Co-operation: from soft skill to hard skill

What are known as soft skills, like getting along with others, are becoming much more important than commonly known hard skills. This is still not a general perception amongst business leaders; as recently as last year, Management-Issues reported:

The annual CEO study by PricewaterhouseCoopers has argued that what companies around the world are crying out for is CEOs with technical and business expertise, who have global experience, are strong leaders, innovative, creative and who can manage risk effectively.

People skills, while a bonus, were not seen as an essential, despite the fact that fewer than half of CEOs globally (and around a third in the UK) felt their HR department could manage the people agenda adequately by itself.

Work in networks requires different skills than in directed hierarchies, which have nurtured these CEO’s for the past decades. Co-operation is a foundational behaviour for effectively working in networks, and it’s in networks where most of us, and our children, will be working. Co-operation presumes the freedom of individuals to join and participate so that people in the network cannot be told what to do, only influenced. If they don’t like you, they won’t connect. That’s like being on Twitter with no followers and never getting Retweeted (RT). You are a lone node and of little value to the network. In a hierarchy you only have to please your boss. In a network you have to be seen as having some value, though not the same value, by many others.

Co-operation is not the same as collaboration, though they are complementary. Collaboration requires a common goal while co-operation is sharing without any specific objectives. Teams, groups and markets collaborate. Online social networks and communities of practice co-operate. Working co-operatively requires a different mindset than merely collaborating on a defined project. Being co-operative means being open to others outside your group and casting off business metaphors based on military models (target markets, chain of command, line & staff).

cooperation

We are moving from a market economy to a network economy and the the level of complexity is increasing with this hyper-connectedness. Managing in complex adaptive systems means influencing possibilities rather than striving for predictability (good or best practices). Co-operation in our work is needed so that we can continuously develop emergent practices demanded by this complexity. What worked yesterday won’t work today. No one has the definitive answer any more but we can use the intelligence of our networks to make sense together and see how we can influence desired results. This is co-operation and this is the future, which is already here, albeit unevenly distributed.

Co-operation is a soft skill? I think not.

2009: year of the tweet

Twitter has significantly changed how I communicate online. Though I registered in 2007, after having tried out Jaiku, I didn’t really adopt micro-blogging until mid 2008. This past year I made around 5,000 Tweets or about 13 a day.

Twitter’s constraint of 140 characters is its greatest asset. You can only get one thought or comment out at a time. Once you get used to the medium, it’s much easier than trying to write a blog post, which of course is easier than writing a feature article, let alone a book. In some ways, it’s communication for the masses, due to the low barrier to entry. As a blogger, it’s even easier to jump onto Twitter because you are used to publishing in public and you’re probably connected to a lot of people online. Charlene Croft explains how Twitter is especially good for:

Connectors are individuals who know lots of people and who use those connections to their advantage.  Connectors are people who have invested in social, cultural and identity capital and who can convert those intangible resources into pretty much whatever they decide to.

Mavens are the senders and receivers of information.  They are the people who always have the pulse on the good deals and breaking stories of the day.  Mavens are the trendsetters and the people who you turn to to find out about this thing or that.  Citizen Journalists are types of Mavens, often scooping the mainstream media in reporting “from the ground”

Salesmen are the persuaders of society.  They are the people who dedicate a great deal of their lives to selling people on their ideas.

lawfew

It seems that everyone is a Maven today, as @amandachapel recently tweeted that “self-proclaimed Social Media Gurus on Twitter are multiplying like rabbits”. About 16,000 people on Twitter say they are social media specialists, indicating that being a Maven in this space has some perceived value.

Connectors bring ideas and people together. One of my favourites is @valdiskrebs who is not only an expert in social network analysis (a real Maven) but makes an effort to introduce people and sends out ideas like confetti. I like to follow Connectors because they share a lot. I no longer read BoingBoing or SlashDot or several other media sources because I know that if something interesting is published, someone in my network will post it. Choosing the right mix of Mavens & Connectors to follow can increase serendipitous learning opportunities, without being overwhelmed by noise.

The truly effective Salespeople on Twitter are not selling things but building relationships. For instance, following @kanter keeps me in touch with many social and non-profit causes. Given the number of followers that Beth Kanter has (+250,000), it’s obvious she’s a Maven, Connector and a Salesperson.

