By Adriano Pianesi
I would like to share my excitement for the effectiveness of a new approach to learning from experience called Action Learning. I recently completed my certification as an Action Learning coach and have already facilitated two workshops using the method.
Action Learning is an instructional method of solving a problem in a group setting while learning from experience under the guidance of an Action Learning coach.
In an Action Learning session people discuss and reflect about a problem owned either by an individual, a group or a team. Dialogue is guaranteed by one of the method’s critical ground rules: “Statements can be made only in response to questions.” This rule is established at the beginning of the session and generates a spirit of inquiry that releases the pooled knowledge of the group to solve a problem. The process is this: a participant presents a real problem to the group and participants proceed to ask questions in order to understand the problem and come up with potential solutions. While the group is in this discussion, the Action Learning coach focuses exclusively on the learning that comes from experience and intervenes from time to time stopping the action to solicit learning reflections from participants.
In addition, at the beginning of an Action Learning session the coach asks each participant to name a leadership skill he/she wants to work on. At the end of the session each individual receives feedback from the group on how he/she did in reference to that particular skill during the conversation. In this way, Action Learning serves the dual purpose of solving problems and developing leadership skills.
An Action Learning program is such if six key elements are in place:
• A team willing to meet face-to-face at least once, better if more or on a regular basis
• An Action Learning Coach
• An urgent problem that needs some resolution. The problem must not have an existing solution. For example, “What is the capital of Kyrgyzstan?” does not qualify as an Action Learning problem as only one solution exists; “How can I find out what the capital of Kyrgyzstan is?” does, as there are several ways for somebody to find out.
• A commitment to questioning and reflecting by the members of the group
• A commitment by the problem-owner to action based on the result of the session
• A commitment to learning.
As such Action Learning:
• is not a task force or a quality circle, because in those groups the purpose is exclusively to act while learning is incidental. In Action Learning, learning is one of the main objectives of the session.
• is not a simple dialogue, because the session generates action items as solutions to the problem that the problem owner commits to use in real life.
• is not coaching individuals about a problem, because the group generates the solution while the Action Learning coach only focuses on the learning of the group.
One of the Action Learning’s elements that I found most important is that it uses one of the key findings of contemporary learning theory -- that the process of acquiring expertise must be through applied learning and communication with peers and experts in the workplace, not with top-down communication.
Action Learning addresses effectively the unwillingness of many organizations to send managers away from work to training and the common misconception of seeing learning as separated from “real work” and, ultimately, of little value.
Why? Because Action Learning generates value and distills learning from experience while solving real-world problems. Peter Drucker’s 1959 idea of the “knowledge worker”—the visionary concept of a workforce whose primary job is to develop knowledge to, in turn, generate value fits to Action Learning to a T.
Yet, I worry about how far from this concept the reality of today’s workplace is, with the trainer’s job still shaped by the traditional model of an expert teaching with Power Point presentations!
Colleagues, let’s step up our efforts! I announced my first Action Learning workshop “No Training! Action Learning for Managers” with an invitation that read: “Disclaimer: No PowerPoint slides were created for the design of this course.” and “Bring your work problems with you; we will solve them together and learn something in the process!” This set the collaborative and original tone that lasted through the highly enjoyable session. I might add that the session was also highly effective.
One of the elements I was struck with about Action Learning is its ability to bridge formal corporate knowledge needs with the unpredictability of informal workplace communities. In fact Action Learning implicitly assumes that:
• The solution to problems exists already in workplace communities—not with experts
• The pooled knowledge of learners is the critical resource for learning —not a textbook
• Learning at work must generate knowledge to solve problems –not abstract theory
• Learning is facilitated in action – not away from it
Today, the demand for more and better workplace learning calls for a new generation of training that focuses on pooling and creating knowledge rather than on functions carried out more effectively by computers (like information-dispensing and skill-drilling). I believe Action Learning can be a useful additional tool in the repertoire of adult educators to address this challenge.
I am planning to facilitate another Action Learning workshop soon and I am looking forward to continuing to share my experience further with the readers of my blog.
I own Participaction Consulting, Inc., a consultancy that develops custom training solutions through collaboration to reach lasting organizational change.
