Three terms, expertise, competency, and content, are used interchangeably with knowledge, especially in the context of workplace learning and training. However, they may have multiple meanings depending on the theoretical constructs of the research. Therefore, it is important to discuss and define each of these terms as they relate to knowledge.
Content Knowledge
The traditional form of knowledge often is referred to as content knowledge. This is knowledge that can be possessed (Nonaka, 1994), as “what is known, or the corpus of knowledge that does not belong to any particular individual or context (Yakhlef, 2010, p.39).” Knowledge of content can be measured, identified (especially lack of content knowledge), and/or recorded and stored for use by those who would not ordinarily have access to the knowledge. As a result, content knowledge can also be abstracted for use by those that have never required a particular content knowledge, nor have had access to an environment or situation that required that content (Yakhlef, 2010). For example, a teacher in a rural area without access to internet service may not have access or use of learning management system (LMS) software. He or she may learn about the software, how to use it by using reading a textbook, or even receive some hands on training away from his or her classroom. However, he or she would be prepared on how to use the software should his or her school install the software, and be able to formulate ways in which to use the software in his or her teaching should the opportunity arise, without ever having to use the LMS.
Because of the ease in measuring content knowledge, most training and professional education focus on transferring content knowledge at the individual, group, and organizational level (Cook & Yanow, 1995; Yakhlef, 2002; Yakhlef, 2010). However, with the advent of the internet, for an individual to possess content knowledge is not as important as for an individual to be able to access and know how to use content knowledge. In other words, individuals need to have skills and experience to use content knowledge efficiently and effectively. This is then known as competence (Herling, 2000; Yaklief, 2010). Content knowledge without competency means an individual may have difficulty performing his or her work or changing his or her behavior as the situation requires (Herling, 2000; Laufer & Glick, 1998).
Competency
Herling (2000) defines competence as “an ability to do something satisfactory-not necessarily outstandingly or even well, but rather to a minimum level of acceptable performance (p.9).” At the organizational level, the competency model of management is based on the identifiable skill sets needed to efficiently perform required work and the overall capacity among workers. Organizations need to identify skill sets, gaps in the skill sets, potential problems due to the gaps, and ways to manage/train so that the organization can perform efficiently (Herling, 2000; Sanghi, 2007). Training to develop competency may include interdepartamental cross-training, interaction with experts to develop performance expectations, guided practice, and the opportunity to engage in dialectic reflection (i.e. negotiating meaning with others) (Goodwin, 1994; Herling, 2000; Laufer & Glick, 1998; Sanghi, 2007;Yaklief, 2010). Content knowledge plays a part in competency training in that trainees must first either have the content knowledge or access to content knowledge in order to develop the skills that lead to perforance which demonstrates competency.
Expertise
Much has been written about organizational expertise, especially in the context of differences between the expert and novice. One common theme is that expertise requires a depth of understanding based on experience. An expert not only knows what (content knowledge) and how (competency), but also why and when to use knowledge (Allee, 1997). This requires a certain level of tacit knowledge about the domain and/or environment in which the application of knowledge is required (Sternberg & Horvath, 1999). Expertise requires the translation of content knowledge into practice, applying knowledge to the environment, problem, and/or situation, modifying content through discursive processes (Laufer & Glick, 1998;Yahlief, 2010).
Although researchers may not agree upon the order, many differentiate generalized expertise and specialized expertise. Specialized expertise is knowledge that comes from experience and learning within a specific domain, such as aerospace or endocrinology within the engineering and medical professions. Through focused interaction with the environment, professional artifacts, and other professionals within a community of practice, in-depth specialized understanding is created (Herling, 2000; Sternberg & Horvath, 1999; Yaklief, 2010). This specialized understanding often is then converted into content that can be disseminated back into the community of practice or to outsiders (who may then be interested in joining the specialized community of practice). While an individual may have a specialization, expertise requires knowledge within the domain that the community recognizes as important. Without the social acceptance of the specialization, there is no expertise.
Disseminating Content, Competency, and Expertise in the Workplace
Generalized expertise can either be developed through application of a specialized expertise across domains (Herling, 2000) or through a deep understanding of the domain as a whole, within multiple specializations within that domain linked together to create general expertise (Allee, 1997; Herling, 2000). Herling defines expertise as “displayed behavior within a specialized domain and/or related domain in the form of consistently demonstrated actions of an individual that are both optimally efficient in their execution and effective in their results (p.20).” He bases this definition on three componants required for expertise: knowledge, experience, and problem solving. In this case, knowledge is equivilent to content knowledge.
