Organizational learning theories

My dissertation not only looks at distributed group collaboration, but also how that effects organizational learning. The following is my discussion on organizational learning, including how I differentiate knowledge management from organizational learning.


Organizational Learning Theories

There are two prevailing schools of learning theory at the organizational level. The first is based on the idea of organizational knowledge management in which knowledge is codified into information which the organization and individuals can access, monitor, acquire, and store (Allee, 1997; Contu & Willmott, 2003; Raelin, 2008). Similar to Kolb’s (1980) apprehensive and comprehensive knowledge, this school of organizational learning theorizes that the process of codification creates knowledge which can be stored and accessed for use when needed by those within the organization (Raelin; Yakhlef, 2002). Organizational knowledge then becomes the aggregate of individuals’ knowledge and experience (Allee, 1997; Cook & Yanow, 1995). As Raelin describes DiBella, Nevis, and Gould’s three-step approach to organizational learning from a knowledge management perspective, knowledge is acquired, shared, and utilized by members of the organization. Rouwette and Vennix (2008) describe the information processing approach used within knowledge management which includes attention to identification of problems, encoding information so group members create shared meaning, store information perceived as valuable which creates organizational memory, create informational retrieval processes, create workspace processes that support organizational culture, and create communication structures that support sense-making and feedback from individuals and groups within the organization.

Knowledge management based theories of organizational learning begins with codified knowledge that can be retrieved and stored from members of the organization (Cook & Brown, 1999, Nonaka, 1994). For knowledge to be useful, therefore, individuals need to be able to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Knowledge that cannot be codified would not be useful to the organization as knowledge would not be able to be retrieved and stored for use by others within the organization. As a result, organizational processes need to be structured so that tacit information can be transformed into codified knowledge thus resulting in organizational learning. Using Anderson’s ACT cognitive model, Nonaka explains, “declarative knowledge has to be transformed into procedural knowledge in order for cognitive skills to develop…it can be argued that transformation is bidirectional (p. 18).” In other words, codified knowledge needs to be in a form that fits into organizational procedures, but also organizational procedures can produce knowledge that then needs to be codified for organizational use.

My working definition of knowledge management is the access, monitoring, acquisition, and storage of organizational information which is codified into a common format in order for those within the organization to participate in sense-making, group decision making and problem solving, and the creation of shared mental models at the group, departmental, and organizational level. While organizational learning may need to access some forms of knowledge management, organizational learning is not synonymous with knowledge management. In addition, not all organizational learning requires knowledge management, although knowledge management might augment organizational learning.

The second school of organizational learning theory is based on organizational members’ social and cultural interaction with the environment, often through the establishment of communities of practice within the workplace (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Cook & Brown, 1999; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Nonaka, 1994). Those within this school of organizational learning believe that learning within the organization is not based on individuals possessing needed knowledge, but rather learning is a construction of knowledge within the organizational environment. Cook and Yanow go one step further by placing learning into the organizational culture which establishes patterns of activity that create knowledge. They define organizational learning as, “acquiring, sustaining or changing of intersubjective meaning and/or the artifactual vehicles of their expression and transmission, through the collective actions of the group (p.280).” In other words, it is the interaction with the environment, stimulated through organizational practices such as collaborative writing, project management, and both formal and informal group discussions that create organizational learning opportunities. These work activities, both cognitive and social, create both tacit and explicit knowledge through social interaction and the organization of work patterns (Cook & Brown, 1999).

Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne (2003) further define the organizational learning process as “ a social process mediated by artifacts. This view thus emphasizes the importance of culture, communication, and group activities in organizations (p. 843).” While the first model presented above (knowledge management) assumes that knowledge is created and possessed at the individual level and is then dispersed collectively at the group and organizational level, this second model (constructed knowledge) theorizes that there are different types of knowledge created at each level (individual, group, and organizational). Organizational learning, therefore, is influenced by the social environment, organizational culture, and work patterns that are the result of political influences within the organization’s powerstructure (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Nonaka, 1994). As a result, not all organizational knowledge can be culled and transferred to others within the organization (often through training) because the knowledge is imbedded in organizational practices and culture.

Both Cook (1995, 1999) and Nonaka (1994) concluded that there is implicit or tacit knowledge that is created within the confines of organizational boundaries. Looking at work patterns in various industries, they both concluded that knowledge is created through perspective taking, meaning making, and dialog necessitated when there was dissonance or differences in understanding within the work patterns. Perspective, meaning, and the form that communication takes are dictated by culture. In this study, we will use Cook & Yanow’s definition of culture:

We define culture in application to organizations as a set of values, beliefs, and meanings, together with the artifacts of their expression and transmission (such as myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals and ritual objects), that are created. Inherited, shared, and transmitted within one group of people (p. 388).”

Therefore, those who adhere to the second theory of organizational learning would conclude that organizational learning is bounded by organizational values, beliefs, and meaning, and transmitted and stored using organizational forms, formats, and processes that create the myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals, and ritual objects that become organizational artifacts representing the organizational culture. As a result, knowledge that is embedded within the organizational culture, would change when used outside of the environment in which it was created. Knowledge, therefore, can be dynamic as its affordance is dynamic (Cook & Brown, 1999).

The second theory of organizational learning has broader implications as knowledge could be created and transmitted both formally and informally. In the knowledge management perspective of organizational learning, knowledge is viewed as something that can be stagnate and captured for others outside of the culture and environment in which it was created. In the constructed perspective of organizational learning, knowledge may be converted from implicit to explicit formats, but any knowledge captured would need to be modified (or recreated) for a specific environment. As such, the process of knowledge creation could be learned, but the content would change depending on the environment.

Organizational learning is distinguishable from knowledge management. Organizational learning may not result in operational or behavioral changes at the individual, group, or even organizational level, and as such may be difficult to measure. In fact, Cook & Yanow (1995) give examples in which organizational learning may make subgroups or individuals less productive. Rather, organizational learning is the interaction that results in deeper knowledge and understanding at the organizational level. For this study, I will use Cook & Yanow’s definition of organizational learning:

The acquiring, sustaining or changing of intersubjective meanings and/or the artifactual vehicles of their expression and transmission, through the collective actions of the group.

References:


Akgun, A., Lynn, G., & Byrne, J. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 56 (7), 839-868.

Allee, V. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organizational Science (2003) 14 (3), 283-296.

Cook, S. & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4), 381-400.

Cook, S & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (4), 373-390.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Nonaka, I (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Raelin, J. (2008). Work-Based Learning. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.

The politics of workplace collaboration

I have finished another section of my dissertation. This section deals with the politics that affect workplace collaboration, especially the development of workplace knowledge and access to workplace resources during collaborative writing processes.

Knowledge Embedded within the Project Power Structure

While professional, group, and departmental expertise and knowledge appears to be the result of embedded practices that group members may not be aware of, the knowledge embedded with the power structures of the project appeared to be more explicit, tangible, and intentional. The power structure consists of expectations by those who have organizational power, those within the group who have expert power (as opposed to authority), and stakeholders within the profession and the fancying agency and the perceived authority of the official hierarchy within the group and departments. Some of the study participants, such as Robert and Olivia, perceived power as equal to the hierarchy laid out by official organizational charts and job titles. Others, such as Sam and Paul, perceived those in power as those that were able to influence work, decisions, and group members based on access to resources, expertise, and organizational placement. This second perception of power is referred to as expert power, in which a person (or people) have power that is acknowledged by peers and those in positions of authority by virtue of being able to contribute, not solely because they have been granted power by those in positions of authority (Engleberg & Wynn, 2007; Galanes & Adams, 2007).

