Connecting and Communicating through Effective Conversations

by

What if a company creates an IT infrastructure but nobody uses it? This is one of the questions posed by Dave Pollard in What’s Next after Knowledge Management? Dave’s work has helped me develop practical  processes for knowledge workers, such as sense-making with PKM and his observation that most workers want the company knowledge-base to be very personal informs this work.

So what have our efforts in enterprise knowledge management (KM) since 1975 yielded so far? According to Dave, only three information technologies were adopted wholesale by enterprises (fax, e-mail, intranets) with minimal results in the management of information or knowledge.

In other words, in adding to the volume and complexity of information systems, we have added relatively little value, and in some cases actually reduced value. The reason for this is simple:

  1. We have not done anything to substantively improve the ability of senior management to manage the business (i.e. to manage cash flow, share price, risks or opportunities).
  2. We have not done anything to substantively improve the effectiveness of any of the information flows … that matter in organizations, or the quality of the information.

We have, in short, implemented a solution that addressed no problem. We introduced new KM tools because we could.

Dave predicts the future organization may look more like this:

The IT department is still responsible for maintaining security around the organization’s proprietary information, but very little content is left in this category.

The KM department still manages the purchase of external information, though almost all information in 2025 is free; information producers have realized that their business model is to apply that information to specific customers’ business environment, in consulting assignments, rather than trying to sell publications.

Most of what the KM department does now is trying to facilitate more effective conversations among people within the organization and with people outside the organization, including customers.

And, when the organization holds sessions and conferences on strategy, risk, innovation or customer relationships, the KM department is on hand to do advance and just-in-time research.

The issue of the relevance of KM is not that different from the future of the training function. Both are support functions that have to be integrated with 1) the organization and 2) the individual. As workers become more nomadic (more jobs & contracts over a lifetime) they will be taking their networks and productivity tools with them. Connecting the organization’s networks to the individual’s, and vice versa, is the new organizational management challenge. In the diagram below, I show that Connecting & Communicating should be the focus of the training function, which is pretty well what Dave says is the role of the new KM department.

One of the approaches we’ve suggested at togetherLearn is Informal Learning 2.0 – supporting collaborative and self-directed work – very much like the new KM which is about facilitating more effective conversations. We’re all in this together and support functions (KM, IT, HR, T&D, OD) had better start working together. Now that’s a conversation worth having.

Push the Reset Button

by

Charles Jennings made a comment on Corporate Learning Trends that got me thinking about the need for a reset of the whole training function:

Baldwin, Ford and Weissbein’s research (20 and 10 years ago, respectively) showed that the USA spends around $100 billion on training every year, but only about 10% of the expenditures result in transfer to the job. I’m sure if the research was re-run today the results would be similar, whether in the US, in Western Europe or anywhere else, for that matter.

In other words, if CLOs were in any other ‘C-Level’ jobs they wouldn’t last long. One look by the CEO/President at their P&L statement and they’d be shown the door…

The current economic situation is being called by some The Great Reset, or a time to re-evaluate our financial and economic systems. This is also an opportunity to reset our notions of learning and working. Face it, training and anything else that comes under the industrial umbrella of Human Resources are always secondary to operations. It doesn’t have to be that way, but sticking to “tried & true” methods is not going to get any breakthroughs in how we integrate learning and working, an essential part of thriving in a networked economy, in my opinion. Organizational learning and human performance need a great reset as well.

Here’s what I see for the great learning reset:

  • Think and act macro (what to do) and leave the micro (how to do it) to each knowledge worker.
  • Become a part of the business not a peripheral department – if you’re in Ford’s HR department, your business is cars & trucks, not human resources.
  • Throw away all notions of “delivery” and focus only on solving organizational challenges – training is a solution looking for a problem – just solve the problem.

Learning has to become part of the organizational and individual DNA and during a reset that may require learning specialists, but in the long run the learning function should be absorbed. That leads to the future role of the “learning specialist”. I would say it is to continuously make yourself redundant. Teach people how to fish and move on to the next challenge. If you’re maintaining a steady state, such as developing courses as requested, then you’ve failed in integrating learning into the work.

What is America?

by

A couple of times each week I head down to our local coffee shop and discuss politics, economics and our community with my friend Graham Watt. I’ve posted several of Graham’s articles on this blog, the latest being O Canada, so obviously I respect his opinions. For my birthday, Graham gave me a copy of Ronald Wright’s What is America?, and appended the sub-title, and why?