Dialogue is Dangerous When it is Done Right:
by Christine Little
Director of Global Learning & Organizational Development
Habitat for Humanity International
The meeting was stalled with 40 people standing in clusters around the edges of the room. They were stuck, frustrated, and looking for me help them out. For a day we had moved through the safer activities of the meeting, working in small groups, gathering input for the content of a purpose statement, discussing and charting the stickier points of process and structure.
But this question was a high risk question. "Which of these points are you personally committed to putting some action to?" There was no hiding from that question in a small group. There was no hiding from it in the creation of more elegant bullet points. It could not be anonymously penned on a flip chart or jotted onto a sticky note right before darting out the door.
This question was personal. It was confrontational. It confronted them with their own freedom to choose - am I committing to what we can create in this room, or am I opting out?
Since reading Peter Block's compelling book "the answer to how is yes," (and having been in an even more compelling two-day workshop with him) I have rethought the way I design for safety in dialogue.
"Threat can work against dialogue. If I will be ridiculed for a wrong answer, I am likely to withhold my answers until I am sure they are right. If honest opinion gets punished, I may opt for the safe, comfortable, slightly less honest dialogue that frequently fills meeting, training and conference rooms.
Threat can work against dialogue. If I will be ridiculed for a wrong answer, I am likely to withhold my answers until I am sure they are right. If honest opinion gets punished, I may opt for the safe, comfortable, slightly less honest dialogue that frequently fills meeting, training and conference rooms.
Safety can also work against dialogue. Exposure is the price for meaningful dialogue. And significant change -- the ultimate pay off for learning -- is not safe, painless or easy. It requires courage. Our design and facilitation would do well to promote courage rather than safety. Courage is ultimately more useful for the world.
I have facilitated, and participated in, elegantly designed processes that made it easy to hide, to play it safe or to avoid meaning. In these gatherings, dissent has been put on the "parking lot" so that it can't derail the process in the room. Questions and reporting techniques keep the dialogue manageable (especially for the facilitator), but they neutralize expressions of doubt, confusion, and disagreement.
I still use small groups. I still sequence activities to move from easy to more difficult. I don't call on individuals to confront them with the question I think they are dodging. But I also create space for individuals and for the group to participate in more courageous dialogue.
Here are some ways I have changed my approach to design and facilitation in pursuit of courage over safety:
I use questions that examine doubt, commitment and personal choice. "Head" questions can generate good information - we need them to get the ideas out there, but "gut" questions can bring a group to confront its choice.
I have greatly reduced my reliance on clever techniques that gather information in manageable bites. The SNOW cards, graphic organizers and two-word answers that I favored in order to boost dialogue, generate more information and create safety, were also diminishing some of the meaningfulness of the dialogue. They have their place. But the frequently served my need for time management and control more than they served
I build time into my design to process with the group how they are functioning (individually and as a group) in the meeting room. Block notes that the meeting itself is a metaphor for the organization. It is rich with data, and often partly invisible to people in the room. It is worthwhile to examine what it means if people are quietly agreeing to decisions in the meeting, then frenetically trying to lobby the CEO at break.
I stay with the group when the tension builds, when they are stuck, or resisting, or polarizing, but I don't give into the temptation to save us all by quickly designing a safer task.
This last part takes the most courage from me. I am proud of my capacity to design tasks, ask the right questions, keep the group engaged in the work. I like to be the person in the room who can design the environment and the work in such a way that a group produces what it set out to produce. The trouble is, if the session is mainly a demonstration of my design capacity, it may not actually be a demonstration of the commitment of the people in the room to carry forward what they have planned.
As we stood in that meeting room, the tension grew. The participants stopped talking about their own dilemma and switched to talking about how the meeting was being run. They said I was asking the wrong question. That we needed to go back and get the wording of the bullet points right first. That the categories were all wrong.
In my own mind, I could already hear how the story would be told about this failed meeting. "Two wasted days! The CEO sitting in the room for two days! All those wasted airfares. And the problem is she got the design all wrong." It was an act of will not to break the tension by moving them into small groups and giving them the task of rewording some bullet points. That would have guaranteed an output. But the bigger prize -- personal commitment to the decision -- would have been lost.
After a torturous 20 minutes, something shifted. The group took control of the meeting. They started moving the tables around so that the room was better designed for the work. They very quickly formed groups and figured out their own process for collecting and reporting. I had designed some questions for them, but I didn't even put the flipchart up. My questions no longer mattered. They had decided to commit, and they already knew what had to be created in the next two hours. All I needed to do was sit down and let them work.
