Work

business & working

Automated and Outsourced

by

As a result of economic changes, some workers are getting left behind, reports the New York Times:

For the last two years, the weak economy has provided an opportunity for employers to do what they would have done anyway: dismiss millions of people — like file clerks, ticket agents and autoworkers — who were displaced by technological advances and international trade.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I don’t believe that it’s any longer a question of whether standardized work will be outsourced or automated, but when. How much time do we have to prepare people for the new revolution? Any scenario that I consider – peak oil, global warming; globalization; Asian dominance – still requires that the developed world’s workforce deals with more complexity and even chaos. We need to skill-up for emergent and novel practices and that means a completely different mindset toward work.

But our schooling and training systems are backward-looking systems, based on what has worked in the past, and don’t help to develop the new skills necessary for the networked workplace.

We cannot leave these people behind. As the need for creativity in the workplace increases, organizations must give  serious thought to what work needs to get done and how we can prepare people for it. As Gary Hamel described at the Spigit Customer Summit, traditional (industrial) employee traits of Intellect, Diligence & Obedience are becoming commodities (going to the lowest bidder). The networked, creative economy requires independent and interdependent workers (more like theatre productions) with the following traits that cannot be commoditized:

  • Initiative
  • Creativity
  • Passion

This brings into question the rationale for practices such as:

  • Mass training with standard performance objectives for everyone.
  • Predominantly full-time, salaried employment (few options for part-time work at the control of the worker).
  • Standard HR policies.
  • Banning access to online social networks at work.

 

Compliance of an industry

by

1. compliance — acting according to established and accepted standards.

Mandated training is a standard response by industry regulators when dealing with human performance issues. This is ‘compliance training’. The training industry (internal or external) then develops the training and as more compliance training gets loaded onto organizations, we have an excellent excuse to buy some technology systems to manage it.

The owners of compliance, whether authorities like government and regulatory bodies, professional bodies, or  internal legal  counsel, are stuck in a mindset that in order to get compliance you must have training.  They see it as the only way. To them it’s simply a way of keeping the chairman and CEO out of prison if something goes wrong.  If something REALLY goes wrong, the fact that someone had been through a training program and has obtained a tick in an LMS box just means the difference between a few years in jail.

That mindset also permeates the training industry. Too many people in the training department make the leap from a performance issue (lack of skills, abilities, knowledge; lack of access to appropriate data and resources; etc) directly to training as the only solution. This is the wrong approach and the most costly. Management plays into this, with statements like “We have a training problem” and no one challenges that statement. There is no such thing as a training problem.

"/

Here are some ‘training problems’ that are not solved through training:

  • Poor communications
  • Unclear expectations (such as policies & guidelines)
  • Inadequate resources
  • Unclear performance measures
  • Rewards and consequences are not directly linked to the desired performance

These barriers can be addressed without training. Only when there is a genuine lack of skills and knowledge, is training required [repeat as necessary]. Training should only be done in cases where the other barriers to performance have been addressed. A trained worker, without the right resources and with unclear expectations, will still not perform up to the desired standard. Would training have helped avoid BP’s problems on its oil rig? Not likely.

Examining existing compliance training to see if it could be replaced with performance support would be a start. Performance support is quite appropriate:

  • When performance is infrequent
  • When the situation is complex
  • When the consequence of errors is intolerable
  • When performance depends on a large body of information
  • When performance is dependent on knowledge or information that changes frequently
  • When performance can be improved through self-assessment
  • When there is a high turnover rate
  • When there is little time or money for training

2. compliance — the act of submitting; usually surrendering power to another.

So why doesn’t the industry raise a fuss over wasteful and ineffective training? Is the training industry exhibiting compliance à la définition #2? When regulators demand compliance training, where are the protests from ATD, CSTD or other professional associations? Would the training department be slashed without all that compliance stuff? Would you be able to justify the six figure price-tag of that learning management system without the sword of compliance over the CEO’s head?

If physicians were told they had to give treatments without a diagnosis would they remain compliant? Where are the learning professionals lobbying for change? Some folks, like Will Thalheimer are trying to push us to base our work on research, but for the most part the training industry is a bunch of sugar pill pushers. Don’t say we have no choice. We’re supposed to be the professionals. As workers and organizations become more connected, perhaps they’ll recognize the training scam for what it is. Until then, the industry will keep selling training; for all that ails you.

