2011 in review
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 3,900 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 3 trips to carry that many people.
Change-people should apply for operational jobs more often
Change-people should apply for operational oriented jobs to gain more influence on the company essential work processes and thereby optimize product value.
I experience a strong tendency where change-people is often found in change dominated departments or companies where they can be with mind-fellows and talk change-language. Thereby they often reduce their role to merely supporting the operational people making core decisions; this of course if the operational people decide to listen. The problem can be that change language is conceived as complex and different to operational language: If the used language is to different, change-people are often sidetracked to core decision making processes. In short this means that the time (and money) used to develop a contribution is never used to add value to the core decision. On the contrary the change department stands out as an immediate non-asset that could be part of downsizing the company structure in the near future.
Change-people. Who are they?
Change-people are creative, innovative, coaching, learning, leadership and management consultants that produce loads of books and articles written in change language to change-people and for change-people. They tend to have a hard time working with the same issues for a longer period and focus on jobs with big variation.
Change-people are very seldom invited to participate in the core decisions that moves the company production. They often work in the periphery of the company decision making processes as supporters to the operational people that make the core decisions. Thereby they add experience to the existing picture that change-people very seldom contribute to the company results.
Change-people can optimize core decisions!
What I have found is that change-people often can optimize core decisions (surprisingly huh?) The catch is that change-people must give up:
- Job variation.
- Change-language (to some extend).
Further, change-people shall learn to talk operational language and find out how to present change oriented suggestions and change oriented processes in a way so operational people do not get suspicious.
When the change-person finally is part of the team that makes core decisions he or she can slowly introduce change-language, ideas and procedures.
The situation where one or more change-persons are an accepted part of the daily core decisions will lead to better decisions in the company and probably result in increased growth.
Firms need to develop constantly to increase profit. Change-people can optimize core decisions that lead to better results; but it is up to change-people to insert themselves in the operational world and contribute to the core decisions. Operational people have no idea what the are missing…
Community before individualism
Columnist David Brooks the only conservative at the New York Times just published a book about brain science, The Social Animal. However, this post is not about Mr. Brooks, NY Times or that he may be the only conservative in NY! This post is about a question that was posed in an interview with Mr. Brooks about his book: Does your book’s emphasis on community over individualism clash with the American ideal of self-reliance? Mr. Brooks answered, We have this mythology about the lone cowboy. But the West was built by people joining together. We may think of ourselves as lone wolves, but that’s not how we behave.
Photo by Alexander Kesselaar – www.alexkess.com
The following reflection is not about American history or a critical approach to Mr. Brooks answer but merely a follow-up and a continuation in another direction about related issues…
Community and individualism as discourses
If you for a moment look at community and individualism as discourses I will argue that both can be seen as the major dynamics that have helped develop mankind from Stone age to Post Modernistic age (or what ever label you prefer).
Physical and psychological aspects of community
As the biggest mega trend ever (my opinion of course – e.g. you could see the mega trend “Mega-cities” as a direct function of community) you can say that community is the overall reason for humans overcoming challenges like making energy, making shelter, grow the land, transport, control of the water and creation of security. It was never and has never been physically possible to take on any of these challenges alone. Further the community creates a psychological sense of yes we can – a sense of security and power within the participants of the community. Together the physical and psychological acknowledgment produces the motivation; the energy to be launched to take on the challenge.
Individualism integrated in community
Maybe individualism only exist within the community? I mean how can you be individual if you are not part of a community! Inside the community individualism can also be seen as a driver and motivator. In this perspective I see a close relation to the leader role; group psychology includes theories about group behavior where the group looks towards a single person that can lead the work. This because the physical work needs to be coordinated to focus the total strength of the community in a single effort. Lack of leadership makes the participants focus their energy in different directions. The need for someone to take on the overall responsibility and lead delivers to the individualistic discourse. In this discourse you can find values as courage, integrity, moral etc.