Director of Global Learning & Organizational Development
Habitat for Humanity International
The meeting was stalled with 40 people standing in clusters around the edges of the room. They were stuck, frustrated, and looking for me help them out. For a day we had moved through the safer activities of the meeting, working in small groups, gathering input for the content of a purpose statement, discussing and charting the stickier points of process and structure.
But this question was a high risk question. "Which of these points are you personally committed to putting some action to?" There was no hiding from that question in a small group. There was no hiding from it in the creation of more elegant bullet points. It could not be anonymously penned on a flip chart or jotted onto a sticky note right before darting out the door.
This question was personal. It was confrontational. It confronted them with their own freedom to choose - am I committing to what we can create in this room, or am I opting out?
Since reading Peter Block's compelling book "the answer to how is yes," (and having been in an even more compelling two-day workshop with him) I have rethought the way I design for safety in dialogue.
"Threat can work against dialogue. If I will be ridiculed for a wrong answer, I am likely to withhold my answers until I am sure they are right. If honest opinion gets punished, I may opt for the safe, comfortable, slightly less honest dialogue that frequently fills meeting, training and conference rooms.
Threat can work against dialogue. If I will be ridiculed for a wrong answer, I am likely to withhold my answers until I am sure they are right. If honest opinion gets punished, I may opt for the safe, comfortable, slightly less honest dialogue that frequently fills meeting, training and conference rooms.
Safety can also work against dialogue. Exposure is the price for meaningful dialogue. And significant change -- the ultimate pay off for learning -- is not safe, painless or easy. It requires courage. Our design and facilitation would do well to promote courage rather than safety. Courage is ultimately more useful for the world.
I have facilitated, and participated in, elegantly designed processes that made it easy to hide, to play it safe or to avoid meaning. In these gatherings, dissent has been put on the "parking lot" so that it can't derail the process in the room. Questions and reporting techniques keep the dialogue manageable (especially for the facilitator), but they neutralize expressions of doubt, confusion, and disagreement.
I still use small groups. I still sequence activities to move from easy to more difficult. I don't call on individuals to confront them with the question I think they are dodging. But I also create space for individuals and for the group to participate in more courageous dialogue.
Here are some ways I have changed my approach to design and facilitation in pursuit of courage over safety:
I use questions that examine doubt, commitment and personal choice. "Head" questions can generate good information - we need them to get the ideas out there, but "gut" questions can bring a group to confront its choice.
I have greatly reduced my reliance on clever techniques that gather information in manageable bites. The SNOW cards, graphic organizers and two-word answers that I favored in order to boost dialogue, generate more information and create safety, were also diminishing some of the meaningfulness of the dialogue. They have their place. But the frequently served my need for time management and control more than they served
I build time into my design to process with the group how they are functioning (individually and as a group) in the meeting room. Block notes that the meeting itself is a metaphor for the organization. It is rich with data, and often partly invisible to people in the room. It is worthwhile to examine what it means if people are quietly agreeing to decisions in the meeting, then frenetically trying to lobby the CEO at break.
I stay with the group when the tension builds, when they are stuck, or resisting, or polarizing, but I don't give into the temptation to save us all by quickly designing a safer task.
This last part takes the most courage from me. I am proud of my capacity to design tasks, ask the right questions, keep the group engaged in the work. I like to be the person in the room who can design the environment and the work in such a way that a group produces what it set out to produce. The trouble is, if the session is mainly a demonstration of my design capacity, it may not actually be a demonstration of the commitment of the people in the room to carry forward what they have planned.
As we stood in that meeting room, the tension grew. The participants stopped talking about their own dilemma and switched to talking about how the meeting was being run. They said I was asking the wrong question. That we needed to go back and get the wording of the bullet points right first. That the categories were all wrong.
In my own mind, I could already hear how the story would be told about this failed meeting. "Two wasted days! The CEO sitting in the room for two days! All those wasted airfares. And the problem is she got the design all wrong." It was an act of will not to break the tension by moving them into small groups and giving them the task of rewording some bullet points. That would have guaranteed an output. But the bigger prize -- personal commitment to the decision -- would have been lost.
After a torturous 20 minutes, something shifted. The group took control of the meeting. They started moving the tables around so that the room was better designed for the work. They very quickly formed groups and figured out their own process for collecting and reporting. I had designed some questions for them, but I didn't even put the flipchart up. My questions no longer mattered. They had decided to commit, and they already knew what had to be created in the next two hours. All I needed to do was sit down and let them work.