The consultant’s dilemma

by

The major downside of consulting is that when you are working you aren’t finding new work, and vice versa. As a consultant, you are only making money when you’re working. That means that all your vacations are unpaid. You may also have difficulty getting extended health benefits or a pension plan, but there are more options available today. Keeping a balance of potential work and contracted projects takes some time to master. It also helps if you have some cash in the bank when you start, as there will likely be slow times. Keep your costs low and don’t overestimate how much you will make. Also remember that many clients pay 30 days or more after being billed. Make sure you get some money up front. Freelance consulting does have its advantages: You set your own schedule, you can take advantage of opportunities as they arise, and you personally reap the profit of your work.

That was the conclusion to my 2007 article: So you want to be an e-learning consultant?

I recently wrote about 5 considerations on becoming an independent consultant:

  1. Have a clearly defined product or service that is simple to explain.
  2. Sincerely love doing that work.
  3. Be willing to give your all for your work and promoting it [it’s not a hobby].
  4. Have clear long-term objectives and align your daily work to them.
  5. Enjoy doing sales and business development [because you will be doing a lot of it].

Here’s my personal experience after 7 years in the business

My services are definitely not easy to explain to the average business person, though I’ve done several re-writes of my  consulting services. The sweet spot is to offer services that few others do but for which there is still a demand or need. In my case, I’m one of the few Canadian independent, web-focused workplace learning specialists around. Still, that doesn’t mean I’m worked off my feet.

I love what I do, especially constantly pushing the edge of my professional expertise. I firmly believe that we need better models, systems and practices to integrate learning into our daily work, hence my focus on PKM and social learning in the enterprise.

I usually work seven days a week, either writing, researching or doing project work. I take time off for exercise and other personal activities but my work is not a hobby, it’s a vocation.

My long term objective is to be recognized as an expert in the field of collaborative work & networked learning and become less dependent on project work, with more long-term retainer type engagements as a trusted advisor. I am a very long way away from that objective at this time. Freelancing is a slow-growth strategy.

I like business development and getting to know new clients. However, I am not good at direct sales. This post is as close as it gets. That is my major weakness and is one thing that I would make sure anybody considers before embarking in the profession. Sales drive everything.

After +1,500 posts and +4,500 comments on this blog since early 2004, I know that there are people who like what I write. I would ask my readers and past clients  for recommendations on any of these 5 points and also ask that if you think I’m providing a good service, please pass it on. We independents don’t have large marketing budgets. Our network is our sales & marketing channel.

Thanks;

HJ

A unified performer-facing environment

by

Clark Quinn describes the need:

What seems to me to be the need is to have a unified performer-facing environment.  It should provide access to courses when those are relevant, resources/job aids, and eCommunity tools too.  That’s what a full technology support environment should contain.  And it should be performer- and performance-centric, so I come in and find my tools ‘to hand’.  And I ‘get’ the need for compliance, and the role of courses.

Jane Hart shows a model that could work:

Collaboration model

Here it is the social and collaboration aspects that are the focus for the learning – not the content – the content is co-created by the learners [workers] – so that the learner [worker] fully participates and is active in the learning.

This model is used where a problem-based or inquiry-based learning approach is used, and here the tutor [co-worker] is an equal member of the learning group “the guide on the side” rather than the “sage on the stage”.

Time to Get on the Cluetrain

As much as we may think it’s all about learning, it’s not. In the 21st century workplace, getting things done, solving problems and being creative & innovative are the orders of the day.

Thesis #8: In both internetworked markets and among intranetworked employees, people are speaking to each other in a powerful new way.

Training professionals had it easy for the past century. Run the course and send them off to work. Now that we are all connected by networks, much of our work is becoming more transparent.

Thesis #12: There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.

There’s no hiding in the global village. That means you can longer head off to a classroom removed from the work and do something disconnected from the realities and needs of workers. They’ll flame you on the back-channel and the whole world will find out pretty quickly. Just accelerate this tendency each year with new arrivals in the workforce and watch what happens.

Thesis #13: What’s happening to markets is also happening among employees. A metaphysical construct called “The Company” is the only thing standing between the two.

If training departments don’t get integrated with the work, they will become irrelevant.

Thesis #20: Companies need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them.

Complexity links

by

I use Delicious to keep track of web resources and recently passed on, via Twitter, my social bookmarks tagged with complexity. Here are some of those bookmarks.

