MY KEYWORDS

 

Learning

The Power of Touch by Patrick Lambe

Knowledge management is far too abstract.

Not only does it neglect the concrete, natural ways we use information and knowledge, it over-simplifies the infinitely subtle and sophisticated ways we play with information and knowledge in natural settings. So we make our crude distinctions between tacit and explicit knowledge, or between data, information and knowledge. And we treat everything as if it’s something that happens in the head, or between heads and heads (involving soundwaves) or heads and text in various forms. Specifically, I don’t see us anywhere talking about the importance of touch.

This is not unique to knowledge management – it’s true of management science in general. “Touch” is as crudely understood as knowledge is, notwithstanding the equally subtle and sophisticated ways that we use touch socially. In fact, it’s largely avoided; the role of a bureaucratic organization is to inhibit touch as far as it is possible to do so while still working with humans. We are, for example, much more comfortable thinking and talking about touching things (to control them), than we are about touching people. Touch screens, touch pads, excite our enthusiasm. Talking about touching our colleagues is deemed improper, inappropriate even. But we touch each other all the time, within the boundaries of our cultural, religious and instinctive rituals and rules around touch. There’s the playful tap when scolding someone half-seriously. The hand on the shoulder when sharing something, or on the arm to get someone’s attention in a crowd, or to convey assurance. The comforting hug when something terrible happens. The awkward embraces at farewells. The ritual handshakes at introductions and to signify agreement.

The renowned author Paolo Coelho keynoted recently at the Digital Life Design conference in Germany. Several bloggers have picked up on his revelation about how he increased the sales of his books by providing support for piracy of his editions. But nobody I’ve seen picked up on a more interesting story he told towards the end of his speech.Every year he holds a party for his friends. Being very active on social networking sites online, he decided to invite ten of his online “friends” who were his readers, so he issued an invitation to the first ten respondents via his MySpace page.His party was in the middle of nowhere in Spain, so he was shocked the next day to find that he’d had replies from Venezuela, Japan, UK and other far-flung places. He wrote a clarification to let them know he was only inviting them to his party, and wouldn’t be paying for their travel and accommodation. They all wrote back and said they understood that, but would still like to come. In fact, some asked whether they could bring their families. And they turned up.Coelho opened his keynote by saying “we only do business with people we like” and this is why any serious agreement needs eye contact – that interesting precursor and reinforcer of touch. He ended his party tale by talking in very concrete terms about the meaning of this event for him. “This human contact, regardless of whether you sell 100 million copies, where you don’t have eye contact, so it becomes an abstraction, this [human contact] is basic, and this is the blessing of the internet.”

Coelho does not talk directly about touch, but I am sure that he and his guests touched each other as part of that ritual of meeting and celebrating – this too is part of the “basic human contact” that establishes and maintains relationships of trust.So I’m convinced that touch – and regular touch – is an essential element in growing and expressing trust and assurance. In the multi-initiative field of KM, where we are messing with the way people have organized their work and their information and knowledge flows, with their relationships and sharing patterns, in this field trust and assurance – it seems to me – are critical.

So why don’t we talk about touch, when we talk about change management and KM communications? And why do organisations insist on believing they can completely remove face to face meetings – basic human contact – from their virtual teams and communities of practice once they have put collaboration infrastructure in place?

No more ties! Building expertise rather than memorizing ideas.

“For some people the knowledge one person already has before a learning experience is like a collection of old ties, with each tie being an element of the held knowledge. When new knowledge becomes available (in a training session) the knowledge acquisition process is mechanically simple: I add more ties to my collection.
All I have to do is put every new tie in the next space in the rack, every new information in its proper place. This kind of knowledge applies to fact and memory learning and is helpful to learn the capital of Ukraine or your aunt’s phone number!
Educational Researchers call this kind of process “rote learning”.

There is another kind of knowledge acquisition process: the one that is used to build expertise (the one most adult training is all about). Rather than adding another tie to the collection, this kind of new knowledge looks more like the creative problem-solving we perform when we are confronted with a strange new object (for instance a red L-shaped container filled with M&M’s.)

Rather than simply putting “one more tie in the drawer” I have this additional strange new thing and I am now creatively:
-investigating what the new object is,
-comparing it to something I already have,
-trying to understand what it can do for me,
-evaluating if I am interested in keeping this object in the house.

