Principles of Practice

I was recently asked privately a question that I hadn’t really answered myself.

Do you use any particular methodologies or models [in your personal practice]?

So I thought about it and responded that there are two “models” that rather unconsciously or habitually guided my work practices as I began to shift away from a training-centric mindset. Note that all of which I share here can be read in depth at the respected sites noted.

The first is Wirearchy. Since my focus can now be said to be more in digital learning (Which I see as learning through technology vs. learning with technology) helping surface these powerful undercurrents of knowledge exchange is key today and social technology certainly can aid in this effort. My known affinity for 702010 should be obvious too as it certainly aligns very well to this emergent organizing principle. Wirearchy though is not about learning per se, according to Jon Husband, who authored the principle, it’s a dynamic two-way flow of power. When realized and supported in organizations, I believe Wirearchy can change the actual design of the organization. Learning is ultimately about behavior change and if you truly desire long-term change in behaviors, I believe the systems in organizations need to be addressed (human systems related to authority, communication, rewards for example). Additionally, I look to Cynefin Framework (admittedly I’m still quite a student of it) but it does help in identifying current states (habitats). One of the four domains is labeled Complex. Much of the work being done today and even organizations themselves are complex. Navigating in complexity according to Cynefin demands a Probe-Sense-Respond approach as there is no one right answer and/or the many interconnected parts can be impacted by just changing one effort. Therefore, run small experiments, gather and asses the data and take action all apply to help shift behavior in dynamic situations.

Both Wirearchy and Cynefin are larger than strategy of course and far beyond just organizational learning. I prefer them though as each are flexible and today’s world of work is much more fluid. Additionally we cannot see learning apart from work any longer. Many of the “tried & true” used by consultants arose during the last century and are honestly not valid or just too rigid. Typically they are much too slow to enact and build through best practices rather than best principles. This seems unacceptable to me as each organization is as unique as a fingerprint, one must be flexible, understand and leverage the power of networks, and draw on best principles not practices to succeed.

70:20:10’s Identity Crisis

Since my last post, “What’s the Problem with 70:20:10?” I have been fortunate enough to engage on Twitter, in face-to-face conversations and responded to a slew of comments on my blog. Additionally #LrnChat featured the topic last night which further helped me see what people are thinking about 70:20:10. All have led me to believe how and to whom we present 70:20:10 can help or hurt it’s opportunity to impact organizations.

Last night’s chat asked the important question – is 70:20:10 a Model? Framework? Concept? Approach? Other?

I am left thinking that 70:20:10 is not suitable as a model, a model can be defined as a “simplified version of something“. So yes, one could accurately say 70:20:10 is a model of organizational learning but the connotation that we can’t control creeps in and too many, “model” implies something we build, something we scale, a representation to emulate. This is where things go wrong as 70:20:10 becomes something applied or an approach. It’s also my opinion it’s not inherently a framework (although that’s the best way to support it).

At my last employer I was asked to create a Corporate University. I chose to work within the concept of how learning happens at institutions as opposed to creating the traditional “training center.” I presented 70:20:10 to the organization as a fact and supported this through an internal survey that confirmed the raw percentages. I put forth the assertion that learning at University happens in classes, the commons, and the library (as well through ones creative work). I then worked to reframe my role to be more a performance consultant, working with managers and changing mindsets around training first beliefs. And then put social at the center of our organizational learning. You can read about it more here and in Clark Quinn‘s book Revolutionize Learning & Development: Performance and Innovation Strategy for the Information Age.

For me then I think 70:20:10 is best presented as a principle. More specifically as an organizing principle like that of Wirearchy, it’s foundational relation which 70:20:10 compliments. A principle is a basic truth, and Jon Husband, the man behind Wirearchy, describes an organizing principle as:

“…something that holds true across a system, and is defined to address the essence of the system; not a solution or method or best practice.”

Why is this important?

Wirearchy, as an organizing principle “informs the ways that purposeful human activities and the structures in which they are contained is evolving from top-down direction and supervision (hierarchy’s command-and-control) to champion-and-channel.” Similarly 70:20:10 informs the ways we can and should support today’s work-learning structures. With the vast majority of our learning in organizations directly tied to our work (70) and the interactions we have with others around and about our work (20) a shift to champions and channels is needed.

If 70:20:10 is presented as a model to L&D, then you are at best going to get blended learning and at worst an argument. However, when presented to the right audience as a principle it is positioned as a natural law, something that can’t be dismissed as much as it must be dealt with. Organizational leaders and managers (the right audience)  can approach the 70:20:10 principle like an archaeologist and not an engineer; 70:20:10 needs to be unearthed not created.

 

 

Disclaimer, I am not a 70:20:10 expert, just a curious practitioner having engaged in organizational design efforts emphasizing 70:20:10. It’s my assertion that a new business, those on the long tail, cannot lose sight of this principle and if looking to transform a traditional organization around work-learning then a Re-Image should be considered. For 70:20:10 expertise I strongly suggest you look at the seminal work of Charles Jennings who consults with organizational leaders on 70:20:10 strategies and also see The 70:20:10 Forum, an organization that provides detailed pathways and resources to help individuals advance organizational change.

Vox Populi (part 2)

Since my post Vox Populi was written and shared I have had the fortunate opportunity to have three casual meetings with some local folks wanting to chat about social and social organizations.  I’ll share some generalizations and themes I picked up on.

For starters the people I met with were in traditional leadership roles in organizations providing health care services, education/training and project management. When I broached the topic of social organizations with one, the response was: “I don’t even know the full spectrum of what it all means.”  As I dug deeper into this response with them, the conversation went broader not deeper. Ideas around hierarchy, leadership, social, networks, Wirearchy, trust, conversation, communication, and learning were surfaced and it was clear to me that in a world of fast flowing information, those in the trenches of work have only scraped the surface of these notions and have a cursory understanding. To many then it’s all just disconnected jargon. I tried to synthesize it into a single word and the one I chose was “autonomy.”  I expanded on this by saying how power, aided by technology, has shifted to the individual – yet individuals don’t often take advantage of this shift and neither are organizations. In many cases both are limited by old world thinking about power structures or just comfortable in the current state; change can be scary.

An explanation of what is happening today, not happening and needs to happen can be found in Jon Husband‘s principle of Wirearchy.  This principle provides guidance to all facets of being both a citizen and a worker today. I recommend strongly one reads it.

A theme I picked up on that was present in many of the conversations can best be summarize as “work moves at the speed of trust.” Several spoke of 1. decision-making in a vacuum, 2. the all to familiar business unit “silos” and 3. competition over collaboration. Simply put – 1. Employees were not trusting their leaders, 2. leaders were not trusting their employees and 3. employees were not trusting each other. In each case work, productivity and innovation were hindered as openness and transparency are severely lacking in their environments.

Each in their own way made it clear that change in their settings to a more social organization appeared to be a daunting if not impossible task.  And maybe still stinging from the recent recession or the fact that Syracuse is not an economic juggernaut, these folks didn’t appear empowered to be change agents as the status quo has a firm grip on the mindset of organizations. I look forward to many more conversations like this, different industries and different levels to see the very valuable perspectives of the Vox Populi (the voice of the people).