What is America? should be added as a text book to any course on the history of the Americas. Of course, it reads better than most text books because it is not designed to be one. Even with a degree in History and at least one US history course, I learned, re-learned, and un-learned as I read this excellent book. It would also make a fine addition to my virtual Global Civics program.

The book reminded me of Howard Zinn’s A people’s History of American Empire but with a much earlier start. Also, Wright makes sure that Canadians don’t get too smug, considering our own genocidal tendencies. What I found most interesting was the thread of history that Wright covers. First, the Americas had great cities and political systems north of the Rio Grande before the arrival of Europeans. They only became nomadic tribes after the invasions.  Early Indigenous Americans were wiped out mostly by disease (±90%), used consciously as a weapon by all Europeans.

Also, the founding principles of the US constitution owe more to the Iroquois Confederacy than any European traditions.

The most likely theory, in my opinion, is that the word [caucus] is of Algonquian origin. An authority on Native American languages, Dr. J. H. Trumbull, suggested in the “Procedures of the American Philological Association” in 1872 that the word might be derived from an Algonquian word, “cau´-cau-as´u,” mentioned in the writings of Capt. John Smith in the 17th century. The word was said to mean “one who talks with or advises.” —Grammarphobia 2006

Furthermore, the conquest of the Americas was funded by its own wealth — crops (e.g. potatoes) and gold & silver — which fueled the European industrial revolution. Europe would not have been able to sustain the industrial revolution without these imports on a massive scale.

Wright also takes to task the cultural amnesia prevalent throughout American history:

“America could not bear to take a hard look at itself, especially the inconvenient truths of slavery, dispossession and genocide. Religion and profit, ‘jumping together,’ had little time for introspection. The slaveholder, the frontiersman and the fundamentalist all hated the historian — and anti-intellectualism has been a strong force ever since.”

The Historian by E. Irving Couse
“Digital scan of a color plate of painting. Printed with the following caption: 1902 by E. Irving Couse, A. N. A.; The Historian; The Indian Artist is painting in sign language, on buckskin, the story of a battle with American Soldiers. When exhibited at the National Academy this picture was considered one of the most important paintings of the year.” —Wikimedia Commons

Creative time

by

Being self-employed, I never complain about being too busy. Of course, there are periods when I’m not busy and these give me time to write on this blog or on togetherLearn or pick up an interesting book. I have even taken up reviewing books for some publishers because I can usually find the time to do so and it’s cheap professional development for me. My friend and colleague, Michele Martin talks about the breathing room we independents have for thinking or “creativity” that many salaried workers just don’t have the time for:

But  it’s easy to focus on doing cool things in new and different ways when you have some breathing room. When you don’t, I can see where it’s just annoying to hear people tell you that you should be open to new ideas. Hello–I’m just trying to get through the day here. I have no time for your “creativity.”

I believe that this “breathing room” makes me a much better consultant to my clients. I have the time to read or research a topic in depth. I can spend time trying out a new tool or platform. This “luxury” is my business advantage. No one pays for this learning time, only my productive time, but in many cases I’ve spent a fair bit of time on a generic problem before I’m contacted by a client. At the risk of putting consultants out of business, I would even suggest that employees be given more time to think and even play so that they can become internal consultants for workplace change. As Michele says:

Creativity shouldn’t–can’t–be a luxury, though. It can’t be something that we bring to a problem only when we have the space and time for it, because more often than not, we will be in situations where we lack both.

Communities, networks and etiquette

by

What’s the difference between a community and a network? Is a community of practice a network or a community?

Clark Quinn looks at social media, and asks, “… how often we call them online communities, but the question is: are they really?” I’m not going to go into network theory or definitions in this post but I think that the difference, perceived or otherwise, between networks and communities is of importance to anyone engaging with web social media, especially for professional purposes. Understanding what you define as a community or a network can help develop your personal rules for connecting, linking, friending, following and of course unfollowing.

Dave Cormier discusses social networking with Twitter and makes a clear distinction between his network and his community on this medium:

The final issue i wanted to discuss was the management of your network. There are many theories about this, and I wont claim any supremacy for mine other than to say that it is how i stay effective with the degree of networkedness that I have created for myself. I am a constant gardener of my network, following people, unfollowing people, paying more attention to some people for a while and then moving on to others. This is the critical difference between a network and a community… My community members i stay with, my network is something more practical.