For this paper, we will differentiate expertise from competence and content knowledge through the depth of knowledge and understanding. Content knowledge can be defined as the information and explicit knowledge that can be stored, accessed, possessed and translated/abstracted outside of the situation/environment in which it was created. Content knowledge is static and is minimally impacted through social interaction except through the social valuation of the content knowledge. In other words, if the content knowledge is not identified as being valuable it may be lost, and if it has perceived exceptional value, it may be controled. Competency can be defined as the minimum skills and understanding of processes needed to effiently perform tasks within a given environment or situation. This requires tacit knowledge to conform to the situational and environmental requirements that impact performance. Expertise can be defined as a depth of understanding through experience, content knowledge, skills, and discoursive interaction with multiple settings, artifacts, and others. Expertise is dynamic in that knowledge and understanding is constantly changing as deeper meaning is developed through interaction.
A person who is perceived as having expertise and the ability to apply that expertise to varying, yet specific situations is an expert. Herling contends that an individual first specializes, using specialized content knowledge. Eventually, the competency in the specialized field will be added to an individual’s overall general knowledge moving an individual from competent to an expert in a specialized area to a generalized expert. However, as discussed above, some individuals may first have competency in a domain, then develop a general knowledge about that domain learning about different componants of the domain, then develop various specialties within the domain to understand the socio-cognitive aspects of the domain. As a result, new content knowledge is developed to give a deeper understanding of the domain.
Knowledge can then be desiminated through a group, department, or organization. Content knowledge is accessed by an individual, group, department, or even organization (in the form of training materials). Through interaction (both social and cognitive) with the environment and the content competency is developed. The longer that one performs competently in a dynamic environment (such as the workplace) the more expertise is developed. This expertise is then captured through artifacts such as finished products, reports, discussion, curriculum, and training which then can be desiminated to novices, in which the process begins again. Knowledge creation, therefore, is a dynamic process, rather than the static form that content knowledge represents (Allee, 1999; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Herling, 2000; Sanghi, 2007; Yaklief, 2010)
References:
Allee, V. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Akgun, A., Lynn, G., & Byrne, J. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 839-868.
Cook, S., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing . Oranizational Science, 381-400.
Cook, S., & Yanow, D. (1995). Culture and Organizational Learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 373-390.
Herling, R. (2000). Operational definition of expertise and competence. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8-21.
Laufer, E., & Glick, J. (1998). Expert and novice differences in cognition and activity: A practical work activity. In Y. Engeström, & D. Middleton, Cognition and communication at work (pp. 177-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 14-37.
Sanghi, S. (2007). The handbook of competency mapping: Understanding, designing and implementing competency models in organizations, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sternberg, R. & Horvath, J., eds. (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice: researcher and practitioner perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.
Yaklief, A. (2010). The three facets of knowledge: A critique of practice based learning theory. Research Policy, 39-46.
Showing posts with label experts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label experts. Show all posts
Monday, August 8, 2011
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The line between beginner and expert and all that other grey area
One of the reasons I haven't written as much on my blog is that my son was preparing to take his driving test (for the second time). An editorial in Parade magazine says it all about how stressful this is.
Yesterday, as my son drove about 40 minutes away to the driving test site, I could actually sit pretty relaxed without feeling the constant adrenaline rush that curses through my body as he makes a mistake such as missing the red light or stop sign as he drives through the intersection, or leaning down to see what was brushing his leg while forgetting to steer (almost ending us in a ditch) or forgetting to slow down as he made the turn. In fact, I felt pretty confident that he would pass the test this time, which he did.
However, as I drove off from the site and he began to talk about all of his driving plans, I suddenly got that adrenaline rush of fear. Yes, now he has his license and he can drive by himself. But who will help him when he meets a situation he has never faced before. Will he panic, as he has tended to do while learning to drive? Now I will be scared for at least another year every time he goes out by himself.
"You will not be driving by yourself except for a few places that I know you are comfortable with," I announced. He rolled his eyes and reminded me he now had his license and in 12 days, when he turns 17, his senior license.
Moving into the intermediate grey zone
As we negotiated his driving privileges, he commented, "You know, mom, I know I still have a lot to learn. I consider myself an intermediate and I still will need to drive with you in the winter until I learn how to drive in the winter or at night. But you have to let me drive by myself, because I'm not a beginner any more."
