I was thinking about the ways in which organizations can support performance. That is, we can and should be aligning with how we think, work, and learn. So  we can provide tools to support us in the moment, we can provide tools to help us work together, and we can develop people all slowly over time.  In short, I was thinking about  cognitive alignment, and I was going to write about it, but it turns out I already have!  However, I also realized that there was an opportunity to extend that to cultural alignment, and I think that’s important as well.

So,  one of the things we can do to optimize outcomes  is to give people  performance support.  In particular, we can provide  tools to address gaps that emerge from our cognitive architecture.  We can also provide policies about things we’re supposed to do.  And that’s all good.  However, some of that might not be necessary under the right circumstances.

I was thinking about the specific case of acting in ways that are consonant with the values of the organization. For instance, in a well-known upscale department store chain, the staff have the leeway to spend on the order of $1K to address any emerging customer problem.  I reckon the store  figures that’s the future worth of a happy customer. And that’s acting in alignment with the culture of the organization.

The point I want to make is that by having an explicit culture in the organization, you might not have to provide performance support. If the desired approach is understood, it  can be generated from understanding the organization’s value.  If you know what’s expected, you can perform in alignment without needing external clues and cues.

There are clear  benefits from a learning organization in terms of innovation and employee engagement, but what about the other side? I suggest  that the right culture can also benefit the ‘optimal execution’ side.  In short, there’s little reason to do aught but begin a move to a more enlightened culture.  At least, that’s what seems to me to be the case. How about you?

The other thing that I was involved in  at Online Educa in Berlin was a session on The Flexible Worker.  Three of us presented, each addressing one particular topic.  One presentation was  on collaborating to produce an elearning course on sleeping better, with the presenter’s firm demonstrating expertise in elearning, while the other firm had the subject matter expertise on sleep health. A second presentation was  on providing tools to trainers to devolve content development locally, addressing a problem with centrally-developed content.  My presentation was on the gaps between what L&D does and how our brains work, and the implications. And, per our design, issues emerged.

The format was interesting: our presentations were roughly 10 minutes each.  And we were using a tool (sli.do) to collect and rank questions. Then we had the audience work at their tables (in the round) to come up with their answers to the top questions, which we then collected and the panelists riffed on the outcomes.  We got through three questions as a group, and I thought the outcomes were quite interesting. In short, as a rapporteur at the closing business session, I suggested  that the topic ended up being about flexible work, not flexible working.

The top  question that emerged had to do with how to support effective search (after I expounded on problem with the notion that it all had to be in the head).  The sourced answers included crowd-sourcing the tags for finding objects, using a controlled vocabulary, and auto-analyzing the content to determine tags.  I suggest a hybrid solution, in general. The interesting thing here was the audience picking up on the need to go beyond courses and start looking at resources.

The next question was how to move from a training to a performance culture.  And it was another exciting development to hear them thinking this way. The solutions offered included coaching, supporting the importance of self-learning (meta-learning, yay!), and working both top-down  and bottom-up. I also suggested that measuring was a likely catalyst that could begin to draw attention to outcomes  (just as  I reckon  competencies are the lever  in higher-ed).

The third question was about ensuring quality in a localized learning environment (e.g. user-generated content).  The concern was that the knowledge of learning design wouldn’t necessarily be widespread.  Suggestions included making the content editable for collaborative improvements, or using rankings, and scaffolding of improvement through the community. Here too, a focus on learning itself could assist.

What’s encouraging  to me is that each of these questions was really about moving to a transformative viewpoint.  The audience was clearly thinking ‘beyond the course’.  They were focusing on supporting performers in learning, and resources, and leveraging the community, all activities consonant with the revolution.

An interesting aside came in the closing session. Several folks were mentioning a need for change, and an audience member asked “why?”  He was a consultant, and his clients already seemed to be moving forward. I suggested he was seeing the best, and that many folks were not there (mentioning the Towards Maturity data as well as the problems I identified in the beginning of the Revolution book.  And it’s a problem that too many people don’t yet see the missed opportunities and don’t feel the pain (and are frankly not looking).

So, there are opportunities to start taking small steps in the direction of taking on a bigger perspective and making the role of L&D more strategic.  It first takes an awareness of the problems (my old line: “L&D isn’t doing near what it could and should, and what it  is doing it is doing badly, other than that things are fine” :), and then a strategy to move forward. The strategy depends on where the organization is to begin with, but there are systematic principles to guide progress.  That’s what I  do, after all!  It’s nice to see awareness growing. So, are you ready to start taking some positive steps?

I’m a fan of Harold Jarche’s Seek-Sense-Share (SSS) model for Personal Knowledge Mastery (PKM). I was also reading about self-regulated learning, and a proposed model for that. And I realized they could be related. Naturally, I created a diagram.

To start with, Harold’s model is oriented around coping with the information flow as a component of learning. He starts with seek, which could be either from a pre-arranged feed or the result of a specific search.  Then, the information is processed, by either or both of representation or active experimentation. Finally, information is shared, either broadcast through some form of post, or sent to a specific target. Note that the interpretations  within the SSS boxes, e.g. feed and post, are mine, as I haven’t checked them with him.

Now, the model of self-regulated learning I was reading about talks about personal goals, learning actions, and evaluation.  It seems to me that learning goals sit outside of SSS, the SSS serves as the actions, and then evaluation comes after the action.  Specifically, the goals inform the choice of feeds and any search, as well as the context for interpretation. Similarly, the results of personal sensing and the feedback from sharing inform the evaluation. And of course, the evaluation feeds new goals.

Two additional things. First, the encompassing notion is that this is under continual review.  That is you’re taking time to think about how you set goals, act (SSS), and evaluate.  Also, let me note that I think this makes sense both at the individual and organizational level. That is, organizations need to be explicit about their knowledge, experiments, and learnings.

The outside loop is likely to be an implicit part of PKM as well, but as indicated I haven’t had a chance to discuss it with Harold.  However, it’s useful for me to represent it this way as an experiment (see what I did there?). The question is, does this make sense for you?