The final diary of my Classroom Timer
The dramatic account in the words of Rory McLean, former Lead Developer of my team and Humorist Maximus NOTE I do keep a bag with markers, mp3 player, pens, a bell and a timer in a box for use in my classroom sessions. I never thought it would become the subject of such drama :-)
Tuesday:
Another day in the box with the other "toys". I'm crushed up against a cupie doll that has eyes and ears that expand when you squeeze it. I can't believe a serious electronic device like me if forced to share space with a cupie doll...I have three split times for Christ's sake...this is outrageous...I should be in a hand-crafted box. What's worse is that my backside is crushed against the cupie doll and I don't know what else expands when he's squeezed. I pray that nobody sits on the box.
Wednesday:
I can't really tell what's going on since the plastic box is so cloudy. Adriano might have a training class...maybe I can finally get out of here. He's running around, showing a screen to everyone. It looks like the zoom button screen. I can't tell. Maybe we're training some FBA folks.
Thursday:
No meeting...damn. Adriano did open the box to take the bell for a little bit. When bell returned he said it was just the weekly departmental meeting and they would ring him some nobody could abuse Kenny for more than three minutes each.
Friday:
I can't take it any longer. Some people say they like the smell of markers but try smelling "grape" for five days straight. Makes me want to vomit.
...But I do have a plan. I'm setting off my alarm and that should get attention.
Late Friday Night:
The alarm didn't get Adriano's attention. Trinh was here a few minutes ago, but she couldn't locate me and left.
Saturday:
Alarm is still going off...but nobody can hear me. I feel so lonely. The drain on my batteries is scaring me.
Sunday:
No hope. Alarm is starting to make sick chirping noise. No energy left. Tell Adriano I was always there for himmmmmm.....
Tuesday:
Another day in the box with the other "toys". I'm crushed up against a cupie doll that has eyes and ears that expand when you squeeze it. I can't believe a serious electronic device like me if forced to share space with a cupie doll...I have three split times for Christ's sake...this is outrageous...I should be in a hand-crafted box. What's worse is that my backside is crushed against the cupie doll and I don't know what else expands when he's squeezed. I pray that nobody sits on the box.
Wednesday:
I can't really tell what's going on since the plastic box is so cloudy. Adriano might have a training class...maybe I can finally get out of here. He's running around, showing a screen to everyone. It looks like the zoom button screen. I can't tell. Maybe we're training some FBA folks.
Thursday:
No meeting...damn. Adriano did open the box to take the bell for a little bit. When bell returned he said it was just the weekly departmental meeting and they would ring him some nobody could abuse Kenny for more than three minutes each.
Friday:
I can't take it any longer. Some people say they like the smell of markers but try smelling "grape" for five days straight. Makes me want to vomit.
...But I do have a plan. I'm setting off my alarm and that should get attention.
Late Friday Night:
The alarm didn't get Adriano's attention. Trinh was here a few minutes ago, but she couldn't locate me and left.
Saturday:
Alarm is still going off...but nobody can hear me. I feel so lonely. The drain on my batteries is scaring me.
Sunday:
No hope. Alarm is starting to make sick chirping noise. No energy left. Tell Adriano I was always there for himmmmmm.....
Conflict Resolution Training: Aim high
We published - with the author's permission - an article about the purpose of conflict resolution training in government agencies. I feel Geoff’s article applies not just to Conflict Resolution Training but to many other Federal Government training classes . Enjoy!
Conflict Resolution Training: Aim high
The cardinal rule of organizational behavior is that what gets measured gets done. Applied to training, the means the criteria used to evaluate a course not only dictate how it is designed and delivered, they also shape how trainees interpret and apply the course content.
This article discusses how three approaches to evaluation used by government agencies affect the extent to which conflict resolution training has a positive impact on the workplace.
Compliance
The purpose of many training courses is to comply with a statute, regulation, Executive Order, or agency directive that requires certain categories of employees to receive training on a particular subject within a designated timeframe. These mandates rarely, if ever, require employees to retain or use the knowledge
or skills conveyed to them. They require only that certain information be transmitted. As a result, agencies typically track only whether such transmission occurs.