Twitter has connected me to more people and ideas than several years of blogging could possibly do. My blog still has immense value as part of my personal knowledge mastery process, but Twitter has a greater reach to more, and more varied, communities. For example:

I met @fdomon through Twitter and we have subsequently launched Entreprise Collaborative.

Through Twitter I can follow Canadian writer @MargaretAtwood; cycling professional @LanceArmstrong or Tehran-based @ThinkIran.

I can talk in public about things that would not go on my blog, either because they are off-topic or I don’t have time for a full blog post.

I learn an enormous amount from Twitter and for the past several months have summarized this with my weekly Friday’s Finds posts [due for a format change in 2010].

Twitter may not be for you and it’s probably not going to save the world, but I am certain the format of micro-blogging will be around for at least as long as blogging.

Friday’s Finds #32 – the Christmas Edition

Lots of interesting things on Twitter this past week:

Learning

Keith Lyons always illustrates his blog posts with great pictures, and this photo of a classroom outdoors (not sure where) resonated with many folks on Twitter and showed how happy we should be for what we have.

school outside

I was wrong: games ARE an alternative vision – Patrick Dunn. via @cliveshepherd

E-learning designers believe that people learn through “content”. They assume that encountering content will lead people to change their behaviour. Games designers believe that people learn through “experience”. They assume that having experiences – doing and feeling things – leads to change in behaviour.

CBC Spark: Interview with James Gee on video games & how we learn, questions, once again, our entire educational system. via @moehlert

Writing for Visual Thinkers: Eide Neurolearning –  Image: Man decorates basement with $10 worth of Sharpie:

room deco with sharpies

Allen Tough: We found about 20% of all major learning efforts were institutionally organized … And the other 80% was informal. via @jaycross

Why various forms of science denial keep growing: The Dunning–Kruger effect

Working

20th century leadership is what’s stopping 21st century prosperity – The Builders’ Manifesto. via @robpatrob

Blogging Innovation: there is almost an inverse relationship between size and thought leadership in the consulting world. via @VanessaMiemis [my colleagues at the Internet Time Alliance concur]

Trusted Advisor: The Coming of Collaborative Capitalism. via @CharlesHGreen

Everybody is a Journalist: Supreme Court of Canada rules on defence of responsible communication. via @david_a_eaves

[From the decision on Grant vs Torstar Corp.] However, the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists.  These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets.  I agree with Lord Hoffmann that the new defence is “available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium”.

Best wishes to All

On knowledge

Some things I learned about knowledge this past year.

About  knowledge management: Codified knowledge (documents, lists, reports, best practices) is effective in organizations that have mostly new staff or high turnover, like a pizza franchise. It does not help teams to produce any better unless the team is rather inexperienced. Interpersonal sharing can be more effective for some teams but it is time-consuming and requires “slack time” for experienced team members to take advantage of it. Lesson: You cannot run your senior staff at full-steam all the time and no amount of electronic documentation is going to help except to get inexperienced people up to speed.

From Peter Senge:

The average life expectancy of large companies is about 30 years, but some are over 200 years old. What is the reason for this? Organizational learning! Basically, individual learning in organizations is irrelevant. Work is almost never done by one person alone. Almost all value is created by teams and networks of people.

Knowledge is the capacity for effective action (know how) and it is the only aspect of knowledge that really matters in life. While learning may be generated in teams, this type of knowledge comes and goes. Learning really spreads through social networks [in French, this is the difference between connaissance and savoir faire].

A few decades ago the field of knowledge management was co-opted by information technology vendors, and became useless for organizational learning.

How does personal knowledge management relate to social learning?

PKM is an individual, disciplined process by which we make sense of information, observations and ideas. In the past it may have been keeping a journal, writing letters or having conversations. These are still valid, but with digital media we can add context by categorizing, commenting or even remixing it. We can also store digital media for easy retrieval. However, PKM is of little value unless the results are shared by connecting to others and contributing to meaningful conversations. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts as we build on the knowledge of others. As knowledge workers or citizens, PKM is our part of the social learning contract. Without effective PKM at the individual level, social learning has less value.

Managing what matters.