In the study, individual members felt empowered or powerless dependent upon their perceptions of how their ideas, contributions, and expertise are valued. The greater empowered they felt, the greater sense of ownership they felt towards their work. For example, Helen discussed how they rewrote the curriculum after the curriculum that was handed them to use for stand-up training was deemed insufficient. “But all of this, in my opinion, has been driven by the stand up curriculum that we’ve been writing that has changed this innumerable times…[later]…Like I said, we were looking at the old curriculum, what their outline was, what their content was, how this field delivers services, you know. And we totally restructured it.” Notice how she distinguishes between the two curriculums: she uses the pronoun of their when referring to the curriculum that was originally imposed on the group and uses the pronoun we when referring to the revised curriculum. This implies a greater level of ownership that they were permitted to exercise by developing their own (the stand up training department in the project group) curriculum.

On the other hand, formats, work processes, and visions imposed on the group or individual group members from the authorities within the perceived power structure often resulted in a distancing from the work and a lack of personal or group ownership of the product. An example of this was the quarterly report. Helen’s description of her process for the writing the quarterly report was similar to the other group members:
It has the same format every quarter. I mean it’s…it’s…you know, there is a…[pause]…outline that… that’s followed and it’s a report on each segment of…the project. Classroom training, technical assistance, elearning progress. The video people get reported in on the IT stuff. It’s…I mean, I’ll be honest with you. I contribute my part and I’ve never read anyb…I’ve never read a quarterly report. (Helen, interview 2).

There was a certain amount of apathy towards the quarterly report in which each group member wrote a contribution, but Robert was the owner of the final report. Many of the group members, like Helen, never read the final version. As Helen implies, the format was imposed on the group members from the sponsor (through an outline of required information in the project contract) and the organizational hierarchy. The hierarchy imposed the report format through a series of approvals required before the final report was sent to the sponsor.

One common problem with the collaborative process that the group had was that the work did not always align with the expectations of those that had authority within the power structure at various levels in the organization and project. This happened on the individual, group, departmental, organizational and professional levels. One way conflict was resolved was for those who perceived themselves as powerless in a given workplace circumstance to distance themselves from their work, giving ownership to those that they perceived as having authority. They also withheld their expertise, tacit knowledge, skills, and identifiable knowledge that they did perceived those within the power structure did not value. This was what members of the elearning department did after the new Project Director took over.

Originally, the content objects were designed to be stand alone related lessons. Project members from the elearning department worked closely with those in the stand-up training department to create a shared vision of the content objects. However, there was a different project vision between the group and the organizational hierarchy. This resulted in some members leaving the organization (thus withholding their expertise from the organization), while the remaining members simply coded the content rather than adding creative elements and other expertise on online learning to the finished product. In analyzing the supporting project documents, documents created after the new Project Director took over were more uniform between departments than those created before the new Project Director arrived.

If, however, the group members had a greater sense of ownership towards their work, they were more likely to circumvent or ignore the preferences of those in authority. This is what happened in the planning stages of the Top Ten/ Subway document. The project group were using basecamp to allow access to the document’s various drafts and solicit feedback. The Project Director approved a draft and ordered the group to discontinue further discussion on the document. However, the project group continued discussions using an alternative space within basecamp in order to circumvent the notice of the Project Director. This document had value for the group, so the group continued to develop it. The document had such value, in fact, that numerous group members claimed ownership of the final subway map and its content.

From an ethnomethodological perspective, there was a reciprocal relationship between the group and those outside of the organization, especially the funding agency, the trainees, and the profession. The power structure, in fact, was perceived differently by individual group members at different stages of the project, for different project tasks, different work environments, and different levels of access to resources. In other words, the perceived power structure was situated and dynamic. Those perceived as having power over the group and the project were solicited for feedback and approval for activities that impacted the group’s work processes, formats and products. This feedback was then used to create group work norms which could impact the group, the departments, or even the organization. If the feedback from those within the perceived power structure was ignored, group members feared that resources would be withheld and ownership may be taken away. While there may not be explicit threats or repercussions, group members would react to the potential threat they perceived from those in positions of authorities in the power structure.

For example, Ronda spoke about trying to access resources for video production, which those in authority did not value. They would use the excuse that there was no money for video, and yet video was cheaper than other resources they would recommend.

In this case, Ronda believed that those with authority within the power structure did not want to use video, so they would withhold resources to create video. Paul, also spoke of the effect that the Project Director’s potential feedback and approval had on his workplace writing process:
I’m, like, well, how irritated is the Director going to be? Will seeing these….you know, which to me, I mean certainly I have put a lot of time and effort into…but, you know, I see them as rough draft kinds of things. And usually you want the…the, you know, the top leadership person who is looking at these things to have just final say and you really want to have, um, really high quality products go to them before…You know, really have things really worked on strongly before they go to basically, you know, like an executive level person for final approval. (Paul, interview 1).

Those with authority within the power structure used funding, access to resources (including interdepartmental expertise), training, standards, formats, and communication tools (basecamp, website, word processing templates) to maintain approved organizational culture, hierarchy, and relationships that created the power structure. Throughout the study, the hierarchy of the power structure shifted from the group to the stand-up training department and from the external clients and healthcare profession to the funding agency and organization. As a result, knowledge and expertise that was valued shifted resulting in group members constantly trying to identify their place within the power structure. As the importance of their knowledge and expertise was repositioned, their perceived ownership of the project was also repositioned. This was especially evident within the elearning department in which they perceived their expertise to be increasingly undervalued by the organizational hierarchy. They therefore felt less and less ownership for the final products that the elearning department was creating for the project.

While those in positions of authority used resources to control the work processes and enforce the use of power structure formats, others in the group were able to improve their place within the power structure by knowing how to access resources, develop a network of expertise, and disseminate or deliver knowledge that was perceived as valuable within a network of knowledge.

As Paul explains it, expertise is held outside of the group and group members. Accessing the knowledge that the experts have means the group and its members needed to understand where that knowledge might be, what form the knowledge might take, how the network can be developed and accessed, the key players to accessing the network, and how to overcome barriers to creating and accessing networks within and outside of the project power structure. The development of these knowledge networks may be dependent upon an understanding of the political nature of the power structure, social networking skills, cultural (organizational, professional, and departmental cultures) awareness, and the ability to link ideas, information and resources across a social system or network.

There were two approaches study participants used to access knowledge networks within the power structure:

1. Identify valued information within the power structure and present that knowledge for use by those in authority. In this strategy, information would be complied, structured, and sequenced using a format those within the power structure expected. In presenting the information using the power structure’s format, members supported the type of knowledge and expertise that the power structure valued, thus reinforcing the perceived value of the knowledge and expertise for those who had legitimate power. Information was often unfiltered and analysis was conducted by those perceived to have power. This strategy used knowledge that took an identifiable form such as reports, design plans, meeting minutes, and written feedback.

2. Filter, analyze, and highlight information to present a point of view that may or may not be aligned with the power structure. This information then would be used to try to change culture (organizational, departmental, professional), create a new mental model, develop shared cognition, change the project vision or processes, or realign some aspect(s) of the project perception. This strategy often used more tacit and less identifiable knowledge, relying on social and knowledge networks.
The first strategy was often used when there was a product in which the group or a group member did not feel a strong sense of ownership, the group or group member felt powerless within the power structure, and/or there was a group or group member perception of alignment of project goals and vision(s) with those who posed authority within the power structure.