The leader and group dilemma
In this respect I never saw community as a forgotten or less used discourse. But with the impact from American culture focus has been pro individualistic; though we always needed the focused effort of the community I nevertheless see entire states build on the pro individualistic discourse. Just look at the school systems today where behaviorism still rules. Until 20 years ago the behaviorist approach a rather positivistic approach may have been usable; but today with a hyper complex reality that evolves at high-speed we have reached a situation where none is able to comprehend alone. This leaves the leader in a dilemma: he needs to work out a common understanding of the situation before he can make the decision. This can only be done together with his group. Further the situation has presented the community with a parallel dilemma: They can no longer lean back and let the leader make the decision alone; they need to work it out together with the leader. (…and suddenly “dialogue” becomes the primary function of the group. Maybe this is why constructionist theory and with it discourse theory has become so popular; it has proved to support a far more meaning full understanding of reality?).
Collaborative Man®
Where do all this leave us? Community has again moved forward as the dominating discourse it has always been. Helped by the situation, the evolving of modern times, community will now play a more central role as we take on present and future challenges. The question is how do we optimize the work of the community? This points towards focus on group dynamics and with it best practice forms of cooperation. This is where Collaborative Man® comes in handy; the social technology advocates a new form of cooperation named: Collaborative work. The essence of collaborative work is that it is far better to take on complex and development based challenges than the well known cooperative work model.
The competence to support learning
Individuality may still be considered a dynamic force and motivator within the community; though today a more integrated part and aware of the new internal dependencies through relations. This brings new values to the individualistic discourse: The competence to support learning processes that produce new. Or in other words: The competence to facilitate social work processes.
Soldiers, complexity, daily life and world challenges…
A short reflection on daily life of the combat soldier and you, anxiety, insecurity, our perception of reality and what it does for us…
Combat soldier have it more easy…
I just watched Hurt Locker by Kathryn Bigelow and I wandered about the mindset that comes with being a combat soldier. Deployed to war where the daily focus is narrowed down to basic stuff that is all about life and death. It is that simple; and it makes perfectly sense! As a human being the combat soldier is disconnected from the normal sort of complex life; a life where you constantly need to make dozens of decisions. A life where you constantly need to shift focus. A life where you sort of feel the need to ‘take on’ the massive loads of data that pours over you ‘24-7-365’ because they might be important for you and your decision making processes…?
It certainly can be and probably is a complex context the combat soldier needs to navigate in and the life and death context surely adds pressure to the experienced complexity. This is also why combat soldiers need and uses standard procedures. Standard operational procedures (SOP) remove some of the complexity of the situation and supports a better focus.
I experience that the reality of the combat soldier is much less complex than if he had stayed at home and dealt with ‘standard daily life’. On the other hand the situation in hostile territory means that the soldier needs to focus on the behavior and decision making that keeps him alive: complex is bad and simple is good. Dealing with life and death brings along the ultimate sense making. Why you are here and what you need to do is clear as crystal.
Production of anxiety and insecurity
This brings me to my main point; daily life bombards every one of us with massive loads of data that we feel an urge to address because the data may be useful in some way! This leads to frequently shift of attention and thereby a lack of focus. The continuing movement of attention and the thought that you might slip some very important data lower your stamina, stress and tolerance bar. This supports the production of anxiety and insecurity in our minds.
The almost permanent feeling of anxiety and insecurity supports a general insecurity about the world; though there may have been lots of situations with random violence, terrorism, earthquakes, tsunamis, local and regional wars, floods and drought happening around the world for centuries – we look at our present situation as if the entire earth had never been more unsafe.
Only 20 years ago during the Cold War you can say that the experience of reality was based on more firm and absolute positions. Today very few, if any positions, can be said to be absolute. All is change; leaving no place to rest your mind.
We are all subjects to the functionalities of a hyper complex reality
This state of mind leaves us to deal with world problems in an extreme emotional mindset that turns the scale of actual importance up side down. What seems at first the most important problems to deal with may not be it; but you may not even register this dilemma because you are not present with your mind. Unable to focus you shift constantly from subject to subject. Unable to focus and make an effort to grab the overall view of the situation you move on leaving only the emotional picture of the situation in your mind.