This got me to thinking about when it is safe to allow someone to do a dangerous task or work that might have serious results without any direct supervision. I think, for example about drawing blood, creating a pharmaceutical IV, cutting lunch meat, or conducting a biotech experiment. In all of these cases, workers eventually will be expected to be on their own with some minimal supervision (periodic check-ins, paperwork, performance review). However, in each of these professions there is a tipping point when the task becomes second nature and the person can handle any unexpected occurrence that is thrown their way. Up until that point, however, the risk of danger is the greatest.
Why? Because the worker will not necessarily look to others for help, feeling that they should know how to do something. In my experience, an expert is more apt to ask for help if he or she feels there might be dangerous results, in part because they recognize the dangerous environment. However, intermediates don't know enough to see the potential danger in all of their actions. Rarely do you hear about the rookie policeman being injured or killed, because he or she has backup to take over, usually a very experienced police officer who has had multiple experiences to draw on. It is the officer on the job 3-7 years who will be injured, because they know enough about the situation to be part of it, but not enough to anticipate all the potential problems.
So how do we support these intermediate workers to help keep them safe or from creating a dangerous situation for others or the organization?
The following are some ideas based on research, based on my own experience:
1. Have multi-experienced teams that intermediate level knowledge workers can access for help and advice.
2. Create an atmosphere of disclosure so workers of intermediate level skills don't feel afraid to tell others when they are overwhelmed with a situation.
3. Create protocols for workers to access in problem situations. Make sure the workers know how to handle any situation using problem solving skills (rather than having a check list of "what to dos", none of which might fit the situation).
This is just a start of the list. I'm wondering how others handle these intermediate levels that can be quite terrifying for a manager AND a parent!
Yesterday, as my son drove about 40 minutes away to the driving test site, I could actually sit pretty relaxed without feeling the constant adrenaline rush that curses through my body as he makes a mistake such as missing the red light or stop sign as he drives through the intersection, or leaning down to see what was brushing his leg while forgetting to steer (almost ending us in a ditch) or forgetting to slow down as he made the turn. In fact, I felt pretty confident that he would pass the test this time, which he did.
However, as I drove off from the site and he began to talk about all of his driving plans, I suddenly got that adrenaline rush of fear. Yes, now he has his license and he can drive by himself. But who will help him when he meets a situation he has never faced before. Will he panic, as he has tended to do while learning to drive? Now I will be scared for at least another year every time he goes out by himself.
"You will not be driving by yourself except for a few places that I know you are comfortable with," I announced. He rolled his eyes and reminded me he now had his license and in 12 days, when he turns 17, his senior license.
Moving into the intermediate grey zone
As we negotiated his driving privileges, he commented, "You know, mom, I know I still have a lot to learn. I consider myself an intermediate and I still will need to drive with you in the winter until I learn how to drive in the winter or at night. But you have to let me drive by myself, because I'm not a beginner any more."
This got me to thinking about when it is safe to allow someone to do a dangerous task or work that might have serious results without any direct supervision. I think, for example about drawing blood, creating a pharmaceutical IV, cutting lunch meat, or conducting a biotech experiment. In all of these cases, workers eventually will be expected to be on their own with some minimal supervision (periodic check-ins, paperwork, performance review). However, in each of these professions there is a tipping point when the task becomes second nature and the person can handle any unexpected occurrence that is thrown their way. Up until that point, however, the risk of danger is the greatest.
Why? Because the worker will not necessarily look to others for help, feeling that they should know how to do something. In my experience, an expert is more apt to ask for help if he or she feels there might be dangerous results, in part because they recognize the dangerous environment. However, intermediates don't know enough to see the potential danger in all of their actions. Rarely do you hear about the rookie policeman being injured or killed, because he or she has backup to take over, usually a very experienced police officer who has had multiple experiences to draw on. It is the officer on the job 3-7 years who will be injured, because they know enough about the situation to be part of it, but not enough to anticipate all the potential problems.
So how do we support these intermediate workers to help keep them safe or from creating a dangerous situation for others or the organization?
The following are some ideas based on research, based on my own experience:
1. Have multi-experienced teams that intermediate level knowledge workers can access for help and advice.
2. Create an atmosphere of disclosure so workers of intermediate level skills don't feel afraid to tell others when they are overwhelmed with a situation.