Many of us are connected to people in our networks who over time have become members of a closer community, whether it be through shared experiences or shared interests. We probably didn’t notice when connections became colleagues or friends. It just happened.

I’m sure that most people don’t think too much about the distinction between networks and communities but they know when someone has crossed the line of acceptable behaviour. Making network habits explicit can help when your networks get very large or when someone challenges you on a behaviour – e.g. Gee, I never thought about that! The larger someone’s network, usually the more explicit their policy on connecting. If you don’t set some rules you will probably be overwhelmed by noise from the network.

If social media are going to be an integral part of our professional and personal lives, all of us will need to become more explicit about our online etiquette. I’m not sure we need an Emily Post type of online etiquette guide but I’m certain many people will make money telling others what to do in the Networked Age.

Photo by alana jonez

Changing how people and organizations interact

by

Jon Husband has recently published a paper, What is wirearchy? In case this is a new term, the definition of wirearchy is was posted on the top right of my site. In the paper, Jon starts with the origin of the framework:

In that context of ubiquitous impact, reams have been written about the erosion of the effectiveness of command-and control as the dominant model for leading and managing purposeful organized activities in business, education, government and governance, politics, culture and the arts … all the areas in which humans act together to create and get things done. That mode of getting things done is evolving to champion-and-channel … championing ideas and innovation, and channeling time, energy, authority and resources to testing those ideas and innovative possibilities).

There is little doubt that rigid, hierarchical command and control is not working very well in any field, including its originators: the military and the church. On Twitter yesterday the togetherLearn gang discussed the roots of human computer interaction (HCI) and how we need something akin to “human organizational interaction” as a similar combined field of practice for the post-industrial workplace. I see wirearchy as a framework for practitioners of such a new discipline as HOI.

For instance, Jon gives some specific advice for leaders, managers, employees and citizens. Taking from each of these, I would suggest something like the following for organizational performance professionals (HR, T&D, OD, IT, etc):

Understand the scope and reach of interconnected markets, people and flows of information. Learn how and why people are connecting, talking and sharing information by doing so yourself. Listen, set an example and be a coach in your work. Be responsible, accountable and transparent in all you do.

Jon concludes his paper with the “Fundamental Sociology of Networked Knowledge Work”:

An adult-to-adult model (rather than parent-child) is emerging – with all of the attendant responsibilities for both parties in the relationship.

Many workers, as well as supervisors and managers, will find this kind of a transition rather difficult as too many of our structures have been developed from an opposite sociological perspective. That does not mean that a restructuring of how we organize our work is not neccessary, it will just be difficult in some cases.

Community Portals

by

Looking back at lessons learned from community portals (2005) I would say that the transactional portal is the only one that still makes any sense to me:

Transactional: sites which are accessible, complete, thoughtful, and coherent; and with more than one type of on-line interaction (e.g. payment, application, consultation, bookings).

RSS has blown up the content-only portal funded through advertising but the wide adoption of Twitter is giving content publishers a new push mechanism to get eyeballs to their sites. I don’t follow anyone on Twitter who only publish their recent blog posts, that’s what a feed reader is for. However, some people may prefer getting updates via Twitter. I wonder if this will significantly change the use and utility of RSS?

Back to portals. I’ve found that checking out the various portal/community sites that I belong to is rather tedious and am consciously avoiding requests to join more communities. Not sure if community portal overload syndrome is widespread but I think there’s a sea change happening. Are central portals dying, seeing a resurgence or best left for internal organizational use? I’ve noticed that proprietary portal software is still being sold for lots of money and there are several strong open source projects available too.

Are portals old tech or still a solid way to support communities and various types of online transactions?

Photo by yewenyi

Don’t look to business schools for leadership

by

Business schools tout themselves as thought-leaders, but they only appeared on the scene after the mass production industrial model had been proven. We shouldn’t expect leadership from our academic institutions, with their profitable business schools, until we have a proven new organizational model for the post-industrial era. Actually, business schools may be to blame for our current economic problems. According to renowned management professor Henry Mintzberg:

From where I sit, management education appears to be a significant part of this problem. For years, the business schools have been promoting an excessively analytical, detached style of management that has been dragging down organizations.