Olivia, Paul, and Robert used this strategy. Olivia was influenced by her supervisor who she perceived had authority over her work. She often commented on how it was not her place to make decisions on her work, but rather her supervisor’s, especially after her department was newly absorbed into the training organization. Robert perceived that he was part of the power structure within the organization and as such, it was necessary for him to maintain the formats and processes that he and others he perceived as having authority developed. Paul’s work was often influenced by feedback from those he identified as having legitimate authority with the group, organization, and profession. Using the power structure as a framework, he developed a network of social contacts and sources of information that he could access when those he perceived as having authority needed to access knowledge they deemed as valuable. Paul himself tried to maintain a neutral perception of the information, expertise and resources he had access to within his knowledge network, doing very little filtering. Instead, he would use different highlighting standards dependent upon his analysis of what those within the power structure valued as knowledge for a given situation. In other words, he would find information and expertise that would support the power structure’s view point, ignoring information and expertise that might refute the goals and vision of those with perceived power.

The second strategy was often used by those who felt a strong sense of agency or ownership over their work and/or perceived there was a misalignment of goals, vision, or work processes between themselves, the group, or those within the power structure. The use of this strategy had the potential of creating conflict. Helen and Ronda often used this approach. They would filter or withhold information or work processes to convince those within the power structure towards a certain action, decision, or approach.

Distributed knowledge in the workplace

I'm still working on this idea, but both Michael Hanley and Karyn Romeis have blogged about knowledge recently so I decided to post what I currently am grappling with. There are still a lot of questions to answer.

Three types of knowledge

In analyzing the data, knowledge could be placed into three categories: tangible representation of knowledge which could be found in policies, forms, formats, curriculum, degrees or credentials, records, and other artifacts at the individual, group, departmental, organizational, and/or professional level; procedural and tacit knowledge, which would include an understanding of work processes and the knowledge created as a result of those processes; and spatial knowledge, which was created through the linking of ideas, social relationships, cognitive interaction, and/or cultural interaction. Each type of knowledge was manifested, accessed, created, and valued differently at the individual, group, and organizational level.

Spatial knowledge is the most valuable for knowledge based organizations. Knowledge can be part of the network internal to the group, external to the group, within the profession, internal to the organization and external to the organization.

However, spatial knowledge is difficult to quantify, control, and capture. Spatial knowledge is created through creative practices (writing, design, problem solving) rather than through the imposition of formats or processes. The imposition of formats helps to create organizational boundaries and impose organizational expectations that may lead to a change culture. But there will be no cultural change if the individuals do not perceive ownership to a document, work artifact or product, or process. In other words, they will confom to the imposed format, process, and/or culture, but they will not claim ownership to it.

This creates a tension between values imposed through authority and personal values. As the AIM model theorizes (Skitka, L., 2003), a group member has three choices: 1) live with the imposed values while maintaining personal values, try to change imposed values, or leave the environment (in the case of this study, quit) in order to maintain individual or group values. In this study, a fourth option developed, create a parallel structure so both individual/group values are maintained, while fulfilling the requirements of the imposed culture.

Implications

1) If there is a difference in epistemology which leads to a breakdown in the group knowledge creation process, it might help to use a strategy in which acceptable content rather than knowledge is defined and negotiated at the individual, group, and organizational level. (What are the other components of “knowledge” which might need to be negotiated initially or will affect the collaborative writing process? Start the collaborative writing process with a common “content”.)

2)This brings up questions as to the role of “know-how” in the group collaborative process. If it is considered an individual attribute, can a group have “know-how”? Is there such a thing as collective “know-how”? Would it be developed or used in the same way as individual know how? Is this why knowledge management is unable to capture group implicit knowledge? Is the continuation of the communication a way to develop collective know-how which is important to the group and not to the power structure? Because it is more difficult to measure, is it possible that collective know-how is in fact knowledge that is not important to those in power or within a group, but is important to the individual?

3) Who owns the knowledge? This is especially important in a distributed group in which knowledge is culled from multiple sources (profession, personal experience, the group, the department, the organization, and other stackholders). What if no one takes ownership? What happens to the work process, the end product, group dynamics, organizational culture? This can be seen in corporations where everyone, yet no one owns the knowledge.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21.

Skitka, L. (2003). Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 286-297.

Is it the train or the tracks that are important

Harold Jarche had an interesting post about a metaphor used in the book Revolutionary Wealth. In it the authors outline a metaphor using the speed of the train as an indication of readiness for technological change.

However, I did not like this metaphor. I feel it is the tracks (which includes the structure and the paths laid out for the trains to go on) which makes entities ready or not for change. Some organizations, such as the government, might have the newest technology available, but are restricted in how they can use it. I see the train as the technology itself. Some older trains can do very well if there is a well kept track, while even the most advanced engines must slow down for poorly maintained and planned tracks.

There is portion of the train ride from Albany, NY to NY City were trains have to come to the slowest crawl imaginable because the track cannot sustain the train. There is a delay in Washington DC as engines from the south (or north) must change to fit the difference in track size between the south and north. Trains from the mid-west to the east coast are always late due to the complex structure and poor condition of the rails around the Buffalo area. Trains must feed into this one high traffic area where there is always rail repair going on.

So with that in mind, I developed the follow metaphor using the tracks, rather than the train. I have copied it from the comment section on Harold's blog:

I can’t say I really like that metaphor. It assumes that Business is the only fast train with all other support services as behind the times.

I think a better metaphor would be the “tracks”. Big business has the fastest tracks maintained and built right to their door. As a result, they have the fastest track to progress.

Small business must try to deal with their track being just a bit out of reach, so they have a fast train to a certain point, but then must be creative in getting the goods (knowledge and technology) to their door.

The civil society makes sure that there are spurs off the main track. Even if these spurs are a bit slow and in need of some help, at least it gets to a larger number of people. They just need to be patient.

The government train has the nicest tracks around, although they don’t go to the places that they necessarily need to go. However, this is a very efficient train, so it doesn’t matter if it is going anywhere, as long as it can prove that it went SOMEWHERE. Meanwhile, the train employees would just like someone to plan out the track and END at some point.

Education keeps having the tracks ripped up and relaid. Sometimes this means that the train will get to where it needs to go, but for those on poorer or more isolated routes, it might just go around in circles. Of course, then the passengers blame it on the conductor and engineer, who are just trying to keep the train on the tracks.

The international track goes only so far, and then it stops. There is no coordination, and the track owners of one railroad won’t speak with the track owners of the others. When they do, it still takes time to move from one set of tracks to another.

The political system train can’t decide where to lay the track. It stops at their friends houses, but doesn’t connect to others. As a result there are hundreds of miles of tracks planned, but nothing is actually laid out because no one can agree on a system.

Finally, the legal train builds up, then takes down tracks. The piece meal track system means that there is no coordination with actual walls between some, but bridges that link others. As fast as the political system is laying out track, the legal system is rearranging it.

I can't help but think there are some stakeholders missing. Perhaps members of minority groups or "non-techies". Non-techies put up walls to prevent the track from coming to their community and hope to preserve their way of life.

Minority groups, tired of always being by-passed by the larger companies, lay their own tracks often in isolation. The larger more popular tracks then have others who come from outside who want to link them up to the main tracks.

Perhaps you can think of other groups.

Training, Knowledge, and assessment

As I do research on knowledge creation, organizational learning, and culture, I also am in the midst of my children taking their year end standardized tests. Putting the two together, I began to realize that very little has been written on perception of knowledge and assessment measures within a business learning context.

Current Forms of Assessment

Most training programs use some form of standardized test to measure individual and organizational learning. Cook and Brown (1999) point out that the basis for our belief in what knowledge is for the last 3 centuries has been the Cartesian view in which "knowledge, particularly anything that might pass as rigorous knowledge, is something that is held in the head of an individual and is acquired, modeled, and expressed most accurately in the most objective and explicit terms possible.(p. 384)"

The implications of this, as Cook and Brown point out, is that most in our culture believe that a person possesses knowledge and that knowledge only exists in the individual. However, as organizations try to harness individual knowledge, isn't there some level of collective knowledge that may exist outside of the individual?

