 |
 |
|
 |
     |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Essay
By Noel Dickover
What We Learn From Grade School
Roger shank, a proponent of natural learning theory, claims that real learning
slows down when children enter grade school. Before then, learning primarily
comes from doing things and being actively involved in the learning process.
Children tend to learn best that in which they are interested. There are
children who know all 100+ types of Pokeman creatures, but still struggle with
learning and remembering the letters of the alphabet.
When they go to grade school, learning becomes disconnected from active participation. Learning becomes an independent chore on which they are graded. Learning becomes stressful, as it is a source of potential disappointment from parents and teachers. Over time, children learn that to become "good students," they must always pay attention event when not interested, and must perform well on the tests and assignments. Evening play-time is taken up with homework assignments that must be completed or bad things will occur.
Eventually children, now called students, learn how to "game" tests. Even though students know they are supposed to really "learn the material," they not graded on how well they actually learn the material, but are graded on how well they perform on the activities and tests. There are many strategies employed. Methods like guessing "C" on multiple choice exams go hand in hand with cramming and other pre-test rituals. Over time, learning becomes more incidental rather than the main task, which is surviving and perhaps excelling at each grade level.
The mortal sin of all schooling, of course, is cheating. Cheating implies you have attempted to shortcut your learning by reading off of someone else's work to get the answer or to figure out how to do something. In the business world we call this activity by other names: Knowledge sharing, leveraging expertise, bench-marking, mentoring, etc. Its no wonder people are motivated to hoard knowledge. In school we learn the lesson clearly "Guard your work! Don't let others copy from you!"
This lesson is reinforced in college. You get expelled from college for plagiarizing. The lesson clearly is that students, if they "follow the rules," should do their work independently of others. Only on very specific occasions, often referred to as "group projects," are students allowed to collaborate. Usually, students find group projects to be both stressful and tiring. Group projects involve the students determining a method for dividing up the tasks into individual chunks for each person to complete. Anger most often accompanies these group projects, as everyone is concerned that the others "won't produce." Students are truly annoyed that their grade is affected by another's performance.
In looking at our education process, it's clear that over time our self worth becomes coupled with what we individually produce. We are incentivized to compete to be the best individual in the group. While we think its "nice" if Sally helps Joey out on a project, Sally is graded only on what she produces. The best of the best of all students are selected to attend the best universities, where they are trained how to individually compete with others like them. The best will go on to get Ph.D.s only after they have successfully "defended" their dissertation of original thought. This is competition at its finest.
Only turn in work when complete!
We are also told time and again to "turn in work when complete." Students are
marked down for turning in incomplete assignments. Until complete, work is
supposed to be hidden from view. We are allowed to ask questions about our work
while preparing it, but are only supposed present it to others after it is
finished. Procrastination, fear of failure, and low self-worth often accompany
the turning in of an assignment.
In the business world, the pace of change and communication is such that it is essential to know of problems as soon as they occur, and to continually be aware of the direction our collaborators are taking in building products and ideas. There is no better way to do this then by providing the collaborators access to our working files. This notion of sharing the current status on what we are working provides immediate and important feedback to all concerned.
Yet, we often wonder why there is such a cultural barrier to providing access to the working files. While numerous collaboration products are geared around this very notion, few are well employed. Instead we spend immense resources in developing detailed, periodic reports that we "only show when complete." These reports span the gamut of all essential information, including financial health, technical status, organizational and personnel concerns. Until we see the reports, we don't get to know the potential problems, concerns, etc. We do not have key, updated information automatically available at the moment of need.
The Bottom Line
All told, in asking for individuals and organizations to move from an
information hoarding culture to an information sharing culture, we are really
asking people to start interacting in ways they have never previously done.
Worse than that, we are asking them to interact in ways that they look down upon
as inherently wrong. Our rationale for asking is that making these changes in
the workplace lead to a more productive, rewarding environment. Unfortunately,
the price of admission for the individual is "giving up" that which drives
his/her identity and self worth. We are asking each person not only to provide
everything they produce to others, we are asking them to do this before its even
complete!
What We Learn from Sports: Notions of Management
Business professionals continually use sports analogies as a way of getting the
organization motivated and aligned. Why is this?
Could it be that sports are the only approved place in our educational system in which true teaming is both necessary and encouraged? Well, I suppose both drama and orchestra encourage teamwork, but neither is very sexy or competitive. After all, we all remember the star quarterback from our high school days, but very few ever knew the first chair violinist!
In sports, teamwork is required. The players must work together for the common good. The common good is of course defined as victory, in which successful teams cause other (unsuccessful) teams to lose. Players are told to sacrifice for the needs of the team - this is what is known as being a "team player."
Unfortunately, in sports, the "team players" are directed by the all-powerful and all-knowing coach. It's the coach who sets the pace of operations; the coach who sets the game plan, the coach who sets the mission and end-state; and the coach who makes the corrections. Team players are expected to follow the coach's guidance to the letter.
Is this where we get our traditional notions of management from? In our learning process, we are always looking for models to guide our actions - successful sports coaches are clearly seen as the model representing of excellent managers. One only needs to see the corporate interest for a Pat Riley or Joe Gibbs seminar, or the management books written by coaches, or the famous quotes from coaches like Vince Lombardi ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing") tied to both companies and motivational posters.
This dichotomy, most recently found in sports, is not a recent phenomenon. We see it throughout western civilization, in everywhere from God (the shepherd) and his flock, king and country, conquerors and conquered, and Descartes' theoretical Mind and Body separation, to the "Head of household" field on our tax returns. In all these cases it is critical for the "director" to "know" the answer.