3. Create protocols for workers to access in problem situations. Make sure the workers know how to handle any situation using problem solving skills (rather than having a check list of "what to dos", none of which might fit the situation).
This is just a start of the list. I'm wondering how others handle these intermediate levels that can be quite terrifying for a manager AND a parent!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Defining expertise: more questions than answers
In a recent conversation (via blog) with Sahana Chattopadhyay,
the question of expertise came up. Sahana said:
This got me thinking about the whole idea of expertise, something that I am now working on for my dissertation. Sahana later says:
This leads me to two questions that I currently am working on:
How do people define "expertise"?
How do people "use" expertise?
I still am in the preliminary stages of analyzing this question for a group collaborative writing project. However, Sahana's comment reminded me of the question I often struggle with in foreign language, when is someone "fluent"? Just as Sahana pointed out in her comment about people who are passionate about a topic never feeling satisfied that they know enough about the topic, a person who does not grow up speaking a foreign language or who learned the language through "informal means" (in other words, through their parents not at school) often feel they are not "fluent" enough.
While I can read French as well as I can English, I can converse in French and Spanish, even thinking in those languages and dreaming in them when I was immersed in the culture, I still wonder what it would be like to be "native like" and not make mistakes when I speak the language. Ironically, my colleagues used to have me proofread their Spanish (they were native speakers) because I would catch their grammatical mistakes. Yet, I have trouble telling people that I am "fluent" in French and Spanish. I am shy to post comments on the Spanish or French blogs that I read for fear that I will sound like a complete idiot.
I think the same is true for any topic that we are interested in that we did not grow up with. For example, I would say I was an expert skier (although do to a severe skiing accident 20 years ago, I can no longer do physically). I started when I was 7 years old, and was an excellent skier. My husband learned when he was in his late teens. Neither of us think of him as an "expert" (although he has never had a serious injury as I have).
So, now I wonder about the nature of expertise and what makes an "expert". Is passion necessary to be an expert? Who defines expertise: the person who is the expert or those that need the expertise? What happens when there is a difference between a person's perception of their expertise and those that are in need of the expertise? This could be that the person who is the "expert" may not conceive of themselves as an expert or those who may conceive of themselves as an "expert" may not have the expertise the others are looking for (so in the outsiders minds that person really is not an "expert"). Who defines expertise? Who defines expert? What are the parameters of expertise and expert and how are they defined? Does someone have to be an expert to teach? Is it necessary to have a passion for the subject to be an expert? What is the relationship between the designation of "expert" and "knowing how to do something"?
the question of expertise came up. Sahana said:
I also believe that when we gain sufficient command over a subject, it is because we are passionate about it, have actively sought all information related to it...This kind of "passion" cannot be taught. Each person has to go through the pain and pleasure of learning to arrive at that stage. While we can impart information, we cannot make anyone an expert."
This got me thinking about the whole idea of expertise, something that I am now working on for my dissertation. Sahana later says:
You've set me thinking again...and the more I think, I feel that someone who is passionate about a subject will NEVER think/feel they are experts. They will always want to know more, will know that there is no defined end to "knowing"...there will never be a point when anyone can know it all...then, what do we mean by expertise?
This leads me to two questions that I currently am working on:
How do people define "expertise"?
How do people "use" expertise?
I still am in the preliminary stages of analyzing this question for a group collaborative writing project. However, Sahana's comment reminded me of the question I often struggle with in foreign language, when is someone "fluent"? Just as Sahana pointed out in her comment about people who are passionate about a topic never feeling satisfied that they know enough about the topic, a person who does not grow up speaking a foreign language or who learned the language through "informal means" (in other words, through their parents not at school) often feel they are not "fluent" enough.
While I can read French as well as I can English, I can converse in French and Spanish, even thinking in those languages and dreaming in them when I was immersed in the culture, I still wonder what it would be like to be "native like" and not make mistakes when I speak the language. Ironically, my colleagues used to have me proofread their Spanish (they were native speakers) because I would catch their grammatical mistakes. Yet, I have trouble telling people that I am "fluent" in French and Spanish. I am shy to post comments on the Spanish or French blogs that I read for fear that I will sound like a complete idiot.
I think the same is true for any topic that we are interested in that we did not grow up with. For example, I would say I was an expert skier (although do to a severe skiing accident 20 years ago, I can no longer do physically). I started when I was 7 years old, and was an excellent skier. My husband learned when he was in his late teens. Neither of us think of him as an "expert" (although he has never had a serious injury as I have).
