Wednesday, June 15

Workflow learning vs. the "me-focus" culture

The idea of workflow learning is surprisingly controversial. I attended the “Innovations in E-learning” symposium last week, put together by George Mason University, the US Naval Education and Training Command, and the Defence Acquisition University. I was interested in hearing what Jay Cross, Clark Aldrich, Harvey Singh and Ben Watson had to say about workflow learning, collaboration, and simulations, since these are things I have always been passionate about.

Jay’s presentation, as usual, was delightfully challenging, non-linear, evocative, and provocative. But the presentation on “embedded learning” by Michael Littlejohn of IBM astonished me. He provided a well-structured overview of the practical deployment issues of embedded learning. My surprise was not so much at what he said, but that it was being said by IBM. If Big Blue is advocating it, then workflow learning has come a long way, baby.

I did a piece on this on my own blog, and have already had a lot of back-channel skeptical feedback. In all that I have read about workflow learning, I have yet to hear anyone argue that it is not a great idea conceptually, but there are a whole lot of people who can’t believe workflow learning will ever work in practice. They are blinded by their culture.

It reminds me of the mid-to-late 1990s when I was promoting online learning to a resistant training community, who could not believe that anyone would prefer a computer to a classroom, or that any online learning could be as effective as that delivered by a trainer. Many were also desperately afraid of having to re-invent themselves. At the time, my mantra was “it’s warmer on the web,” because I was trying to get through to trainers that online learning was all about connecting people, building communities, mutual mentoring, and sharing experience. To a largely techno-skeptical audience numbed by the self-indulgent atrocities of CD-ROM courses, online learning was never going to fly.

The key that unlocked the e-learning Pandora’s box, unleashing a few gems within a cloud of pestilence, was a culture shift. Corporations started taking for granted ubiquitous desktop computing and internet connections, and started looking to leverage them to improve business processes and cut costs. Trainers started to get as myopically starry-eyed about e-learning as they had about PowerPoint. Workers started to appreciate the need to keep themselves current, valuable, and marketable because it became clear that companies were not going to provide more than the basic essentials. Training vendors saw a need to defend against more tech-savvy competitors, as well as an opportunity to broaden markets and raise margins. Quite a lot of learners had a few good e-learning experiences, mind-sets started shifting from resistance to acceptance, if not enthusiasm, and e-learning was airborne.

Workflow learning requires similar, though probably more dramatic, organizational and personal culture changes. A major prerequisite for workflow learning is a culture that fosters collaboration and sharing, that rewards (rather than punishes) individual support initiatives, that builds a fundamental responsibility for informal coaching and mentoring into every employee’s job description, and that places as much value on time spent helping others perform as it does on time spent performing. Another prerequisite is a widespread personal attitude toward supporting others that values highly the giving of both time and knowledge – two things most workers jealously protect. It's not about the technology or the processes (though of course they are important), because without the individual will and the corporate mandate, the technology will gather dust.

To change corporate culture, you need to demonstrate to senior decision-makers how much money can be made or saved (preferably this quarter) as a result of the proposed change. If they buy into the financial reward, corporations can move mountains. But how do you formalize, in a way that bean-counters will accept, the ROI from something as apparently fuzzy and informal as workflow learning? IBM advocates thinking small and running a pilot. That may be a starting point, but it's not a strategy. Do you need to get conceptual buy-in at CEO level and have a bold shake-up, top-down, in order to achieve any sustainable culture shift? Or do you abdicate and wait for a bottom-up worker-driven evolution that effectively bypasses formal learning systems?

However you do it, without a culture shift away from the "me-focus" that most organizational review/reward systems instill, and toward a "we-focus," workflow learning just ain't going to fly!

Godfrey Parkin

7 comments:

David Grebow said...

Great post, Godfrey. I worked on workflow conceptually with Michael Littlejohn when I was at IBM helping to launch their MindSpan elearning business initiative.

The mantra I repeated at every turn and chance I had was "Knowledge is no longer power. Sharing knowledge is what's powerful."