For this last kind of activities it becomes critical:
• The Collaboration of others
• Realistic Manipulation and Hands-on Action
• Sustained Dialogue and critical Reflection-on-action.

All of us can agree on how different a tie is compared with a red L-shaped container filled with M&M’s. Unfortunately people continue to assume that the process of building expertise is like a mechanical “adding a new tie to a collection” and not like problem-solving, the puzzling and demanding mental work we perform when dealing with something new, weird and strange like a L-shaped container.

How can we convince them? Email me your answer!”

What do networks, swarms and learning have in common?

The followin page from Kevin Kelly

OUT OF CONTROL: THE NEW BIOLOGY OF MACHINES

has the answer! Enjoy!

http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch2-f.html

The Importance of Robust Dialogue

From “Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done” by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan

In the typical corporate meeting-a business review, for example-the dialogue is constrained and politicized. Some people want to shade and soften what they say to avoid a confrontation. Others need to beat those they are talking to into submission. In groups that contain both types of people (which is the case in many meetings), dialogue becomes a combat sport for the killers and a humiliation or bore for the passives. Little reality gets on the table, and the meeting doesn’t move the issues forward much.

Now think of a meeting that produced great results-that got the realities and ended with a plan for results. How did it happen?

Dialogue alters the psychology of a group. It can either expand a group’s capacity or shrink it. It can be energizing or energy draining. It can create self-confidence and optimism, or it can produce pessimism. It can create unity, or it can create bitter factions.

Robust dialogue brings out reality, even when that reality makes people uncomfortable, because it has purpose and meaning. It is open, tough, focused, and informal. The aim is to invite multiple viewpoints, see the pros and cons of each one, and try honestly and candidly to construct new viewpoints. This is the dynamic that stimulates new questions, new ideas, and new insights rather than wasting energy defending the old order.

How do you get people to practice robust dialogue when they are used to the games and evasions of classical corporate dialogue? It starts at the top, with the dialogues of the organization’s leader. If he or she is practicing robust dialogue, others will take the cue. Some leaders may be short on the emotional fortitude required to invite disagreement without getting defensive. Others may need to learn some specific skills to help people challenge and debate constructively. These people should be able to get help.

But the key is that people act their way to thinking because they’re driven for results. If you reward for performance, the interest in performance will be sufficiently deep to sponsor a dialogue. Everybody needs to get the best answer, and that means everybody must be candid in their exchanges – no one person has all the ideas. If someone says something you disagree with and you rudely tell him he’s full of hot air, a lot of other people aren’t going to speak out next time. If instead you say, “Okay, let’s talk about that. Let’s listen to everybody, and then make our choice,” you’ll get much better responses.

Open-Mindness in Conversation

It’s hard to keep an open mind during heated conversation, isn’t it? People get identified with certain ideas and assert them fervently. They offer “Yes, but . . .” responses to those with different or opposing views. They don’t really consider evidence against their own views.  Why Are People Closed-minded?

Once a belief has been established, it is hard to change. Often our beliefs are set early in life as a result of our up-bringing and limited exposure to other belief systems. For that
reason, the majority of people share the religious faith and political beliefs of their
parents. The adage says, “The way the twig is bent, so grows the tree.”

Beliefs are maintained by selective exposure to information. Media research demonstrates that individuals privatize themselves by paying most attention to those media that support their beliefs and much less to media that offer contrary ideas. As well, birds of a feather DO flock together, so we surround ourselves with people of like mind in our clubs, churches, and workplace. Once polarized in our beliefs and opinions, we tend to ignore or dismiss contrary evidence so as “not to be confused by the facts.”

Benefits of Open-Mindedness
Being open-minded carries certain benefits, among them the ability to be less swayed by
specific events and to be less susceptible to manipulation and suggestion. Open-minded
people are more thoughtful and not so easily roused to anger because they can actually
consider alternative views without upset. (Think of how beneficial open-mindedness
would be for you when your Uncle Dick goes on a political rant with you during a holiday
get-together! You could hear him out with civility and not ruin your day.)