So, now I wonder about the nature of expertise and what makes an "expert". Is passion necessary to be an expert? Who defines expertise: the person who is the expert or those that need the expertise? What happens when there is a difference between a person's perception of their expertise and those that are in need of the expertise? This could be that the person who is the "expert" may not conceive of themselves as an expert or those who may conceive of themselves as an "expert" may not have the expertise the others are looking for (so in the outsiders minds that person really is not an "expert"). Who defines expertise? Who defines expert? What are the parameters of expertise and expert and how are they defined? Does someone have to be an expert to teach? Is it necessary to have a passion for the subject to be an expert? What is the relationship between the designation of "expert" and "knowing how to do something"?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Valuating expertise
Ken Allen had an interesting post recently about expertise . I have become very interested in expertise as its definition within a group seems to be a key element in collaborative writing and knowledge creation.
Specifically, how "expertise" is defined varies among group members based on their professional development, the politics of the organization and department, and their own epistemology (often a result of schooling, culture, and reference groups).
The problem is that defining expertise is often implicit. As a result, when interacting with others, decision makers will impose their own definition of expertise if they don't first interact with those who will be impacted by their decision. If a decision maker's definition of expertise is different than the stakeholders, there will be discontent and the appearance that the decision maker is inept (after all, s/he should not make "stupid" decisions based on "false" data).
This is especially true when there are multi-generations. Some of the older expertise may be undervalued by younger stakeholders and some of the younger expertise may be undervalued by older stakeholders. Rather than merging the expertise, taking out the best for the situation, one or the other will be discounted.
This recently happened to me (and it is not the first time). As an expert on instructional technology, with a deep level of experience in multiple contexts, you would think that a school would reach out to have my input on instructional technology and its instructional design. Instead, my daughter worked on a distance learning component of her school (high school level) yesterday, experiencing a number of factors that are common mistakes made by first time distance learning instructional design. As I mentioned before, this is not the first school to discount my expertise because I am a parent (you wouldn't understand, you only have college level experience, you're a parent...not a teacher).
I am disappointed because I expected more from the school as it is an alternative school. However, upon reflection I realized that there are different definitions of expertise working here and that admitting a lack of expertise is a difficult as redefining "expertise" and "knowledge". There needs to be tools, especially in the current "objective" standardized educational system the US has been moving to, to allow for new ideas, new ways of doing things, but also the maintenance of old ideas and ways of doing things that may still work in different situations. One advantage of the current technology is that there is a more permanent record of not only new ideas, but old ideas as well. I need only peruse my blog as I develop my syllabus for next semester and see what worked, what didn't, and what situations I might need to deal with next semester.
I am especially concerned with the current recession, as the 50+ workers are being laid off, that some of the time tested ways of doing business will be thrown out (the good with the bad) and the same mistakes will be made (and covered up). Let's hope that the amount of expertise that is out there will be used rather than wasted.
Specifically, how "expertise" is defined varies among group members based on their professional development, the politics of the organization and department, and their own epistemology (often a result of schooling, culture, and reference groups).
The problem is that defining expertise is often implicit. As a result, when interacting with others, decision makers will impose their own definition of expertise if they don't first interact with those who will be impacted by their decision. If a decision maker's definition of expertise is different than the stakeholders, there will be discontent and the appearance that the decision maker is inept (after all, s/he should not make "stupid" decisions based on "false" data).
This is especially true when there are multi-generations. Some of the older expertise may be undervalued by younger stakeholders and some of the younger expertise may be undervalued by older stakeholders. Rather than merging the expertise, taking out the best for the situation, one or the other will be discounted.
This recently happened to me (and it is not the first time). As an expert on instructional technology, with a deep level of experience in multiple contexts, you would think that a school would reach out to have my input on instructional technology and its instructional design. Instead, my daughter worked on a distance learning component of her school (high school level) yesterday, experiencing a number of factors that are common mistakes made by first time distance learning instructional design. As I mentioned before, this is not the first school to discount my expertise because I am a parent (you wouldn't understand, you only have college level experience, you're a parent...not a teacher).
I am disappointed because I expected more from the school as it is an alternative school. However, upon reflection I realized that there are different definitions of expertise working here and that admitting a lack of expertise is a difficult as redefining "expertise" and "knowledge". There needs to be tools, especially in the current "objective" standardized educational system the US has been moving to, to allow for new ideas, new ways of doing things, but also the maintenance of old ideas and ways of doing things that may still work in different situations. One advantage of the current technology is that there is a more permanent record of not only new ideas, but old ideas as well. I need only peruse my blog as I develop my syllabus for next semester and see what worked, what didn't, and what situations I might need to deal with next semester.
