Harold -- Doesn't one have to have the "learning" part down before the "performance" can take place? Doesn't the "learning" have to be completed -- at some level -- before useful collaboration can occur?

Every time I read about the value of social networking in training/education for learners, I wonder how anyone can guarantee that's what's shared in a social network is the best information/guidance/training/etc.

For example, I could post a question on LinkedIn and get all kinds of responses, but a fair number of them (maybe all) will be from parties with a vested interest in getting my attention -- vendors selling products or services, for example. Certainly their input is going to be biased to their agenda.

You write, "Organizations should focus on enabling practitioners to produce results by supporting learning through social networks. The rest is just window dressing."

Internal (white label) social networks will block, to some degree, the white noise of sales-speak, but who's to say someone who's highly engaged in the company's learning network is someone who has his/her own agenda in play? What's in place to prevent misinformation?

Doesn't the most effective learning via social networks occur when the participants share the same basic level of knowledge/training/skills? Otherwise, won't there be a lot of repetition of fundamentals?

Shouldn't certain basics and fundamentals be covered via other elearning delivery modes (stand-alone tutorials, for example) to keep the social networks from getting bogged down?

Seems to me some "window dressing" is necessary, as long as the workforce consists of individuals with different levels of knowledge and skills.

What do you think, Harold?