What are the cultural implications of viewing management as a sports coach does? Is it any wonder why managers intuitively want to be seen as the "one who knows?" But does today's work environment really lend itself to this dichotomy of those who direct versus those who do?
Why Manager's Hoard Knowledge
Generally, the communication and information flows within a work unit are very
hierarchical in nature. Members of the work unit are often seen as "collectors
of information" that is to be sent to the "one who makes the tough call." The
manager may request each subordinate to gather additional information, but the
manager is prided on having the "big picture" necessary to make the tough
decision. In larger organizations, many employees have no idea what occurs
outside of their purview, and often may not even know what is occurring within
their work unit. Is it any wonder that managers are paid for making the tough
decisions?
Managers often feel the need to protect knowledge in their quest to maintain power and authority. Managers tend to hoard a lot of the information that makes up the "big picture." This means that operational information, financial information, marketing information and technical information are often subject to censure. The manager will attend higher level meetings, and then will disseminate only that portion he/she feels is relevant for the subordinates to know. Subordinates, by definition of their place in the hierarchy, are incapable of making "strategic" judgments in the course of their work.
Unlike a sports team, today's work environment is far from clear or knowable. Most situations pose a bizarre mix of social, political and technical issues that are often jumbled together in strange ways. Managers are continually posed with situations where the problems are unfocussed and the options are unclear. There is no clear solution to most situations. The best we can hope for is enlightened approaches that are continually re-evaluated. Managers who see their job as tied to "knowing" invariably began to exhibit defensive routines when posed with these situations. Their actions become more focused on maintaining power and authority than devising enlightened approaches. Often we refer to this state as "maintaining the status quo."
Middle management and knowledge sharing
Middle management is seen as performing two essential functions:
1) Serve as a communication mechanism up and down the "line;"
2) Make the decisions that affect performance at the appropriate work level.
Middle management prides itself on doing both of these functions successfully. So successfully in fact that middle management is usually seen as the hardest, most entrenched, most difficult group to affect in any organizational change initiative. They have the most to lose in any restructuring, and no longer have unique skill sets from which to gauge their self worth.
Yet, both of these functions are significantly diminished when new technologies are successfully implemented. Communication options have become far more widespread. Information can be automatically collected, combined, attenuated and packaged for both senior management and the rest of the workforce. The potential for making "flat" organizations is greater then ever.
Unfortunately, the communications tools themselves do not lead to improvements in performance without buy-in and support from the members of the organization. Often the improvements result in less of a need for middle management. There is little reason for middle managers to support such efforts if they result in job loss. Middle managers, when presented organizational change options will often go to their roots - hoarding information.
The Bottom Line
The metaphor of "a manager as sports coach" is very detrimental to cultivating a
knowledge-sharing environment. Especially large organizations are characterized
by having a myriad of communication problems. Often the each level of management
will hoard essential knowledge that is not delivered "down the pipe." Often the
goals themselves are unclear to the average employee. One needs only see the
laughter surrounding a Dilbert skit for verification of this sentiment.
Where Do We Go From Here?
This essay, if anything, should impart the folly in thinking that transforming
the work culture from an information hoarding environment to an information
sharing environment (sometimes referred to as an integrated digital environment)
is either easy or driven by technological solutions. Our real culture does not
lend itself to sharing. In its best, the vision of our culture is based on
rugged individuality. John Wayne and the Marlboro Man are some of our most
enduring icons to the rest of the world. It is a culture that has George
Washington as the "Father of our country," that honors JP Morgan and Bill Gates,
one in which we all want to "be like Mike." Our national anthem is sung not by
the masses in a choir setting, its sung individually by our best singers. While
rugged individualism provides the fundamental ingredient for our well-renown
excellence and innovation, it does not aid our efforts collaborating and
sharing.
Although it is not easy, we know it is possible to create knowledge sharing environments. Most of us remember magical times when knowledge sharing has worked, if even for brief periods. To cultivate knowledge sharing cultures, we know at least some of the ingredients required:
Trust: In a trusting environment, work is performed in a transparent environment. The manager trusts that the information used by the subordinate (which is available to the manager at all times) is the latest and most accurate available. The subordinate trusts that his/her data/information are accepted as authoritative and that mistakes that appear in this transparent work environment will be probed and questioned, but not used as a weapon against the worker.
Cooperation: To perform in a knowledge sharing environment, immediate access to information needed to do work requires cooperative relationships, in which each person with a need to know has access to another's work without the owner having to post his/her work and without the seeker gaining access via special permissions. This is a different definition of cooperation and sharing than most are used to - knowledge sharing does not mean "ask me and I'll give it to you," it means I have access without having to ask.
Cultivating a Corporate Memory: A corporate memory allows the knowledge to move from being individually owned and managed to becoming individually owned but organizationally managed. The ownership of the information itself remains tied to the individual or work team that originated it. This allows it to keep its context and rationale for creation - both of which are essential to understanding why the information is useful. To be effective, this must be a voluntary process, one in which people actually want to participate. Only voluntary participation will yield the best people have to offer - only then will you get access to what people believe as being synonymous with their self-worth. If so, the corporate memory, which is the product of the trusting, cooperative environment, becomes the engine for future innovation.
To be effective, these ingredients need to be artfully crafted
over time to form the basis of a knowledge sharing culture. To do so, many
skills are required. And while painful and time consuming, if successful, we
will have created a magical environment that is a delight to work in, while also
being an incredibly powerful organizational performance enhancer.