Organizational Learning in a dynamic world
This is a simplified comparison on known (individual) versus new (social) learning approach as a basis for discussion and to finding the differences - knowing the world is much more colorful and we are on a way already for some time.
1. Individual Learning
Individual learning with given learning objective - managed teaching
In a relatively stable world, learning has been a one way road from those who "know" and those who "need to learn". The most efficient way had been managing and supplying knowledge via lectures, books, videos, classrooms and other "one to many" formats. To enhance quality and scalability, didactics, methods and formats have been developed to optimize teaching by:
This "simple" or "complicated" world had a common understanding on "what needs to be known", "where it can be applied", "who is best to use it" - it has been seen as predictive, stable and reliable.
The formal learning setup focusses on "building knowledge" while it is expected to do everything else (practice, repeat, reflect, apply) outside of the "scheduled learning time".?
Simplified learning has been about "provision and consumption".
One might argue: It is a lot more practical now, group learning, digital learning, project learning, learning on the job...
Why do most of our "formal" systems still exclusively manage and provide content?
Learning is also seen as something separate from work or life and in a productivity oriented world - as "necessary downtime".
This type of learning (adapted to todays possibilities)?is still relevant to get to a basic level of understanding a "status quo", learning terms, formulars or solid facts.
Where this learning style fails, is when the complexity and change-dynamic of topics exceeds the available time to create material or updates and educate trainers.
Example: a typical education to become a cancer specialist takes?more than a decade. The AI driven research knowledge doubles cancer knowledge every year - same is with almost all modern technologies, platforms...
In terms of effort and tasks, learning providers are responsible for everything on the content and trainer side including scheduling, updates, feasability, selection... a lot of preparation work, before anything can start. In addition "managing" the learner throughout the learning time.
My thesis is, that we moved away form the natural way of "social" learning from and with each other - to make it more comparable, measurable and competitive.
Before we put kids in our "systems", the have an extreme learning curve, shamelessly learning (copying) everything and everyone, being very practical, sharing success and fails and naturally celebrating success.
2. Organisational Learning
Co-creative, agile learning, emerging in complex frame conditions - social learning
As todays world seems* by far more complex or chaotic, a different learning setup is required, as we do no longer know, what is needed, where, by whom or even at all how to approach those VUCA/BANI topics (AI, Cloud, Sustainability, IOT, digital markets and economies...).
*I would claim, the world has always been complex - we just now realize it by being connected and start respecting diversity.
Over the last decade many great people experimented and documented new ways of "Social Learning" with aspects like:
The following picture looks like a lot more effort, but has proven not only to be more efficient in handling dynamics, but also much more impactful in terms of "understanding and applying". (more actively connected brains)
The effort for the organizations is now more on making people curious about relevant topics, ensuring time availability, role modeling and commitment for experimenting and learning/practicing/sharing (self afficacy)
Most of all, it changed from one time learning to constant learning journeys in form of spirals: (later stages inspire and support earlier stages)
领英推荐
In detail about the graphic:
"Share progress / process" - I learn
The fundament of organizational, social learning is an Enterprise Social Network platform and a growing "Sharing Mindset" (Transparency and Participation). It can also be called networked-learning, where all have a contribution part (liking to add relevance, commenting to ad reflexion or depth/doubts and content to add knowledge, solutions, path forward). It is less about "final final version 4" results, but building shared knowhow and digital reputation during the overall process.
"Show Relevance" - I am curious about
If a topic is not personally relevant to the learner, methods, formats, teachers, can not achieve much. It all starts with raising a question in the person via inspiration, creating doubts, sharing a problem or putting in a new situation. Threatening is not a good idea (even so working with fear seems to work - nowadays it is everywhere)
We need to ask: "Why should I learn that?", "Why now?", "What for?" - ideally connecting it with the next step:
"Example Triggers" & "Get Questions" - If this, than what?
Providing or pushing knowledge without connecting it to a possible "real trigger" (if this happens - this is what you can do), learning fails. What helps knowledge, if you see nowhere an option to apply/need it? One big root-cause is that we train people (e.g. for agile), but do not create supporting frame-conditions (changing roles, rules, processes, responsibilities)
Make sure the triggers respect the target group, time, frame-conditions, culture, age, education... in short the learners diversity. In our experience, "centrally formulated questions" are way to high level
Ideally the questions or triggers come "locally"!
"Do Research" - This looks relevant to me
This phase is all about finding out, how to solve the question, finding sources, evaluate former results, contact people using official* tools. This can be guided by step-by-step or how-to documentation or via a person (individual or in groups).
Much higher impact of "self-doing" vs. "seeing others explain".
*official tools refers to productive tools, not playgrounds or artificial spaces dedicated for learning.
"Apply / Practice" - That helped
Now it is time to experiment and walking the path! After finding solutions, they should be applied - respecting individual frame conditions, local specialities like tools, language settings, availability of material, access rights...
The most important aspect here is generating a "succeeded" feeling - to develop "self-afficiacy"?
"Summarize and Share" - What I learned, what would be great to find out now...