James Surowiecki’s three conditions on the use of the Wisdom of Crowds [something often overlooked], via Dave Snowden:

  1. independence of opinion between the individuals
  2. relevant diversity among the individuals
  3. decentralization of the decision-making process

A short explanation of the Cynefin framework (and video by Shawn Callahan), by Ton Zijlstra:

Over the years I’ve seen the number of issues companies and professionals are dealing with shift more and more to the complex realm. Because our internet and mobile communications connected world as a whole has shifted towards this complex domain more by increasing the connections between us and as a result the speed of change, the dynamics around us and the amount of information. A quantitative shift with massive qualitative impact. Complexity is where predictability is absent, and only in hindsight cause and effect are clear. It’s the messy bits, as Shawn says, where human interaction, culture, innovation, trust are at play. And it’s those same messy bits where increasingly organizations are able to distinguish themselves from others, or not.

On transforming to the enterprise of the future, by Art Murray at KM World:

Move from a posture of sense-and-respond to one of “co-creating.”

Stephan Haeckel’s Adaptive Enterprise brought us from make-and-sell to sense-and-respond. In today’s environment, even sense-and-respond may not be enough. Enabled by massive social networks with memberships numbering in the hundreds of millions, the cycle of listening to customers and filling their wants and needs is both rapid and continuous. You need to get into your customer’s mind, and let your customer into yours. The same goes for your suppliers, even your competitors.

Action: Trash the stupid customer surveys, along with the sales presentations. Have an ongoing conversation instead. Ask thought-provoking, open-ended questions and listen intently (the right way to do knowledge capture). Focus on needs and desired results, and find the most efficient and effective way to achieve them.

Added bonus: Do the same internally, from staff meetings to budget planning to performance reviews. Get knowledge flowing in all directions.

Rob Paterson, “ … we refuse to see the complex and work as if complexity was complicated or simple.”

It’s a simple message, really. But if you don’t get it, you’re headed for chaos.

Simple = easily knowable.

Complicated = not simple, but still knowable.

Complex = not fully knowable, but reasonably predictable.

Chaotic = neither knowable nor predictable.

Simple Rules, by Michael Dubakov [check out the simulations]:

Many complex systems are based on simple rules. A set of several simple rules leads to complex, intelligent behavior. While a set of complex rules often leads to a dumb and primitive behavior. There are many examples.

The Cynefin framework and (the complexity of ) classroom instruction, by Andrew Cerniglia:

Classroom instruction is complex but do we treat it as such? Is “sensing” a priority of teacher education? How would an instructor who waits for “patterns to emerge” be viewed by their supervisor? As laid back? Aloof? And does outcome-based education (unintentionally) result in educators treating complex situations as complicated, or worse yet, simple in nature?

The means of production

by

Scott Leslie and I agree on many things, so when he posted the following, I wanted to make sure I had not missed something in my own thinking:

With Canada’s GDP at 69% services and stock indexes like the S&P at over 80% intangible valuation, I would say that much of our economy is no longer based on physical capital. The means of production are knowledge, creativity and ingenuity. Also, tacit knowledge accounts for the most-valued work today and it cannot be codified, as explicit knowledge can. Knowledge cannot be separated from the knowledgeable person and even more importantly, knowledge can be increased through collaboration amongst knowledgeable people. Knowledgeable people are the means of production.

Does this mean that ‘we’ own the means of production? No, not yet and maybe not in the future; but perhaps yes. I am not a techno-utopian but I see great opportunities in a networked world where much is transparent and the barriers are low for one person to connect with many. This blog is an example. However, there are reactionary forces that are trying to put the genie back in the bottle, as Jaron Lanier describes at length in You are Not a Gadget:

One effect of the so-called free way of thinking is that it could eventually force anyone who wants to survive on the basis on mental activity (other than cloud tending) to enter into some sort of legal or political fortress – or become a pet of a wealthy patron — in order to be protected from the rapacious hive mind. What free really means is that artists, musicians, writers, and filmmakers will have to cloak themselves within stodgy institutions.

We forget what a wonder, what a breath of fresh air it has been to have creative people make their own way in the world of commerce instead of patronage. Patrons gave us Bach and Michelangelo, but it’s unlikely patrons would have given us Vladimir Nabokov, the Beatles, or Stanley Kubrick.

For example, Facebook and YouTube create nothing themselves except for the platform while members contribute the valuable content for free. Then these corporations reap the profits through advertising and the sale of aggregated data. Will this be the only future for knowledge workers; to contribute to the hive mind for free?

It is possible that this is our future, especially if net neutrality is lost. But I think that interconnected and active citizens will self-organize and counter this movement. For now, the financial systems are controlled by elites and hierarchies but for the first time in history, billions of people have a way around them. We just haven’t figured out how to create better systems — yet. We own the means of production, but we don’t know what to do with it.

