Maybe the more things change, the more they remain the same. I was reviewing a White Paper that I had written in 2000 for my employer at the time and found that not much has changed when it comes to workplace learning. This paper was loosely based on some parts of my thesis, which was published in 1998, so the major themes are at least a decade old.
Here was one of my opening statements on knowledge and learning:
Knowledge is the result of the process of learning, and learning can be defined as a process of giving meaning to our experiences. This view of learning as an active, continuous process is essential when examining workplace learning. Learning is not only some formal event, which happens in a classroom, resulting in information to perform a discrete task, but is also a continuing process of doing and reflecting. We know that people learn as they work, and that the pace of learning and re-learning is increasing everyday.
The “learning organization” was the rage in the late ’90’s, but you seem to hear less about it now.
The learning organization has the potential to become the model for the new workplace. Moving from an organization of many independent workers to a network of interdependent workers will require change on many levels. Implementing a learning organization requires that learning occurs at the individual, team and organizational levels. These changes threaten not only personal mental models but traditional power structures. Many employers and organizations are attempting to change their workplaces into more learning-oriented environments, but the current popularity of e-learning must survive the initial infatuation stage in order to develop stable systems for organizational learning.
It makes me think that when it comes to workplace learning, we haven’t advanced that much.
Many people are finding it difficult to make the transfer into the new knowledge-based economy This may indicate a need for adult learning expertise in order to increase business productivity. Workplaces have to allow for individual learning on the job because workers cannot become learners if the climate is not open to change. The changing role of the immediate supervisor to that of coach will be critical in achieving the ideal of the learning organization. The need for educated, knowledgeable workers with current skills and abilities will continue to increase but the power to change the workplace to a more learning-oriented, and therefore more adaptable, environment rests with those in charge: the employers.
I haven’t seen massive changes, have you?
I’ve been noticing the same “stagnation” Harold. It makes sense to me that learning organizations, informal learning etc.– has been getting a lot of talk for the past decade because it looks good. Businesses now play to a bigger audience. There are more journalists, industry analysts, consumer watchdog groups and legislative inquiries. There’s more apparent need to make a good impression (and to get away with lip service, window dressing and showcasing small efforts). Given the hunger for “news” from those constituencies, there is not much incentive for follow-thru, deployment, implementation — only for razzle-dazzle.
Hi Harold,
I think this is partly because the things that were hard to do then are still hard to do now. Oh, sure, computers are faster and can hold more data, but like you said, it’s about mental models and power structures. Computers still aren’t very good at tellng stories; simulations are still expensive to build; and more data is just more data, not more knowledge.
And like Tom points out, if companies get rewarded simply for purchasing a system and declaring themselves innovators, the boring work of getting real human beings to do something different will never get done.