Time to celebrate by sharing what has been learned - and as often there are still open questions - adding them to the second learning step for others to work on.
A positive contribution (to build digital reputation and networks) is to share learning in the social support forum, or via blog, helping others in research or application phase.
Final thought
This is not limited to "Organizational" learning - it also works in teams, politics, science, schools, sports ... if it is less about competition, money and power.
All this can be experienced also here on LinkedIn (if you follow the right people ;-) and contribute to this #socialLearning or other social platforms.
handling todays complex tasks, we can not afford to waste time and energy by hiding knowledge and their application
Unfortunately todays algorithms are not that supportive anymore, as the focus more on keeping people online or -selfpromoting - hope this will change again.
What is your Perspective?
Knowing this is very "black-and-white" simplified comparison:
Vormacher, Author, Keynote Speaker in New Learning, Knowledge- und Skill Development, Lernkultur, EdTech und AI Adoption in der Personalentwicklung - Co-Founder New Learning Lab und eEight.io
10 个月Thank you Harald Schirmer for asking about my opinion on your article. I enjoyed reading it. I would like you to perhaps reflect on the terms/titles "individual learning" and "organizational learning". They could me misleading if you ask me. I liked the phrase you used "managed teaching" or "traditional learning" or perhaps even "Learning in the industrial age". What you were writing under your term/ title "organizational learning" sounds a lot like, as we call it, "#newlearning". Check our idea of it here: https://www.newlearning.team/new-learning-definition You could although call it "Learning in the digital network society" or "Learning in the Digital Age". Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us!
?? LinkedIn Top Voice | Artificial Intelligence Expert- Empowering People In Digital Transformation & Generative AI - Networking - Thats My Passion! CoFounder | Consultant | Speaker
1 年Thank you for your great detailed articles Harald Schirmer! "In individual learning, the focus is on acquiring knowledge, and one can see how this acquired knowledge is tested. Standardization is often used to make the testing process easier. I also find the term social learning or networked learning more suitable for the organization. It aligns closely with the concept of learning in connectivism. Lifelong learning only works when social learning is taken into account. In this sense, learning can no longer be separated from work. It is a living organism that requires learning for survival. Attempting to separate learning from work jeopardizes the long-term goals of the organization. It is a symbiotic relationship where both are dependent on each other. By the way, co-creative learning with people across companies and industries also fosters multiple perspectives and a growth mindset! Learning in a network, through exchange and collaborative work, such as in workgroups or communities, also creates a multiperspective approach."
Global Head of Talent Management BA AN & TMOD Team Leader Sibiu Location
1 年Congrats for the landscape! A thing that offen is ignored from the structured learning path is practicing. Usually, we get tones of information but (often) whitout having the practice environment for experimentation. And a semnificative hole in the process is the self-interrogation self-awarness about the way I can use the info received/learned and what’s the output after I downloaded it in the practice. Nowadays the adults learning paradigm needs to be reshaped from standard ‘give-take’ (one way cascading approach) to ‘share-use’ (sync way approach).
Head of Learning and Engineering Training
1 年Part 3 of my comment: ... why employees at companies do not enjoy training sessions, often don’t know, why they are there (“My boss sent me, or my Company set this training as mandatory for me without any further communication). All in all it would be about changing of the system by not giving up, by sharing the knowledge, showing, what really works in the high dynamically developed technologies, which accelerate the pace, but could be useful get along with it (e.g. s. Model Thinkers (A. Pradhan) - to learn, where to put our attention, where to deep concentrate (s. Kopf frei” from Volker Busch), put value on capabilities “Learning how to learn”, “Searching and finding of what we need”, “Ability to change Perspective”, “Team Learning” “System thinking” (s. Peter Senge: The 5th Discipline). ? I would give more empowerment to teams and replace control by trust. The way for the future is to have great role models like you (and like you recommended in the article ??), Stella Collins, Arun Pradhan, JD Dillon, Bob Mosher, Vera F. Birkenbihl (?), Barbara Oakley, Terrence Sejnowski and many other pioneers. ? Thank you Harald for this great article, for your efforts, for rocking the VUCA and your indefatigable spirit!
Head of Learning and Engineering Training
1 年Part 2 of my comment My experience in “Why lot of decision takers in the company still stick in the formal learning setup, which is focusing on building up knowledge (= mostly feeding learner with comprehensive information)? There might be at least 3 reasons: 1)?????Believing that a) Training solves the problem. B) Participation in formal training = immediate effect of changed behavior and solving of the formulated problem from a). Ignoring of how human learns from the evolutionary and neuroscience perspective. 2)?????Better control (striving to have fast solutions with full control over KPIs (measuring of the culture / transformation is much complex than getting training numbers tracked by the official learning system (e.g. LMS) 3)?????Legislation, audits, local policies which demand to track and maintain evidence of competencies – “The System” (also applicable to school – lot of national systems are killing the natural curiosity of children, suppressing unfolding of personal strengths. Rather pushing to keep on rigid agreed training plans with feeding student with big amount of information with the target to get good mark (= remember it only for the exam to the certain point of time). Learn for good marks vs. learn for life.