None of us can grasp reality alone. We are all subjects to the complex functionalities of the hypercomplex reality described above; but we still need to make better decisions and take on the many challenges of today and in the future. The big question is how do we do it?
We do it together. (what if “together” is the only absolute position left and can collaborative work be labeled a “mega trend”?)
The social technology Collaborative Man® provides a possible solutions on how to navigate in a complex world – together.
Collaborative Man® also comprises the new and successful praxis oriented learning model: Listen – Think – Talk: A modern learning model that supports a fast and updated mental approach to all learning processes without long courses and degrees.
Read on!
The future is like driving faster and faster on a narrowing street …
“You need to slow down to be able to steer more precise but you can’t! Instead the speed just keeps increasing. You need to steer better but you cannot do it alone. You can only steer and navigate your car at the narrow street together with others.”
This picture of today and the future point to the fact that people meets
- More and more data, at a
- Faster and faster speed.
The third fact is that the data we meet gets obsolete faster and faster too.
In a situation where you need to make the best possible decision or construct new, the big question is how you do it under the described circumstances.
How do you do it?
The answer is that you don’t. You need others to be able to navigate better. You need to be social to perform greater.
Collaborative Man® is a social technology that supports social decision-making processes and processes where you need to construct new.
“Working together” as a Megatrend?
Can “working together and coordinating” be labeled a Megatrend?
Megatrend is defined as “…great forces in societal development that will affect all areas – state, market and civil society – for many years to come” according to Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies. Common megatrends are among others broadband width and mega cities.
Working together and coordinating are two coherent human activities that cooperatives focus on in their effort to meet the many challenges of today. Look around – in magazines, in commercials, in corporate strategies and government programs – working together and coordinating are seen as important behavior and elements.
I experience that the words cooperation and coordination are used more often than five or ten years ago. And one explanation maybe a growing understanding, that the many challenges only can be solved – if we work together.
Collaborative Man® offers an approach to future navigating – individual, corporate, societal and global.
Model III: Overall message and supporting social tech
Collaborative Man® overall message (“we can only understand together”) can be handled by the social tech comprising (six),
- the competence to take part and facilitate collaborative work,
- the competence to support modern learning praxis and
- the four supporting personal views (positions).
Your attitude towards difference will determine your ability to change
Our mind works in many ways and directions. Some aligned and aimed in the same direction others as opposite forces battling each other. As an example of opposing forces I will comment on ‘curiosity’ in opposition to our ‘need of security’.
Curiosity and need of security
I translate curiosity as our constantly search for answers to everything we meet. Curiosity is a force that may claim responsibility as a big contributor to human development and growth. But what about recognition as the major dynamo go human development, you might ask? And I thought about that too: What came first, the egg or the hen?
I certainly have no clear answer, other than I see the two forces as present in the melting pot I mentioned above. Maybe race for recognition and curiosity should be seen as drivers that in some cases supplement and nurture each other? As much as recognition can be seen as standing firm and fighting for your values, achieving recognition is also about daring and promoting your person. And what better reason than doing something completely new and showing that your person holds the power to step into new territory – physically and thinking like?
As I see it curiosity is a needed approach when your find yourselves in a stressed situation but even more when you are at peace and your basic needs are filled and you have the time to direct your attention to interesting areas, asking the whose, whats, where’s, when’s and hows. In a square perspective I see curiosity as a driver in 1) stressful situations with a focus on solving problems and in 2) balanced situation with a focus on development.
The movie Apollo 13 as a picture of collaborative effort
As a picture of the first see the movie Apollo 13 comprising actors like Tom Hanks. Watch the scene where the ground staff is working in an extreme stressed time schedule to fix the carbondioxid problem in the shuttle heading back to earth. This scene is also a great example to completely unselfish behavior and open mind attitude as nobody has a clue on how to solve the problem. A collaborative effort.
As a picture of a balanced situation with a focus on development see for you a nonprofit and non corporate financed research and development project whit a group of academics working together having absolutely no idea what they will discover.