Types of knowledge

In addition to the traditional view of knowledge (the scientific method), many researchers have divided knowledge into tacit and explicit (Cook and Brown, 1999), individual and collective (Ashton, 2004, Yakhlef, 2002), information and know-how (Conceicao et al., 1998; Conceicao et al., 2003; Yakhlef, 2002).

Kolb (1984) also distinguished between two types of knowledge: apprehension and comprehension. Apprehensive knowledge is the intuitive process that happens as we experience the world. Apprehensive knowledge makes us aware of what we are experiencing and perceive our world, although it may not have meaning. Comprehensive knowledge is the abstract ideas and understanding we create based on our experience.

The problem, then, is if knowledge is outside of the individual and/or can exist in a "non-coded" manner (as in tacit or apprehensive knowledge) how can we measure the level of knowledge that an individual or group might have? How do we assess "learning" or the acquisition of new knowledge when the knowledge is tacit, know-how, or a level of "knowing" or deeper understanding of the knowledge an individual might possess?

Learning in Action

Cook and Brown, Kolb, and Dewey all addressed the issue of being able to put knowledge into action. This is what Cook and Brown call "knowing". A person does not "possess" all of the knowledge needed for action, although they might be able to access some of the knowledge they have in order to put what they know into action.

For example, my kids are currently preparing to take their state tests. My son does well on these tests as he "knows" how to take them. He can read a question and "know" what they are asking for. My daughter will have the knowledge of the subject, but often gets hung up on what "they" are asking for. She can read each multiple choice response and depending on her focus within the wording of the question, she can explain why each response is appropriate. While she possesses the knowledge to answer the questions, she doesn't know the answer. These standardized multiple choice assessments are not testing her knowledge but rather whether she knows how to take the test.

Likewise, my son can apply the mathmatical processes needed to get the correct answer in trigonometry, but he doesn't understand the mathmatical concepts behind the process. This means he has a difficult time when he needs to use problem solving skills and determine which tool to use in a Math problem. For the most part, he has learned to use certain tools when there are correlating words. But when those words are missing or when he needs to use determine which tools to use during a science lab, for example, he is lost. Multiple choice or even essay questions don't measure the level of understanding, tacit knowledge, and/or "knowing" something.

This is an especially important distinction to make in the work environment.

Assessing Learning

So how do we assess this aspect of learning that is difficult to measure? This is an area that Medicine and Aeronautics have been working on over the last decade. Simulations, portfolio of work, practicums, and a certain number of hours of "practice" all are means of assessing individuals and group levels of "knowing."

Likewise, the bar exam and the CPA certification exam use a more complex method of assessing both knowledge and knowing. Now it is important that "standardized" tests become more complex to capture the true state of learning. Training organizations need to spend time on developing different ways to measure learning to report to management. Management needs to realize that numbers are not going to capture the real level of learning, knowledge and knowing within the organization in the 21st Century. To acheive this, new management theories need to be developed that include the organization, individuals, groups, and distributed work groups.

References

Ashton, D. (2004). The impact of organisational structure and practices on learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 43-53.

Conceicao, P., Heitor, M., Gibson, D., & Shariq, S. (1998). The emergining importance of knowledge for development: Implications for technology policy and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 181-202.

Conceicao, P., Heitor, M., & Veloso, F. (2003). Infrastructures, incentives, and institutions: Fostering distributed knowledge bases for the learning society. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70, 583-617.

Cook, S. and Brown, J. (1999)Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4) 381-400.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.

Developing different perspectives

This week, my family (on Winter Break) rented the movie Vantage Point. This is a thriller in which a crime is told through the vantage point of those affected by the crime. The story is rewound and told from the time when the story has relevance for that character's vantage point, with more information given than when you first saw the event. By the end of the movie, you have a very clear understanding of what happened and why.

This got me thinking about the possibility of using different vantage points when teaching a concept. Imagine teaching Pythagorean theory, for example, from the vantage point of an engineer, a construction worker, a mathematician, a philosopher (Pythagoras himself), an historian (this theory has held up for hundreds of years), and a socialogist. By the end of the lesson, students would have a deep understanding of the theory, but also how it can be used and how it was developed.

Perspective taking is an important factor in organizational communication, organizational learning, knowledge managment, and cross-cultural communication. As I wrote in an earlier post:

Related to knowledge (cognition) is perspective (social). For Rommetveit, perspective is vital in creating meaning (Hagtvet & Wold, 2003; Mortimer & Wertsch, 2003). Other researchers have identified the ability to take on others perspectives as examples of higher order thinking (Herrington & Oliver, 1999; Jarvela & Hakkinen, 2002; Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999). Perspective taking requires that a person be able to understand another’s viewpoint, anticipate their responses, and present their position in such a way as to encourage mutual understanding. Including both social and cognitive elements, dialogue that leads to perspective taking requires intersubjectivity, or the recognition that the other person has a position, whether it is implicit or explicit (Hagtvet & Wold; Mortimer & Wertsch). The higher the level of reciprocity, in which there is an equal exchange of social and cognitive information, the greater the chance to achieve shared understanding (Hagtvet & Wold). However, even with the exchange of information, it is possible that there is a low level of shared understanding.

In other words, by developing the skills to understand others perpectives, we are going deeper than the exchange of information.

Integrating this into teaching

Next semester, I will be teaching a course on Consumer Behavior. One problem college level students have in learning marketing skills is their ability to understand the customer and realize that sales come from really knowing (and understanding) the customer, not from flashy marketing campaigns.

So I thought I might try to integrate the structure of Vantage point into my Consumer Behavior course. Using "purchasing decision making" as an example, I would look at the process from: individual's perspective, group or family's perspective, reference group's perceptive, marketing department perspective, organization's perspective, sales or customer service perspective, and advertising's perspective. As we look at the individual (students would do their own decision making analysis on how they chose their college), we would use the basic analysis, having students answer a series of questions. Looking at the family, I would have the students indicate the influence their family had on the decision, and what those factors were. Then I would have them look at the impact that the decision has had on the family. Next we would like at the influence this decision has had on their friends and work colleagues, and the impact the work colleagues and friends had on their decision. Next I would have people from the college look at the impact their decisions have on the college admissions, housing, departments. If there is an over abundance of applicants for one major, for example, what impact does that have on department, and what does the department do to address that issue?

Hopefully by looking at the different vantage points of this decision making process, students will have a much clearer view of customers, but also the organizational response to customer behaviors.

Learning Theories: In support of Connectivism

I was first introduced to the idea of Connectivism through an online conference hosted by George Sieman's group at the University of Manitoba. Over the last 2 years, my thoughts have changed, (as have George's and others)as the theory evolves. This fall, I dropped in and was a lurker to the Connectivism course offered by the University of Manitoba, which helped me to clarify both what I like about the theory and some of the short comings.

Connectivism as a learning theory

I initially embraced Connectism as an extension of Constructivism, not really seeing it as a new learning theory. However, as I continue to integrate social networking tools into my teaching, analyze what skills my students need for the 21st Century, and redesign my instructional design to help address these needs, I have begun to see the difference between the two theories. I now see that there is a difference in understanding of learning (and facilitating learning).

This became especially evident as I began to revise my courses for this semester. I am teaching a course I have taught in one format or another for 15 years now, Speech Composition and Presentation. What has changed is the fact that many of my students in their future careers will not have immediate contact with their audience (primary or secondary). This is very important to public speaking, as face to face contact with the full audience means that you can adjust your message, style, language, even body language based on the audience feedback (verbal or non-verbal). However, more and more "public speaking" for organizations is including video clips (i.e. on YouTube) or pod casts. As a result, speakers need to find new ways to get feedback including comments and networking with potential audiences.