Every decade, American business schools have been graduating more than a million MBAs, most of whom believe that, because they sat still for a couple of years, they are ready to manage anything. In fact, they have been prepared to manage nothing.

The current economic situation is the result of an utterly failed management model. It’s obvious when you compare Japanese automakers with the “Big Three” in North America – the same materials, the same technology and the same base of workers, but DIFFERENT management. Yes, it’s management’s fault.

Mintzberg also says that, “Management is a practice, learned in context.” That means that book-learning is not enough. Thomas Malone’s The Future of Work and Gary Hamel’s The Future of Management are two good books that look at the need for new management models. They’re a start. What’s missing from both are practical models to implement and that is one of my key interests in consulting. I think that adding the framework of wirearchy and the practical examples of natural entrepreneurship would be useful. Since both of these are completely ignored by business schools, I take that as a positive indicator. However, we still need to try these models, frameworks and ideas in the context of managing real businesses. That’s the challenge.

I believe that future management models can find inspiration and clues in web-based service companies as well as small, community-based businesses. A networked society means that businesses have to be nimble and small-thinking because every individual transaction is unique. One bad experience can go viral. Lack of transparency is mistrusted. Command and control matters less and less. Look to business models that understand the importance of community.

Any new management models will have to break down long-standing silos between departments and let people connect on a more human level. We are not “human resources”. We need models that keep everything at a human scale, so biological metaphors, instead of mechanistic or military ones, may be more appropriate. This is the kind of thinking that the Internet Time Alliance is extending: tearing down the training department and instilling human performance into the organizational DNA. Learning is not something that is ‘done to you’ and management should not be an external force but instead an internal motivational driver of the organization. Once again, look at the definition of wirearchy:

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

This would be a good foundation for the next generation of business schools.

Future of organizational learning and development

by

On 21 April 2009 Corporate Learning Trends will be organizing sessions, speakers and workshops online; all for free. The main topic is the future of organizational learning and development. Follow the link to make any suggestions on topics of interest, format, times and delivery modes.

The previous sessions were well-attended and the whole togetherLearn gang is helping out with this one.

Visit Corporate Learning Trends and Innovation 2008

Come join in the conversations and learning.

Angels on the head of a pin?

by

In March, LCB asked where would workplace learning be in 10 years. I responded that work and learning would continue to be more integrated and later wrote that soft skills, especially collaboration and networking, will become more important than hard skills.

Saul Carliner just wrote long-live instructor-led training, opening with:

In March 2009 the monthly question on ASTD’s Learning Circuits blog wonders what training will look like in 2019. Nearly all of the contributors predicted the death of the classroom.

and concluding:

But one question still nags; if the evidence suggests that instructor-led instruction still has a long, healthy life (whether in the classroom or online), why do bloggers continue to insist that its death is imminent?

There were many responses to LCB’s question, and a good variety of views but I cannot find a single comment that explicitly says the classroom will die. Tony Karrer takes Saul to task on many points:

Long Live what?  If his point was only to say that people claiming the death of the classroom in 10 years are wrong … and that the classroom will still be around in ten years … then I agree.  But it just seemed that his argument quickly left that and into a bunch of dubious statements.

I would claim that it’s probably much more instructive to go look at some of the individual posts cited and make up your own mind.  And I would still ask you to answer the core question: Where will you spend your time?

Instructor-led teaching in a classroom is one approach that is used in both training and education. Classroom teaching methods have been developed over the centuries. Online instructor-led teaching is a more recent method used in training and education. However, training is not education and neither training nor education are learning.

There is evidence that people learn from formal training and education. Good training can help to acquire skills and knowledge. Good education can open one’s mind and help gain knowledge.

There is also strong evidence that people learn in informal and unstructured ways and some people will learn in spite of formal education.

If you’re in the teaching and training business, you should use the optimal tools and conditions for the circumstances. If you want to argue over the death of a tool-set, then go ahead.

If you’re in the human performance or organizational effectiveness business then you need a broader scope. For the most part, you shouldn’t concern yourself with the arguments of teachers and trainers, you just want people to perform their jobs, solve problems and find new opportunities. How best to support workplace learning depends on many variables:

  • Thinking of workplace learning as only applying what has been taught is extremely limiting.
  • Thinking of work performance as mostly dependent on training is also limiting.
  • Most limiting of all is too much concern over the delivery mechanism.