Your attitude towards difference will decide your ability to change!
This postulate could be the center of the battle between the need of security and our build in curiosity. In general we link up with other people who look like us. It gives a certain security and peace at mind. We do not have to be in opposition constantly, working hard to make our “right” positions come true. We have a saying that “equal children plays better together”. But in a development perspective equal persons only produce old knowledge. Their minds are aligned and it is difficult to think out of the box.
We are forced to think out of the box
Today complexity is embedded in all aspects of human life. The need to think new is more clear and pressing than ever before. We need to acknowledge that difference is a necessary ingredient in very work process that seeks solutions to known challenges and to challenges that requires development and out of the box thinking.
That is why your personal competence to work with and handle difference (people, processes and structures) should be one of the most important work competences of today.
And that is why your attitude towards difference will determine your ability to change.
Fluent & Firm
Perspectives on fluent and firm.
FLUENT: CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Nurtured by challenges and curiosity – development, transformation and change can be seen as absolutes in human behavior. The same can be said about firmness.
FIRM: THE EXISTING
Firm is another word for traditional, the existing and being. Influenced by our need for stability, safety and security – humans hold on to the well-known, traditions, rules and law. If everything was fluent we would have to invent everything over and over.
You can say that in order to be fluent there has to be a base of firmness.
FIRM FROM A CORPORATE POINT OF VIEW
From a corporate point of view you can say that firm represents all the frames that seldom changes: E.g. the buildings, the offices, rules for employees, rules for trading national and international, rules for obtaining quality labels for your products and basic administration procedures.
DEFINE WHAT IS FLUENT AND WHAT IS FIRM
To prepare and support employees and managers mindset towards fluent processes – it may be useful to state what is firm (and for how long) and what is fluent. In other words – where should no or very little change be anticipated and where shall change be expected – that is, where are the employees and managers expected to take part in development processes.
REDUCE INSECURITY
Definition of the larger firm parts reduces anxiety and insecurity among the employees in order for them to focus their energy on the smaller fluent work areas.
DEFINE TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS
The fluent work areas will usually be the same as the potential market areas. If a company centers most of its energy here it will be able to expand its market share and proceeds. Maybe the biggest challenge will be to balance the effort and focus between the firm and the fluent areas? The theoretic picture is: Giving less attention to the firm area will leave more of the company in sort of chaos and thereby disturb the focus on development and change in the fluent area. The opposite just leaves the company in the traditional area loosing market shares and proceeds.
COLLABORATIVE MAN® SUPPORTS FLUENT WORK
Collaborative Man® supports the work effort in the fluent sphere. In order to development, change the traditional, expand learning – Collaborative Man® comprises a flexible approach – adaptable to social work processes that take on all kinds of challenges and problems.
Coming up soon: A remark about Collaborative Man® and leadership that supports meaningfulness to the employees.
Hvad skal ledere og chefer med moderne læringsforståelse?
This post is written in danish. I will ASAP translate to english.
Værdi i virksomheden
Hvad nu hvis værdi i virksomheden og samfundet grundlæggende skabes ved at gammel viden forholdes i f.t. de involverede medarbejdere, og i forhold til præcis den situation (kontekst) som kræver at en helt særlig viden anvendes?
Ja, hvis værdi primært skabes med afsæt i den logik – så er det ikke godt nok at nogle få personer definerer hvad resten skal gøre, hvordan de skal gøre og hvor det skal gøres. Ikke desto mindre er det desvære generelt tilfældet når jeg ser mig rundt på offentlige og private virksomheder, på uddannelsesinstitutioner m.fl.
Ukritisk tilgang til læreprocesser
Jeg oplever eksempelvis at lederen eller underviseren stadig står ved tavlen og præsenterer sin plan for den kommende periode, for den næste opgave, den nye virksomhedsstrategi, fagets vigtigste indhold etc. En præsentation baseret på tankevirksomhed fra lederen og måske en eller to fra den nærmeste kreds. Selvfølgelig får tilhørerne mulighed for at stille afklarende spørgsmål – men ellers ligger oplægget klar.