Perhaps not too poetic but it was catchy enough that people listened to whatever was said as a follow-on. In answer to your question, I think it's like building the transcontinental railway in the United States. You work from both ends and hope you meet in the middle.

At IBM, no project, no matter how small, especially if it was a success = $$$'s in costs avoided, reduced or generated, went unnoticed. Even a small pilot can be the first step on the corporate journey.

Godfrey Parkin said...

I like the mantra, David. I used to tell those who were obsessively guarding their own expertise that "the more people who know what you know, the more valuable that knowledge becomes" but most people just didn't get it!

And, to be fair, there's a real disincentive for the individuals in most companies to spread their knowledge. Most corporations are still formal siloed hierarchies seething with competitiveness, where the key to survival and promotion is outperforming your peers. Can collaboration become the norm when job security is a huge issue for most workers? Only if "collaborativeness" becomes a major performance evaluation criterion.

jay said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jay said...

Perhaps one incentive for cultural change and a shift to a longer term perspective will be competition with folks to whom this comes naturally, e.g. Asia.

I second knowledgestar's comment of "Great post." You make me sound better than me! Thanks.

Bill Bruck said...

Godfrey,

I agree that for collaborative workflow learning to take root, a culture change is required. But/and I think it's more than this.

In another post you gave an example of peer-to-peer coaching that I responded was pretty unrealistic in my mind, but it's one that can possible serve as the basis for further conversation.

I believe that the culture change that's required must involve a deep understanding of more dynamics than simply willingness to share. Let me suggest of few of them:

Free Rider dynamic. How should the organization think about people who use the new 'collaborative workflow learning' culture to consistently rely on others rather than build skills themselves?

Punishing Competence dynamic. How should we think about the demands on the best peer coaches, which could quickly overwhelm them and prevent their own production?

Who's Responsible dynamic. Who should be providing this workflow coaching - competent peers who have their own jobs, or the training department? What shouldbe the roles and responsibilities?

Who's Quotas dynamic. If I am a manager who has recruited, trained and retained top people who are now being siphoned off for peer coaching, how should I get my department's work done?

There are about a zillion others, but I guess my point is that this isn't about singing kumbayah and all playing nicely together. That's part of it, but there are many other dynamics that a business must be working with in order to find a path forward vis a vis collaborative workflow learning.

Godfrey Parkin said...

Bill, I certainly wasn't suggesting that a cuture change involved anything as trivial as singing kumbayah and all playing nicely together :-)

I'm talking about something a lot more profound than that.

Our definition of work may need to change, and along with it the performance variables on which we judge employees.

For decades now, certainly as long as I can remember, trainers have complained that they get called in to fix a performance problem when the solution is not training at all. Managers have always abdicated a big chunk of their responsibility to develop their direct reports and the structures that they operate in, "outsourcing" that responsibility to trainers. Typically, this is inappropriate, wasteful, learner-abusive, and ultimately ineffective.

Similarly, peer coaching (if it takes someone away from task for a noticable period of time) is frowned upon by managers as distracting. It is also resented by those best able to provide the coaching, because most workers are under enough pressure to perform as it is.

So it is not enough just to provide the systems and hope someone will use them. A significant value has to be placed on collaboration, and its outcomes. It has to become part of each employee's objectives, and a meaningful part of their performance evaluations. I'm not talking in the airy-fairy sense that most annual reviews treat collaboration currently (a vague and inconsequential nod toward whether you get on with the team or not). I'm talking about making collaboration a highly specific component of the calculation of employee value, and hence a significant input to remuneration decisions.

We need to recast "management" as "development" and maybe then cultures will start to swing in the right direction.

Do I think this is likely to happen? Not really, at least, not top-down. But I do believe that the generation of digital natives now flooding into the workforce and starting to permeate management positions WILL introduce these values and norms, almost by default. Upper managers, and older generations, will push back, but resistance will be futile. The end result? All your base are belong to us!! :-)

Godfrey Parkin

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信