Search Results for: top tools

An interesting article I came across brings up an interesting issue: how do we do complex thinking?  Are some people just better at it?  The short answer appears to be ‘no’.  Instead, a couple of tools play a role, and I think it’s an interesting excursion.

The article says that our brains are limited in thinking about complex situations. Yet, experts can do this.  How? The article cites metaphors as the key, grounding our thinking in models that we’ve developed from our experiences. They draw upon George Lakoff’s work on metaphor (a core aspect of my grad school experience) to explain how our understanding advances.  At core, there’s a fundamental requirement that our knowledge builds upon previous knowledge, which ultimately is grounded in our physical activities.

My PhD thesis topic was thinking with analogy, which shares much with this model. The point being that we use familiar frameworks to make inferences in new areas. We map the familiar to the points in the new that match, and then we extrapolate from the familiar to explain things in the new. And using familiar models as explanatory frameworks are essentially the same process as metaphors. Metaphors tend to be more literal, with a shared point, while analogies go further, and share  structure. The latter is, I’ll suggest, more useful.

Note that the frameworks are built of conceptually-related causal relationships, e.g. models. Thus, when we want to communicate models, we can detail them, but using metaphors or analogies are short-cuts.  When we want someone to be able to understand, particularly to be able to use the reference as a tool to support  doing, we can use them to facilitate comprehension. We want to leverage, as much as possible, pre-existing knowledge.  And people aren’t necessarily great at coming up with analogies (research shows), but they’re good at using them.

Another short-cut that the article cites is diagrams.  Here, we’re making visible the relationships, supporting the understanding. Equations can get specific, but conceptual understanding is facilitated by seeing the connections.

The important outcome is that we all have our cognitive limitations to overcome, but we’ve also developed powerful tools to support these limitations. To the extent we understand how these tools support learning, we can use them to help achieve the outcomes we need.  We  can do complex thinking, with the right tools. Are you facilitating success by leveraging these tools?

I’ve argued before that the differences between well-designed and well-produced learning, and just well-produced learning, are subtle. And, in general, nuances matter. So, in my recent book, the section on misconceptions spent a lot of time unpacking some terms. The goal there was ensuring that the nuances were understood. And a recent event triggered even more reflection on this.

Learnnovators, a company I’ve done a couple of things with (the Deeper eLearning series, and the Workplace of the Future project), interviewed me once quite a while ago. I was impressed then with the depth of their background research and thoughtful questions. And they recently asked to interview me on the book. Of course, I agreed. And again they impressed me with the depths of their questions, and I realized in this case there was something specific going on.

In their questions, they were unpacking what common concerns would be about some of the topics.  The questions dug in to ways in which people might think that the recommendations are contrary to personal experience, and more.  There were very specifically looking for ways in which folks might think to reject the findings.  And that’s important. I believe I had addressed most of them in the book, but it was worth revisiting them.

And that’s the thing that I think is important about this for our practice. We can’t just do the surface treatment. If we just say: “ok we need some content, and then let’s write a knowledge test on it”, we’ve let down our stakeholders.  If we don’t know the cognitive properties of the media we use, don’t sweat the details about feedback on assessment, don’t align the practice to the needed performance, etc., we’re not doing our job!

And I don’t mean you have to get a Ph.D. in learning science, but you really do need to know what you’re doing. Or, at least, have good checklists and quick reference guides to ensure you’re on track. Ideally, you review your processes and tools for alignment to what’s known. And the tools themselves could have support. (Ok, to a limit, I’ve seen this done to the extent of handcuffs on design.)

Nuances matter,  if you care about the outcomes (and if you don’t, why bother? ;).  I’ve been working on both a checklist and on very specific changes that apply to various places in design processes that represent the major ways folks go wrong. These problems are relatively small, and easy to fix, and are designed to yield big improvements. But unless you know what they are, you’re unlikely to have the impact you intend.

Businesses are composed of core functions, and they optimize them to succeed. In areas like finance, operations, and information technology, they prioritize investments, and look for continual improvement. But, with the shift in the competitive landscape, there‘s a gap that’s being missed. And I‘m wondering if a focus on cognitive science needs to be foregrounded.

In the old days, most people were cogs in the machine. They weren‘t counted on to be thinking, but instead a few were thinking for the many. And those who could do so were selected on that basis. But that world is gone.

Increasingly, anything that can be automated should be automated.   The differentiators for organizations are no longer on the execution of the obvious, but instead the new advantage is the ability to outthink the competition. Innovation is the new watchword.   People are becoming the competitive advantage.

However, most organizations aren‘t working in alignment with this new reality. Despite mantras like ‘human capital management’ or ‘talent development’, too many practices are in play that are contrary to what‘s known about getting the best from people. Outdated views like putting information into the head, squelching discussion, and avoiding mistakes are rife. And the solutions we apply are simplistic.

Ok, so neuroscientist John Medina  says our understanding of the brain is ‘childlike‘.   Regardless, we have considerable empirical evidence and conceptual frameworks that give us excellent advice about things like distributed, situated, and social cognition. We know about our mistakes in reasoning, and approaches to avoid making mistakes. Yet we‘re not seeing these in practice!

What I‘m suggesting is a new focus.   A new area of expertise to complement technology, business nous, financial smarts, and more.   That area is cognitive expertise. Here I’m talking about someone with organizational responsibility, and authority, to work on aligning practices and processes with what‘s known about how we think, work, and learn. A colleague suggested that L&D might make more sense in operations than in HR, but this goes further. And, I suggest, is the natural culmination of that thought.

So I‘m calling for a Chief Cognitive Officer. Someone who‘s responsibility ranges from aligning tools (read: UI/UX) with how we work, through designing continual learning experiences, to leveraging collective intelligence to support innovation and informal learning.   Doing these effectively are all linked to an understanding of how our brains operate, and having it distributed isn‘t working.  The other problem is that not having it coordinated means it‘s idiosyncratic at best.

One problem is that there‘s too little of cognitive awareness anywhere in the organization.  Where does it belong?  The people closest are (or should be) the L&D (P&D) people.  If not, what’s their role going to be?  Someone needs to own this.

Digital transformation is needed, but to do so without understanding the other half of the equation is sort of like using AI on top of bad data; you still get bad outcomes.  It’s time to do better. It’s a radical reorg, but is it a necessary change?  Obviously, I think it is. What do you think?