Et oplæg som medarbejderne herefter bare skal lære udenad således, at genkaldelse af planen bliver en forudsætning for en “effektiv” proces eller i en eksamenssituation, at eleven scorer en høj karakter.
I virkeligheden en tilgang som få er kritiske overfor, da vi alle indeholder masser af oplevelser fra vores skolegang, hvor netop den måde at undervise på står som billedet på hvordan læring og præsentationer skal “se ud”. Den traditionelle tilgang kan ligefrem understøtte en tryghedsfornemmelse i eleven eller medarbejderen: Jeg skal bare møde op, sætte mig godt tilrette i stolen, slå ørerne ud og forsøge at finde ud af hvad lederen/læreren præsenterer – således at jeg kan genkalde/gentage stoffet senere.
I udviklingssammenhænge hvor en gruppe samles for at udtænke en løsning på en given udfordring, ses ofte at en eller to i gruppen griber teten og egenhændigt definerer “gruppens” svar. Også i tilfælde hvor en procesagent er til stede men ikke faciliterer, at flere fra gruppen får plads til at byde ind og påvirke mod en egentlig fælles løsning.
Lederen som “tankpasser”
Overordnet kan man kalde den tradtionelle måde, at undervise på for “indlæring”. Forestillingen er at lederen “hælder” sin plan ned i hovedet på sine medarbejdere. Og den forestilling dominerer generelt vores forestilling når vi skal præsentere noget, undervise, igangsætte forandringer og udvikle. Vi ved måske inderst inde, at det ikke fungerer sådan længere, men vi har heller ikke umiddelbart noget alternativ til hvordan vi skal gribe det an. Og lærebøgerne indenfor organisationsteori samt ledelse og management beskæftiger sig ikke klart med området pædagogik, herunder moderne læringsprocesser i praksis.
Men inden jeg præsenterer en praktisk tilgang til moderne læringsforståelse, er det vigtigt at svare på spørgsmålet:
Hvorfor er det ikke godt nok at arbejde med, at kun en person langt hen ad vejen definerer hvad der er “rigtigt”?
Virkelighedens kompleksitet og foranderlighed
Det korte svar er, at ingen kan overskue virkelighedens kompleksitet alene. For det første er vi alle massivt forbundet. Og gennem disse forbindelser løber større og større mængder af data. Data som både kræver øget opmærksomhed for at overskue og vælge fra, men også data som forældes hurtigere og hurtigere.
Men med til billedet hører også, at vi alle oplever verden forskelligt. Grunden er at hver person kan ses som en unik genetisk masse og unik opvækst med særlige oplevelser og erfaringer. Når vi ser på verden med vores unikke “opvækst/genetik briller”, så ser vi også forskellige billeder.
Samlet betyder det, at en leder eller underviser reelt repræsenterer en mangelfuld og unik oplevelse af verden, fordi vedkommende oplever gennem sine særlige “briller”. Den måde at organisere og lede på gav måske mere mening frem til midten af det 20. århundrede hvor verden var knapt så kompleks og “sammen filtret”. Men idag mener jeg, at et afsæt som kun er baseret på en eller to personers oplevelse af verden, langt fra er tilstrækkeligt for at udvikle resultater som udnytter de muligheder som eksempelvis markedet indeholder.
Hvad så?
Hvis forståelse for moderne læring er afsættet for alt hvad vi foretager os i virksomheden – så vil det også få afgørende indflydelse på hvordan vi kommunikerer, hvordan vi leder og hvordan vi igangsætter arbejder – uanset om det drejer sig om udviklingsarbejder, forandringsprocesser eller tilbagevendende opgaver, om det skal gå hurtigt eller vi har god tid, om vi arbejder med forskellige kulturer eller om der er tale om en sammenspist gruppe.
Jeg har forsøgt at billedliggøre tænkningen i modellen ovenfor. Grunden til at sammenhængen kan være som afbilledet er, at man kan se forståelse for moderne læring som et særlige sæt briller vi kan tage udenpå vores egne unikke opvækst/genetik briller.