One method is documenting content and attendance. For live training, this means ensuring that employees' names appear on sign-in sheets, and that the video or PowerPoint slides they view and the manual they receive contain the requisite content. A second method for documenting the transmission of information
is requiring employees to answer questions designed to test
their comprehension of the material. Both methods provide a clear audit trial for proving compliance with a training mandate, but they reveal nothing about
what employees do when they return to the workplace.
As a result, these measures provide no incentive to provide quality training. The simplest and quickest ways to convey information are passive: requiring students to listen to a lecture, watch a video, or read materials on a website. Unfortunately, these are also the least effective methods for training adults. In theory, testing would create a demand for quality, but in reality this often is not the case. Since the agency's goal is documenting compliance, it wants as high a pass rate as possible. Retraining, retesting, or, worse yet, having to discipline employees who fail tests is an administrative burden. The easiest ways to ensure a high pass rate are to teach to the test (stress the material covered in the questions) and to make the questions as easy as possible to answer. If they are warned during a course that certain actions are illegal and could lead to prosecution, disciplinary action, or other adverse consequences, employees are likely to adjust their behavior accordingly regardless of how the course is evaluated.
But if the course is intended in whole or in part to inspire rather than command certain behaviors, the agency's apparent lack of concern about what they do when they return to their workstations is likely to strongly influence employee behavior.
The message that usually comes through loud and clear is that this course is just another bureaucratic interruption of their real work.
Reaction
Training in conflict resolution skills is often used to react to perceived problems in the workplace. If there are a lot of disputes, why not provide training in how to resolve them? If communication seems to be lacking or ineffective, communications
training seems like a sensible response.
Are lawyers and other agency personnel spending a lot of time or money on litigation?
Training in negotiation or mediation skills might help. The methods typically used to gauge the success of this type of training are attendance and participant feedback. At the end of the course, employees are asked to rate various aspects
of the training. Participant evaluations provide an incentive to make a course enjoyable and provide valuable information about what participants like and dislike.
But there is a serious downside to assuming that if employees like a course they will
use what they learned in some beneficial way. Without any proof of a return on investment, it is hard to justify spending money on training. Many theoretically sound ideas fail to hold up in real world testing. Furthermore, as is the case with compliance training, if an agency does not commit to measuring the impact of skills
training on workplace behavior, employees may assume the agency is more concerned with "looking good" by reacting to a problem than it is with changing how things are done.
Everyone in the federal sector has seen flavor-of-the-month initiatives that come and go faster than celebrity marriages.
Performance
An agency may commit to bettering its performance on a mission- related goal and determine that training is a means to this end. Training in conflict resolution skills may further such agency goals as reducing complaints or grievances; improving
employee satisfaction or productivity; or lowering sick leave abuse, attrition, or transfer requests.
Measuring the impact of conflict resolution training on employee performance creates a powerful incentive to provide top quality training. Measuring impact also makes it imperative to incorporate training into a comprehensive plan for promoting positive
change. If employees are tasked with achieving a goal and are informed that training will help them achieve it, they have a strong incentive to figure out how to apply the skills they learn productively. It all gets back to the simple rule that what gets measured gets done. If the measure of success for conflict resolution training is workplace performance, employees get the message that improving performance matters.
Since impact on a mission-related goal cannot be measured until well after a course ends, content, attendance, testing, and course evaluations are useful for ensuring a course is on track. Used as tools instead of goals, these measures can play a constructive role in promoting effective training.
The downside of measuring success by employee performance is the increased risk of failure. Content and attendance are a breeze to control, and good trainers can easily ensure that employees pass tests and review a course favorably. But
staking your reputation on how others perform post-training may seem downright scary. Just remember there is tremendous power in letting go. If an agency demonstrates its belief in the skills it is teaching and the employees it is teaching them to by committing to measurable results, employees will strive
to live up to expectations.
Geoff Drucker is the Director of Federal Dispute Resolution with the McCammon Group and can be reached at 703.582.9971 www.mccammongroup.com
Conflict Resolution Training: Aim high
The cardinal rule of organizational behavior is that what gets measured gets done. Applied to training, the means the criteria used to evaluate a course not only dictate how it is designed and delivered, they also shape how trainees interpret and apply the course content.
This article discusses how three approaches to evaluation used by government agencies affect the extent to which conflict resolution training has a positive impact on the workplace.