I am especially concerned with the current recession, as the 50+ workers are being laid off, that some of the time tested ways of doing business will be thrown out (the good with the bad) and the same mistakes will be made (and covered up). Let's hope that the amount of expertise that is out there will be used rather than wasted.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Expertise
As I have been working on my dissertation, one of the "emerging" ideas (using grounded theory) has to do with expertise and how it is accessed within an organization. I have identified three "expertise" concepts that effect distributed teams (teams that are not located in the same place or department): identifying expertise, lack of expertise, and no expertise.
Identifying expertise
In identifying expertise, distributed teams may find an expert internal or external to the group or identifying the communal expertise. In other words, individuals may not hold the expertise, but the group together may possess expertise for their work by combining human capital and resources.
The factors that go into identifying expertise, however, may include the willingness of individuals to share their expertise, having an expertise that is needed or recognized by individuals, the group and/or the organization, or defining or identifying expertise that is important within the team or organization's power structure. For example, someone might have an expertise that is not considered relevant by decision makers. As a result this expertise is either ignored or a person with this expertise will not share it because it is not politically advantageous.
Withholding expertise effects teams and how they work. Often the withholding of expertise is dependent on the level of trust that team members have within their group, but also within a department or the organization as a whole.
Lack of expertise
Lack of expertise differs from no expertise in that there is some knowledge, but perhaps it is not relevant for the situation, it is distributed among group members so no one person has the expertise (each individual lacks expertise) or the expertise cannot be accessed as a group (perhaps it rests within a department that hoards the expertise or it is not recognized within the power structure of the organization).
There are three options when a group lacks expertise. They can either go outside to access an expert, they can bring in a new team member with the expertise they need, or they can train or develop the expertise within their group. The choice they make depends on scheduling, resources, the power structure of the organization and where the team fits, and goals. A forth option is to deal with lack of expertise the best they can, making up for the lack in other areas of the project where there is a high level of expertise.
No expertise
More often than not, no expertise will be met with a disruption in the group. Like the lack of expertise, no expertise can result in accessing outside consultants, putting a project on hold until new team members with the expertise are brought into the group, or training one or more of the group members in that expertise.
Of course, it is rare that there is no expertise. Often there is the expertise within the group, but that expertise is overlooked because of organizational politics or withheld by group members because of the organizational power structure. An individual may also not recognize their level of expertise, so be unwilling to share their limited expertise for fear of failure with the group or organization (thus creating a lower level of cognitive trust within the group).
The "expertise grid" or the "social grid for knowledge"
What I am working on now is how expertise is accessed within an organization and/or distributed group. How do groups identify expertise that they need to accomplish their work? How do they maximize the pathways so there is not a bottle neck to expertise in a timely manner? How do groups manage the need of expertise?
I look at it as similar to how power companies use a grid to route power through its structures as demand ebs and flows or how companies develop structures for communication (communication grid) during emergency situations.
Identifying expertise
In identifying expertise, distributed teams may find an expert internal or external to the group or identifying the communal expertise. In other words, individuals may not hold the expertise, but the group together may possess expertise for their work by combining human capital and resources.
The factors that go into identifying expertise, however, may include the willingness of individuals to share their expertise, having an expertise that is needed or recognized by individuals, the group and/or the organization, or defining or identifying expertise that is important within the team or organization's power structure. For example, someone might have an expertise that is not considered relevant by decision makers. As a result this expertise is either ignored or a person with this expertise will not share it because it is not politically advantageous.
Withholding expertise effects teams and how they work. Often the withholding of expertise is dependent on the level of trust that team members have within their group, but also within a department or the organization as a whole.
Lack of expertise
Lack of expertise differs from no expertise in that there is some knowledge, but perhaps it is not relevant for the situation, it is distributed among group members so no one person has the expertise (each individual lacks expertise) or the expertise cannot be accessed as a group (perhaps it rests within a department that hoards the expertise or it is not recognized within the power structure of the organization).
There are three options when a group lacks expertise. They can either go outside to access an expert, they can bring in a new team member with the expertise they need, or they can train or develop the expertise within their group. The choice they make depends on scheduling, resources, the power structure of the organization and where the team fits, and goals. A forth option is to deal with lack of expertise the best they can, making up for the lack in other areas of the project where there is a high level of expertise.