D.v.s. at forståelse for moderne læringsprocesser bliver et særligt perspektiv på verden – en særlig bevidsthed om læringsprocesser, hvordan de igangsættes og hvordan de understøttes. En bevidsthed der medfører, at vi som medarbejdere, ledere og chefer vælger at gribe tingene anderledes an – særligt i forhold til hinanden.
Med en særlig viden og forståelse for moderne læring, griber lederen tingene anderledes an når det eksempelvis drejer sig om den måde hun,
- kommunikerer på – både generelt og i specifikke sammenhænge,
- udøver ledelse af mennesker eller management af systemer og strukturer,
- organiserer arbejdet,
- understøtter processer og konstruktionen af processer, og
- fastsætter mål, følger op og vurderer effekten.
Nu ville det være tiden, at indløse forventningen og udfolde hvad det så præcis er, som en praksis tilgang til moderne læring indeholder og hvordan den praksis og forståelse kan influere måden en leder bedriver ledelse, organiserer, opstiller mål, faciliterer arbejdsprocesser o.s.v.
Lyt, tænk, tal…
Svaret kommer ikke her – men det gør oplægget. Grunden er at “svaret” i et moderne lærings perspektiv i reglen konstrueres inde i hovedet på personen – eller mellem hovederne på de involverede personer. Og for at nå et “svar” er man desværre nødsaget til bl.a. at tænke selv. Det kan komme som en overraskelse for mange, for det vender op og ned på forestillingen om, at man bare kan læne sig tilbage og lade andre om at fylde på.
En anden forudsætning er, at man bør gives muligheden for at tale om det man har tænkt over. Det har vist sig, at når man taler sine tanker ud, så bidrager det også i særlig grad til de læringsprocesser der foregår inde i hjernen.
Samlet kan en praksisorienteret simpel tilgang til læreprocesser opstilles som:
LYT
TÆNK
TAL
For at der sker noget i hovedet på de tilstedværende personer, så tager processen som regel udgangspunkt i at lytte på et oplæg eller læse en tekst (Lyt). Herefter må personen spørge sig selv det grundlæggende spørgsmål, “hvad er særligt interessant?”. Svaret fremkommer ved at personen tænker over spørgsmålet og når frem til nogle svar (Tænk). Personen vender sig mod en kollega og fortæller sin refleksion (Tal). Kollegaen har også tænkt over hvad der er særligt interessant. Så de to personer udveksler tanker, lytter, tænker og taler. De to personer er nu i dialog og udvikler nu både en fælles og en personlig forståelse af det som var indgangen til processen: Oplægget eller den læste tekst.
Den beskrevne proces hviler selvfølgelig på nogle grundlæggende opfattelser. Men først nogle kommentarer til den skitserede læreproces.
“Sker noget i hovedet” er et udtryk for, at der sker noget andet end når personen aktiverer sine mekanismer til gentagelse og imitation af det præsenterede. Udtrykket er her ment som at personen giver sig lov til at tænke med udgangspunkt i sig selv og sin egen ægte interesse områder og erfaringer. Derfor lægges der også vægt på, at personen spørger sig selv, “hvad synes jeg selv er særligt interesant i det præsenterede?” Gennem spørgsmålet skabes en klar forbindelse til motivationen på baggrund af nysgerrighed, undren og optagethed. Hvis du allerede har erfaring med tilgangen, så har du måske også oplevet, at den personlige nysgerrighed kan blive en formidabel motivation og dynamik i den efterfølgende læreproces og virkekraft.
En måde at reducere forskellene til virkeligheden er, at være flere om at “konstruere” læringen. Derfor giver det god mening at tale om sine tanker. Både fordi det understøtter den personlige læringsproces, men også fordi den ene persons tanker kan være ny inspiration til den anden, og på den måde “bringes brænde” på den igangsatte læreproces.