How to Increase Your Open-Mindedness
Here are two exercises attributed to Catherine Freeman, a therapist and coach:
1. Take a position opposite to your own on a controversial topic such as abortion or gun control. Generate at least 3 reasons to support this opposite position, the more the better. (This method is similar to what college debaters are required to do: to argue both sides of proposition with reasoned argument.)
2. Recall a time someone wronged you and come up with some reasons why they may have done that inadvertently without intent to harm. (Also, The “Work” of Byron Katie has a simple, clear steps of 4 questions that is profoundly helpful in getting un-stuck from judgements. (Details at www.thework.org.)

To an in-law firmly convinced of his rightness on a number of political issues, I say “I agree that we disagree.” I don’t try to change him, and he offers himself as a model close-minded person. I can usually listen to his views without becoming upset, and once in a while I’ll change my thinking.

My intention is not that he change, but only that he be thoughtful when we talk. For me,
that is a more attainable goal than change.

 By Loren Ekroth

The Danger of sliding on the Learning Curve!

While training becomes more and more critical for people and organizations, it is increasingly turning up in the headlines of daily news as a failed solution to problems, as a big solution for big problems or as a justification to do something controversial.

Here are a few examples I have collected in the last months from newspapers, the internet and in general public discourse to explain what I mean.

Training is often seen as the failed solution to many problems.
“Poor training” is said to be the cause of failed expensive software implementations across federal agencies, “Lack of training of the intervention personnel” is indicated as the reason for weak responses to natural disasters. Perpetrators of human rights abuses on prisoners have been defined as “…staff lacking training on the guidelines against torture”. Do we need a “Training anti-defamation league” to respond to these allegations?

Training is also seen as the “silver bullet” for solving big problems.
“Better training for teachers”, is the solution to the nation’s failing public schools system. “Increased funds for training” should solve high unemployment rates and poor GDP growth. Surprise: “Training” is also the solution for abuse from caregivers in nursing homes. It makes you feel mighty as a trainer, doesn’t it?

Training is often the justification for doing something controversial.
“Training purposes” justify no respect for the privacy of your call to a customer service center as “your phone call may be recorded”. “Poor training, supervision” justifies the acquittal of officials on trial in brutality cases. Lately I‘ve ever heard that the reason for the war in Iraq was to “bring effective training to the Iraqi”. A workshop would have been obviously cheaper!

The lesson learned here is that you need to be careful with training: you are dealing with work that is highly controversial, highly visible and often not fully understood.
In fact unreasonable expectations, lack of accountability or clear definition of boundaries of training responsibilities can kill the best training work before it even starts.

What can you do to prevent or limit all this from happening in your training initiative?
How can we design training and play it “safer”?

A passage I like from "Trust" by Jack Gibb

Cosmic humor and light-heartedness. Sometimes I think I have consciously developed a humorous side as an effect to balance my inner heaviness. I see this polarity between the tragic and the comedic in many people, certainly in myself. Even in my heaviest grief I often see the comedy being played out. Whether it seems to come to us from the outside or from inner sources, humor can be healing, restorative, and inductive of wellness.

My speech professor in college used to say, often, that “whenever someone laughs there is someone hurting and in pain.” He was aware of the hostile side of humor. I am too. But there is a gentle, warm, and caring aspect to comedy that is divine and healing. In the past, it has sometimes been difficult for me to see the lightheartedness in pain and tragedy, particularly in relation to myself. Ability to see the restorative qualities of humor is increased by the ability to make a perceptual shift, to create a new perspective.

Sacredness and purity. I sometimes find myself caught up in a deep anger towards people who seem to be evil in intent and action, and, at the same time, feel a deep compassion for people who are hurting so bad inside that they feel they must punish the world in some way.

I have a vivid memory of a scene on the beach at Laguna Hills in California. On one windy afternoon, on my “coffee break” from a workshop I was conducting nearby, I saw a small boy of about four years of age, walking along and sobbing at the cold wind, and complaining to his father. His father turned around, saying something about “men don’t cry,” and slapped his son’s face very hard several times, finally knocking the boy to the ground.

Understanding the father’s righteous anger at his unmanly child, and his inner need to punish when seeing the world as he did, I still found it very difficult to keep from going up and protecting the child, perhaps hitting the parent, who seemed to me, from the way I saw the world, to be doing an outrageous thing. I felt incapacitated by my awareness of the dilemma in me, my strong polar feelings, and my caughtness in the midst of my own unresolved beliefs. Empathy and non-action. Rooted in polarity.