What this means for my instruction is that I need to teach my students how to create these feedback channels (networking) and how to deal with the more individualized needs assessment for their audience. No longer can speakers lump an audience together and assess their needs as a whole. There is much more segmentation and students need to understand the impact their message has on not just the listener, but that listener's network. Secondary audience analysis becomes even more important (as ideas can then be transferred through the network).

Research support in distinguishing the two theories

My current research on distributed groups in an organization is leaning towards support (I am just in the preliminary analysis stage) supporting George's contention that there is a difference in learning in the new networked environment which Constructivism does not support.

Individuals in a distributed group are members of various networks. Each of their networks provide different pieces of information and ways of negotiating meaning. Language, processes, and definition of "knowledge" varies between networks. However, a distributed group then creates its own "language", processes, and understanding of knowledge to be used within that network. These new understandings then have an impact on the other networks. In some cases, new language, processes, and understanding is transferred to members' other networks. But more often than not, a new negotiation of language, processes, and knowledge is the result of a member's interaction with the distributed group.

While constructivism and cognitive learning theories address the individual's learning, they do not address the group level learning and transfer/negotiation of understanding. As a result, connectivism seems to give a better explanation of the "group level" or organizational learning that goes on. It addresses the individual, group, and individual/group dynamic.

Culture and the Politics of Networks

Over the last two years, there has been something about the theory, however, that bothered me. As I begin to do my analysis, I feel I have put my finger on the major short coming of the theory as it exists today. Connectivism is grounded in systems and chaos theories. I find that these theories try to take the "personal" or "values" out of the approach. However, as humans, all of us are influenced by politics and culture.

Any one involved in curriculum develop understands that curriculum choices are dependent upon what those in power (whether it be professional leaders, instructors, governmental leaders, society, or policy makers) feel is important to know. Often, this is dependent upon their epistemology. Epistemology can be defined as, "An area of philosophical study that focuses on our understanding of knowledge. Epistemology asks questions about what is true and false, and what constitutes valid “information”. A key question of epistemology is whether information is absolute or relative, reflecting a tension between the “scientific method” and “social constructivism”." In other words, "knowledge" is a complex system that is dependent upon values, negotiation of meaning, patterns of behavior, and even recognition of stimuli. "Snow" and what constitutes snow will differ in the English speaking world depending on what part of the world you live in. (I use this as an example as we currently have "snow", "sleet", and "freezing rain" this morning). In my part of the country, it is important to know the difference as it will have an impact on a person's safety. But it is not important for someone in Florida to know this. This is one reason why curriculum in the US is diverse from state to state.

Epistemology is based on culture (patterns of behavior). Culture has an impact on the values of knowledge, interaction, network creation, even the difference between group and individual. The politics of a network adds to the complexity of epistemology. I am finding that power structures within networks help to establish which knowledge is considered important and which is considered irrelevant. Competing definitions between networks causes tension between networks and within intersecting networks (as with distributed groups). How these tensions are resolved (or not) will impact learning.

What's next?

As a result, in order for connectivism to be a viable learning theory, it is important that the impact of politics and culture be integrated into the theory. Specifically, the following questions need to be asked:

1) How are networks constructed? What are the power structures within networks? How are connection established? What factors (cultural and political) influence the construction of a learning network?
2) Are there differences between "engineered" networks (in which a network, such as a distributed group, is created for a specific purpose) and organic network (in which connections are established due to need or common interests without any outside help)? How is meaning negotiated in each, are patterns of behavior established, and is the network maintained?
3) How can these networks be leveraged to facilitate learning? How should instruction be designed to address the political and cultural factors that effect learning due to the networked/connectedness environment? What skills do students need to learn in a connected environment?

Understanding the Patterns of Organizations and Students

I just spent a wonderful week in Georgia (the US state, not the country) for Thanksgiving. We were visiting relatives. Our cousin's husband works in the construction industry and was telling us some of the recent initiatives he and a colleague had developed to improve safety.

"Bob" is a middle manager who worked his way up through the ranks. He supervises groups of workers on large constructive projects (commercial and industrial). What struck me as he described his "training" programs was how well he understood the students, his workers. Not a trained educator (he has a high school education), he intuitively knew how to get a concept across to those that would benefit from the training, engaging his workers, teaching them what they needed to know about safety, and motivating them to use what they learned.

This led me to wonder what he was doing differently from the "fancy" paid outside trainers they had brought in for training in the previous years. It also get me to thinking about the in-house-outside training debate that often comes up in training departments.

Differences between in-house and outsider training

Yakhlef (2002) had an interesting study looking at the impact that outsourcing IT services had on an organization. He found that there was a shift in knowledge from within a department to a mediator between the outside contractor and the end-user. The middleman became more and more important as functions were taken outside of the department and created in a distributed means both within and outside the organization.

The same could be said for having outsiders do the training. In some cases, this is a goal as an organization would like to change its culture. But more often than not, organizations are looking for subject matter "experts" rather than looking for experts in the "field". In other words, Bob's company might have looked for someone who has studied the roots of accidents and then delivers this to the workers.

However, what organizations should be looking at are those outside the organizations that understand the patterns of behavior of the students. To do this, they may have to interact with the workers, have an expert in the community of practice, or have someone from inside the organization as a team member. In other words, having an engineer who understands the types of time constraints workers might feel which might lead to them cutting safety procedures is more important than having someone who is an expert on the safety procedures that will cut accidents. In the first case, a trainer can identify those situations that workers are most apt to let down their guard and give ways to counteract the temptation to cut corners. For example, if there is a deadline for completion of a project, a supervisor might not have a worker who comes to work without the proper equipment go back and get the equipment. However, with an understanding of how much time lost might be the result of improper equipment, the supervisor might take the up front time so as not to lose time due to accidents.

Implications for instructional design and transition into the workplace/community

It seems to me, therefore, that it is important that instructional designers and university professors have a good understanding of the behavioral and communication patterns for organizations and communities of practice.

The following are questions that we must either ask as we begin a training assignment, or teach our students to ask as they transition into the workforce:

• Who decides what knowledge is important? What are the organizational, departmental, and group power structures in which someone is working?
• What is the usual way of communicating within the organization, department, and work groups? How might this be the same or different from the field in which a worker has been trained or is working (i.e. how do engineers communicate, how do accountants communicate, how do nursing personnel communicate)? What are the communication structures and formats used by the organization? by the field? Which technologies will accommodate those structures and formats?
• Who controls access to information? Who controls storage of information? What information networks are available to a worker within a community of practice? within a group? within a department? within an organization? What are the prerequisites to gaining access to information (i.e. training, trust by a superior, expertise, position, need)?
• Who are the reference groups that influence worker perceptions? work practices? perception of risk? organizational culture?
• What is the epistemology (belief in what "knowledge" is) of students, workers, the organization, and the field of expertise? How do workers resolve conflicts between epistemologies? For example, in business there is the belief that the bottom line is the main measure of success. However, healthcare workers are taught that they should do anything humanly possible to save a life. How do healthcare workers resolve the dilemna of saving a life at an exhorbatant price if the patient cannot pay (thus putting the organization into the red)?
  
  Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.

Group Interaction Metacognition Assessment Framework

I am in the process of updating a paper on virtual group interaction and learning. I would appreciate any feedback as I try to update it for a business/management audience. This post will look at the overall framework.