Læreren eller lederen ved jo bedst
Et modargument jeg ofte har hørt er, at det jo er lederen eller læreren som ved hvad der er det vigtigste og derfor kan man ikke overlade opgaven til eleven eller medarbejderen. Mit svar er at læreren eller lederen på alle måder repræsenterer en begrænset oplevelse af den omgivende kompleksitet. Og det betyder at flere personers opfattelse af det præsenterede tilsammen vil kunne bidrage og udvide forståelsen i flere dimensioner.
Ja, det er fint nok – men læreren eller lederen ved jo hvad der er rigtigt! Eksempelvis kan læreren jo bare slå op i en bog. Mit svar er, at det absolutte og sandheden kun findes for den enkelte jf. argumentet om den enkeltes unikke genetik og opvækst. Så i mine øjne repræsenterer læreren eller lederen bare en enkelt position. Intet andet. Udfordringen er at erkende at vi bedre kan forstå sammen. Alene ved vi ikke ret meget.
Ud over de særlige opfattelser som jeg har præsenteret, er der nogle helt grundlæggende som støtter op om den præsenterede lærings praksis. Her kommer de.
Kontekst
Intet er reversibelt. Intet kan gentages 100 %. D.v.s. hvis man kunne fastholde en situation i et forsøg i alle dens detaljer (placering, bevægelse, frekvenser, hastigheder, lys, lyd, lugte o.s.v.) så ville de personer som gentog forsøget have erfaringer fra den første gennemførelse og derfor ikke helt “rene” – men forandrede.
Verden er irreversibel. I praksis betyder det, at enhver situation er unik. Hvis en opgave skal løses så bliver løsningen unik – karakteriseret af det særlige tidsinterval, de deltagende personer og deres indbyrdes relationer, den fysiske ramme og de særlige redskaber. I en læringsproces betyder det, at læringen er kontekstuel. Den er påvirket af den unikke situation som er gældende på tidpunktet.
For en opgaveløsing gælder, at det er “rigeligt” at udarbejde en 50-70 % plan da man i planlægningstidspunktet ikke kan forudsige konteksten på tidspunktet for opgaveløsningen – og dermed opgaveløsningens krav til de som løser opgaven på tidspunktet.
De personer som konkret sættes til at løse opgaven forholder sig til konteksten med den viden de har på tidspunktet. I fællesskab, og påvirket af situationen og rammerne, udvikler de den fælles løsning som præcis passer på det pågældende tidspunkt. Jeg erkender det kan være lidt abstrakt – kombineret med mine manglende forklaringsevner. Reflekter over det og stil evt. spørgsmål til min forklaring. Jeg er jo også kun en position…☺
Du kan ikke bestemme hvad andre skal tænke
Denne opfattelse gør for alvor op med den traditionelle (ind)læringsopfattelse. Her er det forestillingen, at når eleven gentager det som læreren har sagt – så er stoffet indoptaget i eleven. I virkeligheden er gentagelsen blot et udtryk for at eleven kan imitere og gentage. Intet andet. Du kan ikke derfor ikke lære nogen noget. Du kan højst tvinge eller opfordre andre til at gentage.
Indbygget i denne opfattelse ligger også tilgangen til hvordan moderne læring skal håndteres i praksis: Læring kan kun understøttes. Det betyder at du som lærer eller leder kan præsentere stoffet og derfra kan du stille åbne spørgsmål som både får eleven eller medarbejderen til at tænke selv.
Hvordan læringsprocesen ender ved man aldrig. Til gengæld er det min erfaring, at læringsprocesen fortsætter længe efter seancen er slut. Forklaringen er at læringsprocesser hvor eleven understøttes med spørgsmål medfører en så høj hjerneaktivitet, at hjernen fortsætter i høje omdrejninger længe efter – både bevidst og ubevidst.
Du er bare en position
Perspektivet er beskrevet flere steder ovenfor. Men forståelse og erkendelse af netop dette forhold bidrager til en forståelse af, at verden består af lige så mange opfattelser som der er mennekser på jorden. Og alle har en forskellig vinkel på alt. Det betyder at flere sammen bedre kan konstruere en bredere og dybere viden om noget givent. Det betyder at alle har ret i forhold til dem selv, samtidigt med at ingen ejer sandheden. Ingen kan derfor påstå at være ejer af det “rigtige”.