Learning and becoming knowledge-able are now basic requirements for every worker. These are also basic requirements for life, as much as food and water. We don’t manage what or how our employees eat and we don’t need to manage their knowledge or learning. We can make it easier for them to learn and share knowledge though, just like putting in a cafeteria or a water fountain. Workers need support and tools to develop these personal processes but the organization should stay out of the business of knowledge and learning and instead focus on collaboration.

Commons coming along

On Friday, we had our open house to get feedback on the Sackville Commons. There was a good level of interest and some suggestions. I’m positive that we can build interest and get the project going this Winter. With 40 members we should be able to have one floor (second floor) dedicated to the Commons. There is not a lot of work to be done in this building and some people said that they could even donate furniture for the venture.

Let’s keep the conversations going and please send me any suggestions. There is a lot of background and related material here, under Commons.

Here are some photos of the building that would make a wonderful home.

Looking Up!
Looking Up!

Friday’s Finds #31

What I learned this past week on Twitter:

Rhizomes & Roots by @VenessaMiemis
Picture: Rhizomes & Roots by @VenessaMiemis

The return on investment (ROI) on social learning consists of getting stuff done in networks & knowing who to contact. It requires trusted relationships which are social & take time to develop.

Social Learning leads to Social Intelligence which leads to Success. Why “Academic Excellence” No Longer Cuts It Today via @cburell

Web 2.0: A simple (working) definition. via @csessums

Web 1.0 = me
Web 2.0 = me + you

Web 1.0 = read
Web 2.0 = read + write

Web 1.0 = connecting ideas
Web 2.0 = connecting ideas + connecting people

Web 1.0 = search
Web 2.0 = recommendations of friends/others

Web 1.0 = find
Web 2.0 = share

Web 1.0 = techies rule
Web 2.0 = everybody rules

via @jalam1001
Picture: via @jalam1001

“Pretty much all intranets are unusable. Like just about all workplace documentation. I think it’s ‘learned helplessness'” via @BFChirpy

If the Army Can Put Its Doctrine Up On a Wiki, You’ve Got No Excuse. via moehlert

Productivity = less is more. via @pascalvenier
Picture: Productivity = less is more. via @pascalvenier

“There are NO JOBS TO GO BACK TO. Just as there was no village and rural work in 1840.” @robpatrob

Informal, Social, Wirearchical Business

Our motto is that “six heads are better than one” at the Internet Time Alliance, and I have the pleasure of working with and learning from a great collaborative team, spread across eight time zones.

1. Jon Husband’s working definition of Wirearchy is “a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority, based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology”.

I believe the shift in power and authority is showing up in clear ways all around us, for better and for worse.  The shift can be seen in daily events and in the ways peoples’ working lives and behaviours are changing, in the ways they are becoming more or less well-informed, and in consumption patterns for much of what they are buying and using.

This is a good description of where our work is focused: enabling organizations to become more “wirearchical”.

2. Wirearchy requires trust, and Charles Jennings explains how trust relationships are powerful allies in getting things done (focus on results) in organizations.

If we’re working in L&D [learning & development] strong trust relationships with senior leaders and middle managers are vital. Without a high level of trust any L&D manager will find it almost impossible to embed a culture of learning in their organisation.

3. The way we think of work and learning has to change in consideration of the dominance of networks (technical & human) in business. I have called this Work 2.0 and here are some suggestions on how to get there:

  • Think and act at a macro level (what to do) and leave the micro (how to do it) to each worker or team. The little stuff is changing too fast.
  • Engage with Web media and understand how they work. The Web is  too important to be left to IT, communications or outside vendors.
  • Use social media to make work easier or more effective. Use them to solve problems for you.
  • Make yourself and your function  redundant. Teach people how to fish and move on to the next challenge. If you’re maintaining a steady state then you’ve failed to evolve with the organization and the environment.

4. Business has always been social, especially at the higher levels of management and this is now part of everyone’s work. We are all inter-connected. Jane Hart explains how social media can be used for workplace learning. Instead of just training, there are five types of learning that should be supported by the organization:

1. IOL – Intra-Organisational Learning – keeping the organisation up to date and up to speed on strategic and other internal initiatives and activities
2. FSL – Formal Structured Learning – formal education and training like classes, courses, workshops, etc (both synchronous and asynchronous)
3. GDL – Group Directed Learning – groups of individuals working in teams, projects, study groups, etc Even two people working together in a coaching and mentoring capacity
4. PDL – Personal Directed Learning – individuals organising and managing their own personal or professional learning
5. ASL – Accidental & Serendipitous Learning – individuals learning without consciously realising it (aka incidental or random learning)

5. Social and informal learning are not just feel-good notions, but have a real impact on an increasingly intangible business environment, as Jon Husband & Jay Cross wrote:

In the network era, things you can’t see are more valuable than things you can.