Group Interaction Metacognition Assessment Framework

Many of the previous protocols used to analyze online interaction, look at the individual learning that has taken place or the group dynamics in an online learning environment that will facilitate or inhibit learning (Mazur, 2004). However, in previous research on group work using codes of conduct to improve group communication and processes, Yonkers & Buff (2005) found that improved group communication did not necessarily improve group learning outcomes. In addition, some members of groups that produced poor outcomes, improved substantially more on individual work than some members of groups that had produced above average outcomes. This leads to the question of whether individuals can learn from poor groups or can effective groups inhibit individual learning? In addition, what are the attributes of group interaction metacognition? Do students create different knowledge for the group than for their individual use? The literature on cognitive sharing would suggest this is so (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001; Mulder, Swaak, & Kessels, 2002; Olivera & Straus, 2004). In the rest of this paper, I will purpose a framework to assess online interaction in order to conduct future research on the influence of groups on individual learning, the influence of individuals on other group members’ learning, and the intersection between social and cognitive processes in creating knowledge.

The assessment of group interaction metacognition is divided into two parts: a) intragroup interaction, and b) group-individual interaction. The purpose of the intragroup assessment is to determine how things are becoming to be known by the group rather than what is known (Yakhlef, 2002). More specifically, it is important to assess the ways meaning is made so there is shared understanding. The assessment of the group-individual interaction focuses on the level of awareness between the individual and the group. The analysis will determine an individual’s common understanding with the group against the acceptance of group choices, and the level of the individual’s identification, both social and cognitive, with the group.

Intragroup assessment

The intragroup assessment can be broken down into three categories: type of group, creating meaning, and construction and reconstruction of knowledge. As discussed previously, groups can work in various ways, depending on their level of prior knowledge about other group members, the task, the group goals, and the context. The same group will approach an ill-structured problem differently than a highly structured instructor lead conversation (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Kates, 2000; Levesque, Wilson, & Wholey, 2001; Mohammed & Dunville, 2001; Waller, et al. 2001). Environmental factors such as time constraints, limited resources, proximity, and cultural differences will also have an effect on the level of interdependency needed to complete a group task (Henning & Van der Westhuizen, 2004). By identifying the type of group learning, group goals, and shared mental models, researchers will be able to give a context to the group interaction. In other words, the type of group will influence the structure of the intragroup interaction.

Group learning

The method of group learning can be divided into four categories: cooperative, collaborative, individual, and competitive (Prater, Bruhl, & Serna, 1998). While there has been an on-going debate in the literature as to whether there is a difference between cooperative or collaborative learning, many make the distinction between these two. Cooperative learning is when students learn together, contributing ideas, reviewing those ideas, working through the process, and developing the final product (including summarizing ideas, making decisions, and/or drawing conclusions) simultaneously. The task has a high level of interdependency and students learn from one another through the process of interaction. Collaborative learning is when each member has a different expertise that he or she brings to the group in order to accomplish a task. Learning is less uniform than in cooperative groups, since each member will have their own expertise (either assigned as in dividing up work tasks regardless of ability or innate as in dividing up work tasks according to student strengths). The quality of the learning is dependent upon how well an individual student can negotiate meaning with the group. In individual learning, students are responsible for their own learning but can access the expertise of group members in a number of ways, such as asking for help, discussing options, or observing others completion of the task. Competitive learning is similar to individual learning, except students are motivated by competing with group members for limited resources or rewards (i.e. grades). One way to assess which form of learning a group is using is to assess how tasks, resources, and responsibilities are distributed.

Why can't learning be fun?

I just ran across a new book/game series by Rick Riordan called "39 Clues." Riordan is a middle school teacher who has designed a series of books that has been tied to an interactive on line game that builds on the interest middle school students have for both gaming and social networks. It appears to be a good way to get the next generation interested in reading, critical thinking, and problem solving in a fun way.

Now, I am actually surprised that I have not heard of this series: neither negative or positive. I would have thought it would be an instant hit from all the Webkins fans or seen as the next threat to the educational system by educators who still choose Ethan Frome as required reading.

Bringing Fun into Education (regardless of age)

I have seen my own kids become interested in history, math, and even engineering through playing computer games. I know it is rarely used in their schools, but I see the role games can play in helping students learn to problem solve, think critically, and even learn content and skills. Both Karyn Romeis and Ken Allen have written good posts in the past about its potential.

However, as I begin to think about the possibilities of learning from games and social networks, I can't get past the barrier of convincing company executives of allowing their workers some periods of fun as they learn. I can hear the complaints now: How do we justify investments in games to our stakeholders? It's play, not learning. How will that help their productivity? Can you give us the numbers on that? This is work, not recreational time.

If we look at the track, though, of some of the more successful students in a school, we will see that many have extra-curricular activities that give them the skills they need in the workplace (group work, critical thinking, strategies, interpersonal communication, task management). So why aren't we creating more "fun" elearning activities such as those used in second life? Because it is an uphill battle to convince society that "fun" and "playing" have a role in learning.

Not a New Debate

You need only read Dewey's and Taylor's works to see that this debate has been around for decades. For some reason, I will never understand, Taylor's theories that basically equate humans to automatons, seems to win out when investment decisions are made. Perhaps that is because it is easier to measure quantitatively than qualitatively. I also wonder if management is afraid to make workers too content and/or lacking in discipline. Related to this is what to do about the parts of a job that are not fun or exciting? Such as report writing, weekly meetings, resolving personal conflicts, and taking care of daily routine tasks that can become tedious.

I think there is definitely new possibilities into make learning more enjoyable. But first we must achieve the Mount Everest task of convincing management and workers that learning can be fun.

Ways of Assessing Organizational Learning

A comment Ewa left on my blog and my response, has left me wondering how we can assess worker learning over a period of time, both through formal learning and informal learning.

I keep coming up with a portfolio of work over a year's time. I think that an electronic portfolio with the worker's self-selected best work will give trainers and management an idea of what workers feel are important in their work, the skills they have developed, and perhaps how individual assessment match up to management and organizational assessments/goals.

With that in mind, I began to consider what my portfolio would look like. I might include some of my blog postings I have done as a result of my analysis of my teaching, such as "What are we doing as teachers to make ourselves literate in the workplace?" or "Lessons learned in New Communication Technologies in Organizational Life". The first is an example of how I am learning (a structure of what I think is important) and the second is an example of how I have learned from my work.

I would also include some of my students' work which is a by-product of my own work: teaching, such as the Pageflake for my students' conference on nano-technology or the technology blog they put together. I also thought that a list of the resources I have collected for classes on delicious would be a good example of the types of resources I have found concerning a certain topic such as those for my ACOM 203 class (speech writing and presentation) or work literacy (professional resources). Finally, I have web pages (which actually need to be updated) for each of the courses I have taught over the last 3 years: Global Communication, New Communication Technologies in Organizational Life, Introduction to Distance Learning, Computer Supported Writing Across the Curriculum, Speech Composition and Presentation.

There are two areas in which I am stuck, however. How do I show "learning" or evidence of my work that is either 1) in a non-electronic format or 2) protected because of privacy? In the second case, I would need those evaluating my work portfolio access to my work (such as blackboard). However, in my case, blackboard and university wikis are erased at the end of the semester because of FERPA (student privacy laws). This might be the problem in areas such as healthcare, financial services, or insurance. I am not sure how to be able to document work that by law is limited access.

The second area has to do with tacit learning. For example, I share an office with another communication professor and we often discuss problems and solutions for similiar problems we are having with our students. While I might not use her ideas verbatum, the discussion gives me a different insight into the situation which might result in more effective teaching on my part.

Likewise, my sister, a speech pathologist, will often consult with me on cases of bilingual students. Both of us leave the discussion with new insight into language development (sometimes with the aid of outside sources, other times just through the discussions/question and answers). How can this type of activity be documented and counted? One possible way would be to blog about it.

I would be interested in hearing about any other suggestions you might have for assessing learning in more non-traditional ways.

Situated and organizational learning

I currently am reading an article by Contu and Wilmont which points out the short comings of current organizational learning researchers' use of power and the understanding of power structures on learning in the context of situated learning.

