almost every good idea has already been built. Sometimes new ideas are just ahead of their time. There were probably 50 companies that tried to do viral video sharing before YouTube. Before 2005, when YouTube was founded, relatively few users had broadband and video cameras. YouTube also took advantage of the latest version of Flash that could play videos seamlessly.