Twenty-five years ago, intangibles accounted for less than a third of the value of the S&P 500. Today, intangibles can make up more than 80 percent of that value.

“Intangible assets — a skilled workforce, patents and know-how, software, strong customer relationships, brands, unique organizational designs and processes, and the like — generate most of corporate growth and shareholder value,” wrote NYU Professor Baruch Lev in Harvard Business Review in June 2004.

Corporate decision makers say their goal is to increase shareholder value. In a networked, information-based environment, shareholders value brand, reputation, ideas, relationships and know-how. These assets don’t appear on the balance sheet [yet], but more and more often they provide a corporation’s competitive edge.

Jay Cross: The social learning revolution has only just begun. Corporations that understand the value of knowledge sharing, teamwork, informal learning and joint problem solving are investing heavily in collaboration technology and are reaping the early rewards.

6. Clark Quinn & Jay Cross have described the new role of Chief Meta Learning Officer required for a wirearchical organization that supports informal, social learning in order to get things done.

Corporate culture is becoming more participatory. Authenticity, transparency, sharing, experimentation, peer power and togetherness are what it takes to succeed in a networked environment. As the tendrils of communications networks slither through silos and corporate boundaries, network values become the default organizational values. Cisco, which lives and breathes networks, is an example of baking network values into a corporate culture.

In Summary

My colleagues and I have thought a lot about workplace learning and we have been involved internally and as consultants with a wide range of organizations. Our thinking comes from experience, critical observation and forward-thinking assumptions based on patterns and trends. We are certain that organizational change is a business imperative and that social and informal learning are important paths to remaining innovative, and staying in business.

Getting Social Learning

chat_icon_01.png

We were discussing social learning yesterday and I think it boils down to this:

We are all inter-connected because

technology has enabled communication networks on a worldwide scale,

so that systemic changes are sensed almost immediately,

which means that reaction times and feedback loops have to be better, therefore

we need to know who to ask for advice right now,

which requires a level of trust, but

that takes time to nurture.

Therefore we turn to our friends and trusted colleagues,

who are those with whom we’ve shared experiences,

which means that we need to share experiences in order to trust each other [get it?].

It’s called social learning.

The University Myth

Forty-seven percent of Canadians have a post-secondary degree of some kind and, according to the CCL:

Even by 1950, less than 6% of Canadian 25- to 44-year-olds had university degrees. Today, secondary schooling is universally available, and the proportion of 25- to 44-year-olds with university degrees is near 20%.

Even going back to the 1970’s, when I started university, it was almost a ticket to a good job. Stay in school, get a degree, get a job, etc. However much there may have been a correlation between having a university degree and getting a good job, this is not a causal relationship. It was a social and cultural norm, based on the fact that for most of the twentieth century, having a degree put you in an elite, minority situation. This was coupled by the fact that HR departments had found an easy criterion to reduce the number of applicants; just require that certain positions require a degree. Many workers (e.g. junior managers) also had the comfort of taking time to learn on the job, so day one job ready skills were not a requirement.

Universities had it easy too. They could say that getting a degree helped you get a good job, because salaries were correlated with education. Enrolment increased, universities expanded and the academic system flourished. If it were so easy today.

The problem is that universities do little to prepare for work. The skills learned are seldom workplace oriented. But then, that is not the nature of the university. We as a society bought into the myth that university education equated to good jobs. From 1950 to 2003, the ratio of current university undergrads to the general population increased five-fold in Canada. As long as there were few university graduates, we had obvious correlation to good jobs, even though universities had not changed their basic operating models, established centuries earlier. Perhaps more science and logic would have prepared parents and students for our current situation.

I’m not advocating for the closure of universities, but we need to expand our horizons on other options for work preparation. We have put a lot of money into universities, less into community colleges and even less into apprenticeship programs. For those not believing the university myth, there are limited choices. Learning professionals need to get out of their boxes and help create some better choices. There is some correlation between learning professionals and learning, isn’t there?

eCollab Blog Carnival: Future of Training

The first eCollab Blog Carnival has received its submissions on the future of the training department, kicked off by our initial piece:

Will training departments survive to address these issues? The cards are still out. After all, we are in a global economic depression, and training is the perennial first sacrifice.