Compliance
The purpose of many training courses is to comply with a statute, regulation, Executive Order, or agency directive that requires certain categories of employees to receive training on a particular subject within a designated timeframe. These mandates rarely, if ever, require employees to retain or use the knowledge
or skills conveyed to them. They require only that certain information be transmitted. As a result, agencies typically track only whether such transmission occurs.
One method is documenting content and attendance. For live training, this means ensuring that employees' names appear on sign-in sheets, and that the video or PowerPoint slides they view and the manual they receive contain the requisite content. A second method for documenting the transmission of information
is requiring employees to answer questions designed to test
their comprehension of the material. Both methods provide a clear audit trial for proving compliance with a training mandate, but they reveal nothing about
what employees do when they return to the workplace.
As a result, these measures provide no incentive to provide quality training. The simplest and quickest ways to convey information are passive: requiring students to listen to a lecture, watch a video, or read materials on a website. Unfortunately, these are also the least effective methods for training adults. In theory, testing would create a demand for quality, but in reality this often is not the case. Since the agency's goal is documenting compliance, it wants as high a pass rate as possible. Retraining, retesting, or, worse yet, having to discipline employees who fail tests is an administrative burden. The easiest ways to ensure a high pass rate are to teach to the test (stress the material covered in the questions) and to make the questions as easy as possible to answer. If they are warned during a course that certain actions are illegal and could lead to prosecution, disciplinary action, or other adverse consequences, employees are likely to adjust their behavior accordingly regardless of how the course is evaluated.
But if the course is intended in whole or in part to inspire rather than command certain behaviors, the agency's apparent lack of concern about what they do when they return to their workstations is likely to strongly influence employee behavior.
The message that usually comes through loud and clear is that this course is just another bureaucratic interruption of their real work.
Reaction
Training in conflict resolution skills is often used to react to perceived problems in the workplace. If there are a lot of disputes, why not provide training in how to resolve them? If communication seems to be lacking or ineffective, communications
training seems like a sensible response.
Are lawyers and other agency personnel spending a lot of time or money on litigation?
Training in negotiation or mediation skills might help. The methods typically used to gauge the success of this type of training are attendance and participant feedback. At the end of the course, employees are asked to rate various aspects
of the training. Participant evaluations provide an incentive to make a course enjoyable and provide valuable information about what participants like and dislike.
But there is a serious downside to assuming that if employees like a course they will
use what they learned in some beneficial way. Without any proof of a return on investment, it is hard to justify spending money on training. Many theoretically sound ideas fail to hold up in real world testing. Furthermore, as is the case with compliance training, if an agency does not commit to measuring the impact of skills
training on workplace behavior, employees may assume the agency is more concerned with "looking good" by reacting to a problem than it is with changing how things are done.
Everyone in the federal sector has seen flavor-of-the-month initiatives that come and go faster than celebrity marriages.
Performance
An agency may commit to bettering its performance on a mission- related goal and determine that training is a means to this end. Training in conflict resolution skills may further such agency goals as reducing complaints or grievances; improving
employee satisfaction or productivity; or lowering sick leave abuse, attrition, or transfer requests.
Measuring the impact of conflict resolution training on employee performance creates a powerful incentive to provide top quality training. Measuring impact also makes it imperative to incorporate training into a comprehensive plan for promoting positive
change. If employees are tasked with achieving a goal and are informed that training will help them achieve it, they have a strong incentive to figure out how to apply the skills they learn productively. It all gets back to the simple rule that what gets measured gets done. If the measure of success for conflict resolution training is workplace performance, employees get the message that improving performance matters.
Since impact on a mission-related goal cannot be measured until well after a course ends, content, attendance, testing, and course evaluations are useful for ensuring a course is on track. Used as tools instead of goals, these measures can play a constructive role in promoting effective training.
The downside of measuring success by employee performance is the increased risk of failure. Content and attendance are a breeze to control, and good trainers can easily ensure that employees pass tests and review a course favorably. But
staking your reputation on how others perform post-training may seem downright scary. Just remember there is tremendous power in letting go. If an agency demonstrates its belief in the skills it is teaching and the employees it is teaching them to by committing to measurable results, employees will strive
to live up to expectations.
Geoff Drucker is the Director of Federal Dispute Resolution with the McCammon Group and can be reached at 703.582.9971 www.mccammongroup.com
No more ties!
"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!"
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!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