TLt2010 Presentation on Net Work Learning

by

I am presenting at Tlt2010 in Saskatoon this morning. Here’s the overview:

The network era is blurring the lines between working, learning and playing. As we become more connected, our governing models, our business structures, and our ways to support learning are all getting more complex. Social learning is how knowledge is generated in networks – and networks are where many of us will be working. Net work means learning to work anew.

These are the finalized slides, revised this morning. [Re-posted with explanatory notes on 14 May 2010]

Net work learning with notes

I’ve really enjoyed the presentations by my co-presenters, Scott Leslie and David Wiley and of course their insights and comments had me making last-minute changes this morning.

Note: I’m told the video of this presentation will be available in about a week or so. I’ll pass it on via twitter and add the link here.

To be, or not to be a consultant

by

I had the pleasure of meeting Jean Gaudry through a mutual friend last week and the subject turned to the life of a freelance consultant. As an executive search specialist, Jean has met many executives who have considered going independent. This is his advice:

Voici le résumé des cinq critères que j’ai présentés un jour dans une conférence intitulée : » Pourquoi devenir ou ne pas devenir consultant » :
1.- Avoir un produit ou service clairement défini et facile à présenter.
2.- Aimer sincèrement travailler avec ce service ou produit.
3.- Se donner sans réserve pour faire la promotion et l’exécution de ce produit ou service.
4.- Avoir un but et un objectif précis pour savoir orienter notre travail au quotidien.
5.- Aimer et trouver stimulant le travail de développement des affaires et la promotion de notre service.

[my loose translation] Here are the five criteria that I presented at a conference entitled, “To be or not to be a consultant”:

  1. Have a clearly defined product or service that is simple to explain.
  2. Sincerely love doing that work.
  3. Be willing to give your all for your work and promoting it [it’s not a hobby].
  4. Have clear long-term objectives and align your daily work to them.
  5. Enjoy doing sales and business development [because you will be doing a lot of it].

I wrote an article, So you want to be an e-learning consultant? a couple of years ago and I would add Jean’s advice for anyone considering this road.

Formalized informal learning: a blend we don’t need

by

Telling people that we can “formalize informal learning” is a not so subtle way of saying, “it’s OK, you don’t have to make any fundamental changes to the way you’ve been been doing training & development for the past half century”.

I asked the question in February’s eCollab Blog Carnival, with tongue very close to my cheek, because I knew it would stimulate discussion on the role of informal learning in workplace performance. I never thought anyone would seriously adopt it, but on viewing Jay Cross’s slides yesterday, it seems many have.

Here is an excerpt from an interview I did with Jay on the subject:

When asked if we should try to formalize informal learning, Jay responded by saying that it’s the wrong question. It would be like asking if we should “informalize” formal training. A key understanding that Jay wants to get across to everyone in the workplace learning arena is that it’s not an either/or proposition, but rather how much informal and how much formal learning should we support and who is determining what’s to be done. All learning is a bit of both. His promotion of informal learning is not to replace formal training but to open up the possibilities of supporting the other 80% of learning that has been ignored for far too long.

Two core themes in supporting informal learning are control and trust. Managers and supervisors need to give up some control and organizations must learn to trust their people, says Jay. Embracing, encouraging and supporting informal learning is part of a greater workplace cultural change.

Aye, there’s the rub – our organizations actually need to change.

We need to change from this:

To this:

This kind of change is not just adding another “blend” to the training bar-mix. It is a fundamental change required to move from a command & control pyramid to a network. It means a very different training department, if it’s even called that any more, as well as a new framework for informal, social learning in the enterprise. The required role for supporting workers is connecting, communicating & collaborating.

Jim McGee summed up the difference in yesterday’s conversation on a world without KM, the “best argument for Social Networks over Knowledge Management is shift in perspective from static content to dynamic interaction“.

It’s the same for training. Informal learning is dynamic and social (on the fly, just-in-time, self-directed, group-directed, serendipitous) while formal training is static (designed, directed, evaluated). What about a world without ISD (instructional systems design)? The best argument favouring informal learning over formal training is a shift in perspective from static content to dynamic interaction. It also means a loss of control for training departments everywhere. Tough.

Don’t try to formalize informal learning. Just help people do their jobs.

Here’s some final advice from @mneff during yesterday’s KM conversation: “Focus on connection & collaboration. The management of assets is mostly obsolete by the time it is stored.”