……I get caught up in this dilemma and polarity when I read about child abuse, preparation for war, active discrimination against women and blacks, the helplessness of the unemployed, and a variety of other “evils” that exist in our world. About equally, I have an “understanding” of the reactive defensiveness and pain in people that are led to murder or punish. I feel a strong compassion for these people that is at least as strong as my compassion for the people who are abused.

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IS BETTER: 1 reasons and one bit of research

“…O! It drives all joy away;
Under a cruel eye outworn,
The little
ones
spend the day,
In Sighing and Dismay.”
William Blake,”The School
Boy”

What you want Baby, I got What you need Do you know I got it? All I’m askin’ Is
for a little respect”
Aretha Franklyn

16 Teaching is expensive; Collaborative learning is inexpensive

Why do managers who would not blink to authorize a multimillion dollar new technology infrastructure project find no budget for training departments? Because there are less tangible results for training and more difficulties to get everyone on board about it.

Even when money is spent on learning, organizations normally overspend on traditional teaching rather then on collaborative learning. That makes collaborative learning look like it’s not a good investment. If the old advertising saying: “I do not know which 50% of my budget is wasted” would apply to traditional teaching, would the number be higher or lower than 50% in your organization?

Organizations are more accustomed to spending on teaching. They are almost resigned to it and would rather spend their budgets on expensive teaching and invite “keynote speakers” than giving voice to the many internal experts or financing relatively inexpensive “learning space” retreats, “internal knowledge circles” meetings or simple off-site sessions for “project lessons learned”.

Which one is easier: inviting “the expert” to talk or getting twenty managers away from their offices to talk about ways to improve their organization? While management-celebrities need no explaining, the second option, though inexpensive, is much harder to sell in its simplicity and possible far-reaching results.

A RESEARCH: COLLABORATIVE VS. COMPETITIVE LEARNING
A common observation is that people are unable to work productively together – in meetings, for example. With so many examples of group work as ineffective and conflict-ridden, how does collaborative learning make people suddenly work well in groups, become open to possibilities, and have fun? Why in a collaborative learning session do people suddenly interact more productively and are stimulated by the content?

Johnson and Johnson, the fathers of collaborative learning researched the subject and demonstrated that: Cooperative learning strategies work better than individualistic or competitive ones. The strategy and experience of Cooperative learning scores higher in the following areas:
Ability to motivate to learn more about the subject area being studied;
Ability to create of a positive attitudes toward both the subject area and the instructional experience;
Ability to work productively in a group and collaborative competencies;
Ability to understand how a situation appears to another person and how that person is reacting to it. (Called “cognitive and affective perspective-taking” with the opposite as egocentrism);
Ability to promote constructive socialization and expectations toward more rewarding, pleasant and enjoyable future interactions among students.***
***(Additionally to think critically and use higher reasoning strategies; to generate beliefs that one is personally

COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS Adriano Pianesi 2006

WARNING! If you think adults learn like children, please read on.

Children are natural learners and their readiness to learn is rooted in biological development. Adult learners need to take a break from “doing things” before they can get into the “learning mode”. Adult learners view learning as a solution to cope with something that is impacting their immediate circumstances. For adults, learning is often sought out as a way to solve a problem or to deal better with something new. As such adult learners are “problem-centered” and want to immediately apply new information or skills to current problems or situations.

Children have a limited experience base. Adult learners have a powerful resource for the learning process: their rich life experience; and they use it actively as they continuously relate new knowledge and information to previously learned information and experiences. Unfortuately adult learners are more set in their ways, and are much more likely to reject or explain away new information that contradicts their values, beliefs and opinions. Children in turn, are open to new information and will readily adjust their views.

Unlike adult learners – children do not deal with the anxiety of the “un-learning” process and the confusion before reconstructing new knowledge. Adult learners have pride and in a classroom environment not perceived as safe or supportive major issues of self-esteem and ego tend to degenerate into conflict. Adults perceive any lack of skills or knowledge as a gap to fill as quickly as possible to defend their acquired sense of professionalism and competence.

Children do not question the learning content importance. Adults have different ideas about what is important to learn and why.

Children can be easily segmented by age when they come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, etc. Adults are very different from each other and are much harder to teach in a group as an individual entity.