I have been able to just pop in and out of the connectivism course (and the amount of information is overwhelming). However, I am hoping that there is going to be more discussion about the power structures and use of power within and between networks; sort of a critical pedagogy of connectivism.

My feeling is that too many times the power structure is the elephant in the room, the major force and barrier to learning and evaluation that we refuse to recognize. Which brings me back to situated learning. If we do begin to recognize and understand the influence of power as a part of situated learning, as Contu and Willmont suggest, situated learning theory will be much more relevant as a tool for analysis and a basis for research.

Reframing how we define organizational learning

In order to place my dissertation into current literature, I have begun to start reading again about organizational learning. I will be blogging about it over the next few months in order to help me write the dissertation.

Organizational Learning from a cultural perspective

The first article I read was by Cook and Yanow (1993). Their article takes the position that most organizational learning theories use cognition as a basis, either looking at the individual learning which when aggregated makes up organizational learning, or looking at the organizational learning as if it were the same process as individual learning, only as an organization. They identify a third approach, which is to look at organizational learning from a cultural perspective.

The cultural perspective looks at organizations as having a collective pattern of action (just as societies do) that create artifacts, shared meaning, and "knowledge" within the group. The knowledge is held collectively by the group, but was not created by the individual. Rather, the knowledge, and thus the learning, is passed on throughout the organization by the "group".

Looking at organizational learning from this perspective opens up a number of issues for workplace learning. Cook and Yanow, for instance, note that change is not necessary for learning to take place. Rather, learning might reinforce the social and cultural norms that make up the organizational identity. Likewise, much of the learning in organizations are tacit and difficult to measure.

Implications for Organizational Training

When I look at this, the main implication that comes to mind is that "learning outcomes" may not be a good measure of organizational learning. It seems to me that most training is really a means of either repositioning or reinforcing organizational culture. If that is the case, it is not enough to measure individual performance to determine if training was successful. Rather, there needs to be an analysis of organizational processes and an agregate of organizational understanding of the learning outcomes.

For example, the group I am working with is working on a training program in human services. While they could use a questionnaire at the end of the training to see what each individual "knows", a better format would be to identify patterns of action that would indicate the desired organizational behavior. Participants should fill out this questionnaire at the beginning and end of the training. But then there should be a follow up questionnaire given to the organization as a whole to determine if the training has infiltrated the organizational culture. If training was effective, not only would individuals that received the training allign their values with the target values, but so would those that did not receive the training.

The impact of organizational politics on workplace learning

As I get deeper into my dissertation study, I am finding that office politics have a great impact on knowledge management, what employees learn, how what they have learned translates into how they work, and how they work impacts the learning environment. I am still the beginning stages, but here are some of the trends I am looking at:

• there is a tension between the way an interdisciplinary group works (prioritizes, accomplishes tasks, what they "know", roles, and leadership) and the department from which an employee comes. Which one will take precedence when there is conflict is dependent on the political situation and the employees perception of which group will impact his work most immediately.
• Leadership seems to influence what "knowledge" is needed and how work is accomplished. Workers take their cue from leaders and without leadership, there is a "herding cats" mentality which results in lack of coordination, duplication of effort, and a void in terms of direction.
• Some personalities just prefer not to work in a group. Others do not feel comfortable in a leadership role. The most effective groups are those in which there is a safe environment for conflict and differences of opinion, a process to make meaning that allows others a voice, and a sense of support rather than criticism.
  
• Employees that do not know where they fit within the organization as a whole or feel alienated from the organization tend to work independently. This may result in conflicts during group or team work as they will continue with their own work rather than conform to organizational dictates (especially if they don't understand how these organizational dictates fit into their own work).

I don't remember learning about the office politics in any of my management courses. Specifically, there is little said about the "unwritten" rules of authority and how a new worker is supposed to learn these rules and their role in the organization. It seems to me that this is an important skill in the new "flat" management structure as there is no longer a job title cue that will tell where one is in the organization.

What are we doing as teachers to make ourselves literate in the workplace?

In a recent comment I posted to Ken Allen, I mentioned that we as teachers have the advantage over our students in that we have the opportunity to create deeper understanding for ourselves by trying to explain concepts and negotiate meaning with our students. To do this however, we need to have interaction with our students.

However, how many instructional designers and trainers are given the opportunity to really discuss a topic indepth with their target audience? How many even have an understanding of the environment in which their students work?

At the conference I attended on Distance Learning last week, one of the presenters spoke of being "blown away" at some of the feedback she had asked for. One of the students felt that her formating requirement for the subject line was in fact making things more difficult for him to follow rather than easier. He was doing the entire course using his blackberry so the e-mail options made him difficult to follow which threads went with which discussions. What surprised her was that he was using a common technology in a different way. Had she not asked for feedback, she would not have been able to make accommodations for his situation.

As a result of these questions, I think we need to be careful as develop work literacies that:

1. We recognize that these are not stagnant, nor will specific work literacy skills fit all contexts
2. Workers might have or not have these skills without being aware of it
3. There is a cultural underpinning with all literacies that might be difficult, yet necessary to identify
4. Instructional designers and teachers may or may not be aware of the contexts in which their target audience is using, but must ask the right questions to determine student needs and skills

I feel that we should be looking more systematically at the organizations and understand the cultures and epistemologies first. From there, we can begin to identify the various work literacies needed to succeed in the modern workplace. These then can be put into a framework (as Tony has sketched out, but perhaps with broader categories). The framework can then be used to develop different assessment tools, technology, and instructional designs based on the culture and organizational/individual epistemologies. That should only take another 20 years to accomplish!

Lessons learned from New Communication Technologies in Organziational Life

Last fall, I was asked to teach a special topics course for Communication Majors. I would develop a course on a topic that I had some knowledge of. As I had been doing a lot of research on social networking, the department head and myself came up with a course named New Communication Technologies in Organizational Life. Needless to say, I didn't know as much as I thought I did as I began to create the course. However, I was able to aggregate many of the pieces I had coming into the course as my students worked on the class project: an online conference on nanotechnology. I learned a lot through my student reflections on the assigned readings, my own class preparation, and the use of technology within the classroom (observing how my students used new communication technologies and the problems they had applying it to a work context).

I don't know why I did not think of it before, however, Michele Martin suggested that I blog about it. So taking the notes from my final powerpoint for the course, here goes!

Four Types of New Interactive Technologies

I began the course design by breaking up New Interactive Technologies (New Communication Technologies for this course) into four categories dependent upon the intended use: communication (mobile communication technologies such as cell phones, pda's, video conferencing), information sharing (pod and vodcasting, visual information software, blogs, pageflakes), collaboration (wikis, groupware), and networking (facebook, LinkedIn, Ning).


Each of these categories were broken up into units that included related readings and activities that used each of the technologies listed above. At the end of each unit, the class would discuss the impact that these technologies had on accomplishing their tasks and best practices for the use of these technologies to accomplish work tasks.


In each of the units, there were some commonalities: a different way to access to information and share information, new organization, different means of communication and (with that) new communication skills, and a greater level of work and personal life intersection.


Work/Personal Life Intersection While these new technologies allow people more flexibility to pursue activities outside of work, it also is a double edged sword as the line between work and personal life is blurred. The result is less formal communication (i.e. e-mails, im, even written documentation such as blogs and discussion forums). Also there is more mobility between school, the workplace, and the community (or communities). However, there is also more access by the organizations to areas that are non-workplace related.

The anytime/anyplace access that these technologies allow means that workers become more aware of their behavior outside of work (or aware that what they do outside of work may be used to evaluate their job performance), yet more informal within work. Many of my students (as backed up by research) were uncomfortable with the idea that management could access what they considered "private" space (Facebook, myspace) thus impacting their career.