No expertise
More often than not, no expertise will be met with a disruption in the group. Like the lack of expertise, no expertise can result in accessing outside consultants, putting a project on hold until new team members with the expertise are brought into the group, or training one or more of the group members in that expertise.
Of course, it is rare that there is no expertise. Often there is the expertise within the group, but that expertise is overlooked because of organizational politics or withheld by group members because of the organizational power structure. An individual may also not recognize their level of expertise, so be unwilling to share their limited expertise for fear of failure with the group or organization (thus creating a lower level of cognitive trust within the group).
The "expertise grid" or the "social grid for knowledge"
What I am working on now is how expertise is accessed within an organization and/or distributed group. How do groups identify expertise that they need to accomplish their work? How do they maximize the pathways so there is not a bottle neck to expertise in a timely manner? How do groups manage the need of expertise?
I look at it as similar to how power companies use a grid to route power through its structures as demand ebs and flows or how companies develop structures for communication (communication grid) during emergency situations.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Do we want a world of outliers?
There has been much discussion about the new book out analyzing how highly successful people have achieved that success. Let me begin by clarifying that I have not read the book so my comments are in reaction to others interpretation of the book. But here is my reaction to some of the posts others have written.
Michelle Martin
Michelle asked the question as to whether we should be changing the learning environment to help support "budding" outliers. In fact, I am a bit concerned with jumping on the outliers bandwagon. My question, as I read her post was, would I want one of these outliers as my boss or in my class? Aren't they outliers because they are outside of the system? I guess, then this also addresses her question of environment, shouldn't we be fixing the system if there are so many outliers that can't work within the system, rather than trying to develop more outliers? Finally, (as I did not read the book, I don't know if it is addressed) what about the outliers who are unsuccessful?
My concern is that our country and even globally, many countries, are developing a duel system of those "in" the system, and those "outside of the system". As we push more and more people outside of the system, we are loosing our middle class and core of society that will bring us back to reality when the outliers want to take us into dangerous territory. I did a paper a while back on the psychology of the entrepreneur, and we found that they had a much greater propensity for risk taking and acceptance of failure. Often entrepreneurs fail, but are able to overcome that failure. There was overwhelming evidence that entrepreneurs did have a certain psychological profile. But what about those in marginal communities that don't have that optimistic outlook? And how do those that are born into an outlier community that is UNSUCCESSFUL overcome those barriers to be "successful" in life.
This brings me to another thought. Who has determined what "success" is? Over the Christmas holidays, my kids and I watched the show, "Secret Millionaire." What struck us (and many of the millionaires) was that there were very successful people who lived in very poor areas. These people were part of the community, contributing to society, but on very limited means. One women in particular, started a stable in the Watts neighborhood of LA. She was able to maintain this stable, helping to keep teenagers off the street and out of the gangs. Was not this success? Is this woman not an outlier for her community? However, on paper, she would be considered an "average" person or marginally successful because she did not own a company or make millions of dollars (which I think was the point of the show).
Britt Watwood
Britt brings up the question of practice. He points out how allowing for people to practice will allow them to be successful in what they are trying to learn. However, he does not bring up the problems of practicing just one thing over and over. As Ken Allen points out, will practice alone allow one to be an "expert" or rather just someone who is accomplished in a skill? I wonder if the book addresses the politics of sport. Sometimes, those with a natural aptitude might have difficulty accomplishing their goals because they are not allowed the time or opportunity to practice. My children's own experience with sports has taught them how to handle the politics of "success" or "expertise".
I worry that in concentrating on just one skill, there are other skills being lost. I see many student athletes who are lacking in some of the more basic skills of empathy, or even communication. What about the universal man like Divinci? If he only concentrated on painting, do you think he would have been as successful? I have had students that become obsessed with one aspect of my course. They become "expert" at it, but miss the more important context in which this skill is needed. For example, I have had students that spend hours on their powerpoints, trying different things, putting in links, etc... It is a masterpiece, but is not necessary for a professional presentation. This tunnel vision is advantageous when society is willing to accept the idea, but can lead to disaster when a person's skill is not really needed (is it really necessary to be an "expert" at dungeon's and dragons?). This is where the politics of success come in.