What would happen if you called for closing your training department in favor of a new function?

Imagine telling senior management that you were shuttering the classrooms in favor of peer-to-peer learning. You’re redeploying training staff as mentors, coaches, and facilitators who work on improving core business processes, strengthening relationships with customers, and cutting costs. You’re going to shift the focus to creativity, innovation, and helping people perform better, faster, cheaper.

You might want to give it a try.

Perhaps the time has come.

A good description of blog carnivals comes from Fadhila Brahimi (in French). Here’s my rough translation of what blog carnivals enable:

  • A time to share ideas and participate in knowledge co-creation.
  • An opportunity to focus on a single issue and see it from multiple, critical perspectives.
  • Development of a network of experts and practitioners around a topic.
  • An opportunity to highlight expertise and interest in a subject.
  • A chance to experiment and put forth new ideas and concepts.

Carnival Contributions

Thierry deBaillon on Knowledge, from Productivity Source to Critical Component: EnglishFrench

Thierry says that growing importance of informal knowledge in professional development means that companies are forced to get involved with more collaborative activities that go beyond organizational boundaries.  The whole notion of what constitutes individual productivity is being questioned. How then can training organizations take into account and help promote implicit knowledge-sharing?

Tom Haskins on Collaborative Training Departments: English

Tom looks at four major innovations that collaborative training departments will likely adapt and adopt. One is what is becoming known as “subject matter networks” as opposed to subject matter networks. It is the growing need to look outside of the organization for expertise and innovation and this includes customers [a related post on eCollab by Mark Tamis discusses social learning & customer engagement]. Next is transparency, especially in evaluating the effectiveness of learning initiatives, such as doing post mortems in public view (scary for “conflicted” training departments). Third is co-creation, or involving more people in the design process, such as the learners themselves. Finally, Tom suggests collaboratively creating a new brand for the training department.

Clark Quinn on The Future of the Training Department: English

Clark takes a network-centric approach and suggest that organizations need to empower individuals to address the chaos they are facing. However, empowered individuals are not effective unless they can also collaborate and get enough guidance to not work at cross purposes. The future training department must take on a more strategic and facilitative role, connecting people through the best use of collaborative technologies.

NetworkProgression_Quinnovation
Network Progression by Clark Quinn

Vincent Berthelot on L’avenir de la formation dans l’entreprise collaborative: French.

[translation] Training is currently hobbled by financial-administrative constraints that prevent it from adapting, other than through cumbersome official channels, and is ill-adapted for new forms of learning.

Virginia Yonkers on the future of the training department: English

Virginia looks at the changing demands of learners and how they are demanding instant feedback and more choices in learning. Choices include more situated (non-standard & individualized) learning and just in time interventions. Virginia also notes that learners want to be tested so that they have proof of their skills and abilities.

Not directly related to the Blog Carnival, but a good example of the future already being here, is a recent contribution to eCollab by Michael Glazer on Examples of Facilitating Collaborative Work & Learning. One example is of mid-level managers collaboratively developing individualized learning programs and then being mentored by senior managers who they get to choose:

At the pilot’s conclusion, we asked supervisors and participants if they would recommend the program to other colleagues. 91% of supervisors and 100% of participants said they would recommend the program. And at the following promotion cycle, several managers cited participation in the program as a contributing factor in earning promotions.

Charles Jennings also weighed in on the subject previously with What does a 21st Century L&D department look like? Charles identified some new competencies for learning & development professionals:

1. consulting / coaching acumen (as well as learning acumen) that is focused on performance problems and outcomes. The ability to engage with senior (and not-so-senior) line managers to identify the root cause of performance problems, and not simply focus on learning.

2. the ability to ‘speak business’. An understanding of business goals is the ‘so what’ in learning. Everyone in L&D should be able to read and draw conclusions from a balance sheet and P&L account and understand the business drivers that line managers are focused on.

3. a good grasp of technology – across-the-board – but especially emerging technologies, and how they can fit into learning solutions

4. adult learning – an understanding of how adults learn in the workplace, and ‘what works’ in organisational learning.