One barrier that often presents itself when moving an organization towards a 702010 framework is that the natural interplay between all is overlooked, weakening the whole proposition. Informal, Social and Formal are wrongly dissected and discussed independently. The reality though is that all three 1. exist. 2. exist at varying levels and 3. work together constantly… especially when we are conscious of it. All we can really do then is make it work together more easily and that’s done through a framework consisting of mindset changes, individual behaviors, organizational structures and technology augmentation.
I scrabbled together the image here in an effort to make this interplay more apparent. It’s important that I note that Informal Learning to me is less about learning in our work than learning through work. Meaning that yes, we can inject resources, “micro-learning” and search capabilities into the work context but it’s more about reflection and experiential learning; extracting learning as Charles Jennings has noted.
- Social improves Formal Learning – social interaction works as a feedback loop for training efforts and should be encouraged. Outside of actual performance data – open, honest conversation about new knowledge and skills obtained in training situations is critical for improving formal learning efforts.
- Social informs Informal Learning – this relationship is very blurry as there is much overlap between social and informal learning. Conversation between people, and observations of one another’s behaviors leads to new application, ideas and reflection in the workflow.
- Informal inspires Social Learning – doing our actually work leads to new ideas about the work. Sometimes through eureka moments, sometimes through frustration. Work undoubtedly drives the most workplace conversation.
- Formal influences Informal Learning– training has a direct impact on doing (or ideally it does). Work-learning (informal) is greatly influenced by becoming faster or more efficient because of formal efforts. It’s also in the work itself that we can best reflect on new ideas and skills.
- Informal (through social) informs Formal Learning – here again, the blur between social and informal learning. Training can be positively modified due to both effective and ineffective work practices shared through social interaction.
- Formal inspires Social Learning – A great part of organizational Social Learning is in overtly sharing what works and what doesn’t with others. When training presents us with new ideas or skills we put them into practice and through conversation and modeling we can create greater contextual understanding for others.
As far as the components of a Framework I mentioned earlier, it starts with Mindsets where we help others realize the existence of 702010 and more see training as an expensive last resort, not the first option. Next it requires Individual Behaviors, If L&D, then serving as performance consultants not order takers and sniffing out then amplifying and enhancing where and when collaborative work is working. Additionally, we must examine Organizational Structures or systems. Many systems actually work against the efforts to enhance social and informal learning. In particular rewards, communication flow and management concepts need to be addressed. Finally, Technology. Tech really only serves to augments this natural occurring system, it’s not a requirement. All social technology is primarily the same, working to support community, collaboration and sharing. Social is at the center of 702010 and social technology is the catalyst that really gets it moving.
Wherever you are in the 702010 discussion, it’s important to remember that 702010 is a principle and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
You may remember the famous line in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others“. The idea is that some roles in organizations are more important than others in operating the business (a farm in this case). Today, many organizational leaders often carry the same titles across the business, i.e Manager, Managing Director, Sr. Vice President of…, etc. (as that’s convenient) but truly they are not seen or treated as equals. A manager in an operations role, one close to the work being done, one where revenue is made or lost is considered far superior in the eyes of the C-Suite than a L&D manager. And they all know it too.
Yes, yes I know that many have said L&D shouldn’t be threatened by social and social technology. The argument being that a focus on social can actually improve L&D efforts by extending formal learning impact which is true and many in L&D leadership have made progress… but many more have not and only play lip service to the notion (I know, I’ve lived it). L&D has traditionally argued against social technology on the grounds that people will share the wrong information. But there is another reality and maybe the real truth behind the dismissing. At the end of the day, L&D does just what the executives want, a course. And when numerous employees have taken the course and then do not really perform any better, the blame is more often than not placed on the employees and not the solution.
The reason for this? A fine blend of two ingredients at the management level; the leadership echo chamber and a heaping cup of cognitive dissonance. Systems->Behaviors->Culture.
First, the echo. Executives build inner circles; a cushion of trust that, over time, membership in grants one the benefit of every doubt. The next is cognitive dissonance; the reconciliation of two competing beliefs where placing blame upon the employees is chosen over the idea that monetary investments in technology and “expertise’ was wasted. Both result simply in – It’s got to be them, not us.
“Look at all the work we did.”
“Look at the features and functions we built. You (boss) liked them.”
“You (boss) agreed with them.”
“The employees didn’t invest the time.”
“They chose to ignore the content.”
“They didn’t revisit the material.”
“It’s their fault.”
But the jig is up.
Like we have always known, social technology opens things up. Social technology leads to transparency. Social technology can challenge the status quo. It doesn’t take too many voices openly sharing comments about ineffectiveness to upend the whole game. More often than not though the channel directly to the employees is either too long and narrow, blocked by protective layers of hierarchy, and/or hindered by a culture of complacency. That’s a lot but still L&D, or rather traditional training-centric L&D, should be afraid of social technology, it’s permeating the organization. Once executives understand that social for social’s sake has value (which many vendors have abandoned) it will open the doors to the boardroom to all and change will be swift.
Thousands of people recently commented (most agreeing) with a post on LinkedIn about how awful it was that posts on LinkedIn were no longer business related. Oh the irony.
They were upset that LinkedIn was being used like Facebook; status updates and photos of the non-work related type dominating their network updates. (Huh, maybe it’s just what Microsoft wanted though?)
Let’s step out of the social platform mindset for a moment and return to just being social, sans tools. In my experience, as yours, the majority of business setting conversations don’t have much to do with the business. The sports talk, the sarcastic joke, the quick verbal jab, the nod, the wink, the stories of children, parents and pets are not only accepted but expected. This informal conversation is the glue that holds together the formal pieces and this is where LinkedIn conversations are going. For some, LinkedIn has strayed from a place with a distinct purpose. This disturbs them and they will leave. But honestly the “rules” were never there, only expectation and expectations can certainly change faster than rules… and they did.
There is a lesson here for organizational leaders looking to adopt social technology, it is of course a lesson in expectation and rules. It is that social carves its own path. The conversation should not be controlled. Efforts to do so will certainly kill it. It’s movement, like that of water, is critical for survival. Healthy social is natural and unchanneled, for if the sharing and conversation were strictly business related and devoid of the elements that truly unite people, form trust, and build relationships, organizations would ultimately suffer in areas of innovation, creativity, and problem solving.
It’s important to note that people connect with people, not content and that all conversations in business is the conversation of business.