The one aspect that these new technologies might have on the organization is to change the "water-cooler" effect. This is the idea that in the past, people would socialize in the workplace, exchanging war stories, etc...The format for this for the younger generation are blogs and social networking sites. However, this takes the small talk out of the organization and into a written record. Some of the spontaneity and "crazy idea" generation may be lost, along with a deeper level of relationship building due to reduced "face time". On the other hand, workers can connect to those that they feel they have more in common with throughout the organization. In addition, there is a written record of thoughts and ideas which they can access later.

Communication Consideration: When choosing a new technology, there are a number of factors to consider. First, the mode of communication and the way in which messages are crafted (rhetoric) need to be analyzed. By mode of communication, I mean written vs. visual vs. oral, one-way vs. two way communication, one-on-one vs. one to group, group to group, or group to one. Depending on the situation, context, and purpose of the communication, the appropriate technology should be chosen depending on the message and access by both the senders and receivers (initiators and audience).

The audience will have a huge impact on the choice of technology and how it is used. Language, tone, and register may be distorted or lost depending on the affordances of the technology. For example, IM and texting requires short sentences and abbreviated speech in order for there to be timely feedback between the writer and reader. On the other hand, blogs often include links which require a more formal and planned writing process.

Finally, who controls, monitors, and supports the technologies will influence the choice of technology. IM is much more difficult to control ( in terms of information flow and when it is used, not to mention possible viruses). Wikis, on the other hand have controls built into them that allow for different levels of contribution.

Access to information and information sharing: Perhaps the greatest impact on the organization that these new interactive technologies have has to do with the new forms of information and new ways to share information.

Information can now be presented in multiple formats to fit different user needs. This includes creating visual representations, networking and connection information so it no longer has to be presented linearly, and allowing greater access and control over who and when information can be accessed. The result is that information becomes much more situated and user driven.

The impact, however, means that there needs to be more decisions on the management's side as to who will have access to the information and how workers will be trained to use the information. Take, for example, the old multi page books of data reports on personnel, sales, or accounts receivable/payable reports. These used to be limited to the managers for access. An employee would need to go to the manager to get these records (especially if there were privacy issues as with the personnel issues). Now, employees can put in specific search functions, find the information they need and have access to the information as long as they have clearance. This requires that employees understand how to find the information, use the information, and the impact in case the information is leaked or accessed by those without clearance. In addition, the information can be linked to other departments which means that changes in one part of the organization will result in impacting the other part of the organization. As a result, workers need to have an understanding of how the information is linked and their role in the organization.

My students found this to be especially important as they worked on their project. As each group worked on their piece, they soon discovered that assumptions they made about the other groups were not necessarily true. They needed a common platform from which to work (which we did by diagramming the work processes as a class as a whole). This face to face coordination seemed as important to them as the access (anytime anyplace) to the information online. They concluded that training, coordination, and planning the use of the technologies were vital to its effective use.

New Organization: Finally, it is important to understand the impact that these new technologies will have on the organization. In fact, the impact may be so powerful, that many organizations may opt not to incorporate these technologies into their organization. Depending on the type of organization, the resulting flat communication structure may not fit their organizational structure and mandate. We identified three different types of organizational structures that might need different levels of control due to the nature of their industry and product. The first is one that needs to be very structured with strong controls from the top down. These would include industries such as healthcare, pharmaceuticals, defense contractors, and banks. Most of these industries are highly regulated and lack of control could have negative consequences on security and the public good. The second would be those that are able to allow some freedom for decision making at the local levels or line workers, with a preference for strong central strategic plans. Large multinational corporations tend to fit this group as local input is important, as is coordination of resources. Finally, most small or medium sized organizations, especially in the services industry, allow for more individual control. However, with this greater level of control comes higher expectations for worker knowledge and understanding of where they are in the organization.


As a result, these new technologies must be integrated into the system. To do so, workers needs to:

1. be part of groups with strong group leadership skills
2. understand and recognize key communication nodes within the organizations, including within and between departments
3. Coordinate between groups
4. Train using new technologies and new uses of older technologies
5. Be part of the development process of which technologies will be used and how; understand the bundling of technologies, identifying which combination of technologies will be most useful for each situation
   
6. Develop new processes the new technologies allow for and/or require

New Communication Skills

We identified the following communication skills that workers will need to use these new technologies:

• Information filtering when reading and writing
• Ability to speak using "lag" time (turn taking)
• Ability to network
• Technology skills such as typing, IM language, and social networking
• Initiate, motive, lead communication interactions
• Group work skills
• Identifying key works or tags
• Able to analyze trends
• Ability to learn new technologies as they evolve
• Ability to change register and communication dependent upon the situation and technology
  

The learning tree

I know that this model has been used throughout history, however, I cannot but look at learning in a workplace setting without comparing it to a tree. This post was triggered by a post by Tony Karrer and a question posed to me as to how I would distinguish between learning and information.

His post was using a model of to identify organizational learning needs that I thought was too static. In addition, I think that the training needs change depending on the longevity someone has in the organization. Most corporate training in the beginning is really acculturation, training the new employee in the way the organization does business and its expectations for the employee. While this usually is done under the guise of content training, the fact is that the hidden agenda is for employees to learn the ’s way. As a result, the instructional design is usually top down, very structured, transfer of knowledge. However, once the employee has been acculturated (some might even say indoctrinated), the employee feel comfortable enough to begin to take control of his or her learning, regardless of whether the organization wants a certain type of training or not.

I look at this as the sapling putting down roots. The newer the sapling the more likely they are to put down roots (you can graft a tree, but it may “look” different on the new tree). Once roots are established, the trees can begin to branch out (creating learning networks). After a while they begin to produce their own buds, leaves, and branches. Leaves fall as they are no longer needed and new leaves are developed.

This analogy can be used towards training and workplace education. Once the employee has a basis to work from, he or she begins to create their network. These branches grow in complexity over time. Knowledge, both tacit and explicit, formal and informal, nourish the professional growth of the employee, allowing him or her to produce in their job, discarding knowledge or skills that are no longer relevant (I don’t remember how to code using Wordix as it is no longer is necessary since no one uses it), replacing them with new skills and knowledge (like falling leaves replaced by new ones each spring).

This is a much more dynamic model. Every once in a while, an infusion of fertilizer (formal training) might be needed to keep the tree (employee) healthy. However, for the most part, a tree grows towards what it needs such as sun (goals), away from encroaching trees (micromanagers or other employees that might undermine him or her).

Information vs. Learning

So how do I distinguish between information and learning? Information is a tool that an employee uses. It is not necessary to “learn” when accessing and using information. To learn, there needs to be some engagement with the information and the creation of understanding through meaning making. As an auditor, I would look through inventory numbers, comparing them to projections and actual counts. My job was just to identify differences. In doing this job, I would follow a process I was trained to do without being required to make sense of what those numbers meant, just did they match or did they not. However, as a curious person, I would try to make sense of the differences. Why were they different? What was the process in reporting the numbers? My interviews with auditees often was as much an opportunity to learn about the plants and their processes, putting them into context with other industries I was familiar with. My learning required my own effort. Was it necessarily what the company wanted or needed? No. Was I engaged with the “information”? Yes.

Past the initial training and acculturation, I was able to learn for my own benefit within the organizational structure and culture. Some of what I learned was for my own personal benefit, but some also contributed to the organization. I became a node for international operations, especially in terms of understanding the international business climate and labor laws in which overseas plants were located.

Where do we go from here?

What we have yet to look at is how an organization balances the employee needs and goals, with group needs and goals, and how can the organization harness the creation of knowledge at the individual and group levels?