Search Results for: top tools

Eileen Clegg from the Future of Talent Institute (and colleague, we co-wrote the Extremophiles chapter for  Creating a Learning Culture)  pinged me the other day and asked about my thoughts on the intersection of:

1. The new role of managers in the results-oriented work environment (ROWE)
2. The  topic of  blending the Talent and Learning functions in the workplace.

She’d been excited about Cognitive Apprenticeship years ago after hearing me talk about it, and wondered if there was a role to play. I see it as two things: orgs need optimal execution just as the cost of entry: that’s where apprenticeship fits in, but they also need continual innovation. That needs collaboration, and we are still exploring that, though there are some really clear components.  Though one of the nice things about cognitive apprenticeship is that it naturally incorporates collaborative learning, and can develop that as it develops understanding of the domain.

I admit I’m a little worried about ROWE from the point of view that Dan Pink picks out in  Drive, about how a maniacal focus on results could lead to people doing anything necessary to achieve results. It’s got to be a little more about taking mutual ownership (producer and whoever is ‘setting’ the result) that the result is meeting the org need in a holistic (even ‘wise’ way).

What has to kick in here is a shared belief in a vision/mission that you can get behind, individuals equipped to solve problems collaboratively (what I call big L learning: research, design, experimentation, etc), and tools to hand for working together. You apprentice both in tasks *and* learning, basically, until you’re an expert in your domain are defining what’s new in conjunction with your collaborators.

Expressed by my colleague was a concern that there was a conflict between”(a) supporting someone’s learning and (b) being invested in the success of their work product”. And I would think that the management is NOT directly invested in the product, only in the producer.  Helping them be the best they can be and all that.  If they’re not producing good output, they either need to develop the person or replace them, which indirectly affects the product.  However, this isn’t new for mentors as well: they want their charges to do well, but the most they can do is influence the performer to the best of their ability.

As a component, learners need to develop their PKM/PLN (personal knowledge management, personal learning network). And 21st century skills aren’t taken for granted but identified and developed. In addition, the performance ecosystem, aka workscape – not only formal learning but also performance support, informal learning, and social learning – is the responsibility of the integrated talent/learning functions (which absolutely should be blended).  And ‘management’ may move more toward mentorship, or be a partner between someone strategizing across tasks and a talent development function in the organization.

As an extension to my ‘slow learning’ model, I think that the distinction between learning and performing from the point of view of support needs to go away. We can and should be concerned with the current performance and the long-term development of the learner at the same time.  Thus, the long term picture is of ongoing apprenticeship towards mutually negotiated and understood goals, both work and personal development.

In the Internet Time Alliance chat, yesterday, we were discussing the apparently difficultly some are seeming to have with the necessary mind shifts to comprehend the benefits of social media for organizational learning.   It seems to me that there are 3 roles and each has an associated shift.

‘Management’

The old thinking was that the thinking is done from the top and percolates down.   Whatever skills are needed are brought in or identified and the learning unit develops it.   There’s a direct relationship between the specific skills and the impact on the business.

The new thinking is that the goals are identified and made clear and then the employees are empowered to achieve the goals in the ways that seem best.   They can provide input into the goals, and adapt the skillsets as needed.

The is important because of speed, productivity, and outcomes.   First, the world is moving faster, and there is no longer time to plan, prepare and execute. It has also been demonstrated that employees are more productive when they’ve bought into the plan and have responsibility.   It’s also the case that bringing more brains ‘online’ to help achieve goals ultimately makes better decisions.

The necessary components are that workers need a context where they can contribute safely and are empowered to work.

The Learning Unit

The old thinking was that the learning unit was about ‘training’.   That the learning unit responded to identified skill needs, created training, delivered it, and then measured whether employees thought it was worthwhile.   The focus was on courses.

The new thinking is that the learning unit is about ensuring that the necessary complement of skills and resources are available.   That the responsibility is not just for formal learning, but performance support, and social interchange.   That the role is facilitation, not delivery.

This is important because the workforce needs to be focused on the task, with the tools to hand, but the nature of the important work is changing. It’s no longer about doing something known, but about dealing with the unknown.   Really, any time you’re problem-solving, research, design, creating new products and services, by definition you don’t have the answer and the skills necessary are meta-skills: how to problem-solve, get information, trial solutions, evaluate the outcomes.   It’s about working together as well as independently.

The necessary components are to define and track the new skills, to provide an infrastructure where learners can take responsibility, and to track outcomes and look for opportunities to improve the environment, whether the performer skills, the tools, or the resources.   Yes, there are still courses, but they’re only one component of a bigger picture, and they take a format that is conducive to these new skills: they’re active and exploratory.

The workforce

The old thinking was that they did what they were told, until they could do it without being told.   The strategic thinking was done elsewhere, and they took a defined role.

The new thinking is that workers are told what the goals are, and have to figure out how to accomplish it, but not just alone. It’s a collaborative effort where there are resources   and tools, and we contribute to the outcome while reviewing the work for opportunities to improve.   Workers contribute at both the execution and the innovation level.   They have to take responsibility.

This is important because, as stated above, what with automation, the work that really matters is shifting, and organizations that try to continue to sequester the important thinking to small sections of the organization will lose out to those that can muster larger brain trusts to the work.

The necessary components are leadership, culture, and infrastructure. Workers have to comprehend the goals, believe in the culture, and have the tools – individual and collective – to accomplish the goals.

Hopefully, the contrasts are clear, as are the opportunities.   It’s the shift from hierarchy to wirearchy.   What am I missing?

I realize, with recent releases like Jane Bozarth’s Social Media for Trainers and Marcia Conner & Tony Bingham’s The New Learning (both recommended, BTW, reviews coming soon, with standard disclaimer that I’m mentioned in both) that the message is finally getting out about new ways to facilitate not just formal learning and execution, but informal learning and innovation.   But there’s more needed. It takes new thinking at the top.   You need to think about how the enterprise is thinking.

So what do you want for your enterprise thinking?   Shows like The Office make us laugh because we identify with it. We know the officious types, the clueless, the apathetic, the malevolent, the greedy, the ones just marking time.   They’re definitely not thinking about how to make the organization more successful, they’re thinking more about what will make their life most enjoyable, and there’s little or no alignment.   That’s not what you want, I’ll suggest, but is what’s seen, in various degrees, in most places.

Instead, you (should) want folks who know what the goal is, are working towards it individually and collectively.   That are continually looking for opportunities to improve the products, processes, and themselves.   This is where organizations will derive competitive advantage.

How do you get there?   It takes coordinating several things, including the dimensions of the learning organization: leadership, culture, and practices), and the information infrastructure for working well together.   You need to have the tools, you need to understand the behaviors required, you need to know that working this way is valued, and you need to be informed as to what the goals are.

We want to be empowering people with the models that help understand the shifts that are happening and how to cope, so they’re part of the movement.   They   need to understand things like networks and complexity, so that they’re equipped to contribute at the next level.

It’s time to stop thinking patchwork (“we’ll just put in the tools”, or “we’ll move in the direction of more open leadership”), and starting thinking systemically and strategically.   Identify and acknowledge where you are now, and figure out a path to get where you need to be.   It’s not likely to be easy, but it’s clearly time to get started.