Ken Allen<
Ken wrote:
This is one message that I took from Outliers, that a successful society has to be built on collaboration for the common good, not just for the privileged or the elite.
I was glad to see that this was the message of this book (as Michelle also spoke similarly). However, I can't help but think of "super successful" people like Jake Walsh who was successful on the backs of others. I keep thinking that in order for society to be successful, we need to start redefining success. One of the problems with our current economy is that the super rich became rich by pushing the marginal and the middle class into a lower standard of living. It seems that we should be striving for a definition of "success" in which wealth is shared, professions that "do good" are compensated (such as nurses, social workers, teachers, community workers, development workers) and society is encouraged to look at our world as a connected ecosystem in which the individual actions of one person has an impact (positive or negative) on others who may not be visible.
Michelle Martin
Michelle asked the question as to whether we should be changing the learning environment to help support "budding" outliers. In fact, I am a bit concerned with jumping on the outliers bandwagon. My question, as I read her post was, would I want one of these outliers as my boss or in my class? Aren't they outliers because they are outside of the system? I guess, then this also addresses her question of environment, shouldn't we be fixing the system if there are so many outliers that can't work within the system, rather than trying to develop more outliers? Finally, (as I did not read the book, I don't know if it is addressed) what about the outliers who are unsuccessful?
My concern is that our country and even globally, many countries, are developing a duel system of those "in" the system, and those "outside of the system". As we push more and more people outside of the system, we are loosing our middle class and core of society that will bring us back to reality when the outliers want to take us into dangerous territory. I did a paper a while back on the psychology of the entrepreneur, and we found that they had a much greater propensity for risk taking and acceptance of failure. Often entrepreneurs fail, but are able to overcome that failure. There was overwhelming evidence that entrepreneurs did have a certain psychological profile. But what about those in marginal communities that don't have that optimistic outlook? And how do those that are born into an outlier community that is UNSUCCESSFUL overcome those barriers to be "successful" in life.
This brings me to another thought. Who has determined what "success" is? Over the Christmas holidays, my kids and I watched the show, "Secret Millionaire." What struck us (and many of the millionaires) was that there were very successful people who lived in very poor areas. These people were part of the community, contributing to society, but on very limited means. One women in particular, started a stable in the Watts neighborhood of LA. She was able to maintain this stable, helping to keep teenagers off the street and out of the gangs. Was not this success? Is this woman not an outlier for her community? However, on paper, she would be considered an "average" person or marginally successful because she did not own a company or make millions of dollars (which I think was the point of the show).
Britt Watwood
Britt brings up the question of practice. He points out how allowing for people to practice will allow them to be successful in what they are trying to learn. However, he does not bring up the problems of practicing just one thing over and over. As Ken Allen points out, will practice alone allow one to be an "expert" or rather just someone who is accomplished in a skill? I wonder if the book addresses the politics of sport. Sometimes, those with a natural aptitude might have difficulty accomplishing their goals because they are not allowed the time or opportunity to practice. My children's own experience with sports has taught them how to handle the politics of "success" or "expertise".
I worry that in concentrating on just one skill, there are other skills being lost. I see many student athletes who are lacking in some of the more basic skills of empathy, or even communication. What about the universal man like Divinci? If he only concentrated on painting, do you think he would have been as successful? I have had students that become obsessed with one aspect of my course. They become "expert" at it, but miss the more important context in which this skill is needed. For example, I have had students that spend hours on their powerpoints, trying different things, putting in links, etc... It is a masterpiece, but is not necessary for a professional presentation. This tunnel vision is advantageous when society is willing to accept the idea, but can lead to disaster when a person's skill is not really needed (is it really necessary to be an "expert" at dungeon's and dragons?). This is where the politics of success come in.
Ken Allen<
Ken wrote:
This is one message that I took from Outliers, that a successful society has to be built on collaboration for the common good, not just for the privileged or the elite.
I was glad to see that this was the message of this book (as Michelle also spoke similarly). However, I can't help but think of "super successful" people like Jake Walsh who was successful on the backs of others. I keep thinking that in order for society to be successful, we need to start redefining success. One of the problems with our current economy is that the super rich became rich by pushing the marginal and the middle class into a lower standard of living. It seems that we should be striving for a definition of "success" in which wealth is shared, professions that "do good" are compensated (such as nurses, social workers, teachers, community workers, development workers) and society is encouraged to look at our world as a connected ecosystem in which the individual actions of one person has an impact (positive or negative) on others who may not be visible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)