Det rigtige eller sandheden opstår kontekstuelt mellem de som sammen løser en given opgave på et givent sted i sekundet.
Next step…
Nu har du nået slutningen på denne blog post. Vil du for alvor lære af denne tekst er det nødvendigt at du undervejs i din læsning eller nu bliver nysgerrig på indholdet og de forskellige perspektiver som jeg har præsenteret. LYT – TÆNK – TAL.
Særligt hvis du beslutter dig for at reflektere over hvilken betydning det vil have på din egen adfærd hvis du flytter dig fra din traditionelle position og over på den præsenterede læringsposition.
For selvfølgelig kan jeg kke fortælle dig konsekvenserne af dette skift mellem positioner. Jeg er mig og du er dig. Og kun du kan nå frem til en forklaring på spørgsmålet om dig selv.
LYT – TÆNK – TAL er elementer i min sociale teknologi:
Collaborative Man®
Why should managers and leaders use modern learning theory and praxis?
Company value
What if company value basically is produced by transforming old knowledge through involved employees in accordance with the specific context?
If value primarily is produced from this logic, then you can argue that it is not sufficient a few persons formulate what others shall do, how they shall do it and when. Nevertheless this is often the case when I look at public and private companies, educational structures and others.
None critical approach to learning processes
I experience e.g. that the manager or the lecturer stands at the blackboard, presenting the next challenge, the new strategy or the main points of the lecture. A presentation solely produced by the leader. Of course the students or employees are given the time to ask questions to be absolutely clear on what is presented.
The traditionally conception is that the employees or student shall remember the presentation to be able to recall the plan, the process or the subject to support the “right way to do it” or to achieve a good grade at the exam.
In reality an approach very few are critical towards as we all hold massive memories from basic school. Memories of how “learning” and presentation must look like. You can say that this traditional approach installs some kind of safety in our minds. We just have to sit down, lean back and take in what is presented in order to be able to recall later.
Further, in situations where we have to work together in small groups, I have often experienced that one or two persons in the group take control and formulate “the right” answer. Also in situations where a change agent (manager or teacher) is present. Unfortunately they have no insight in modern learning process and lacks competence to facilitate and support a process. The result is that the rest of the group never delivers elements to the solution. It becomes a two-man answer. Limited and with less reality.
The leader as a “pouring” person
Generally I would label the traditional approach to learning as “Behaviorism”. The picture is that a teacher or the manager “pours” his plan into the minds of the employees. In general this idea dominates our approach to all that involves presentation, cooperation and learning. Deep inside I think most of us know that this do not correspond with reality but the case is we do not have an alternative approach. Further, the many books on management, leadership and organizational theory, many of them lack, or very briefly, touches on learning processes as part of modern pedagogic thinking.
Before I present a practical approach to modern learning, it is important to answer the following question: “When working with teaching, problem solving or development – then why is it not sufficient that only a single person defines what is ‘right’?”
The complex and changeable reality
The short answer is that no one can survey reality alone. The logic is we are all massively connected to the world around. Through these connections run huge amounts of data. Data which get obsolete faster and faster. And data that demands more attention to survey to be able to pick the most relevant.
Further you should add to this logic, that we all perceive reality different. The explanation is: Every person is an unique genetic mass with an original growth (childhood, adolescence and adolescent growth) and therefore a unique set of experience. When we look at reality with our unique pair of ‘genetic/growth’ glasses, we all perceive a see a unique picture of reality.
If you use this explanation in a traditional learning situation you can say that the manager or teacher represents an insufficient perception of their area because they look at reality through their unique pair of ‘genetic/growth’ glasses. This way of leading and managing probably made sense until the beginning of the 20th century where you can say that reality was less complex than it is today. Today, no person can survey reality and make sense alone to produce results that exploits the many possibilities that e.g. the market holds.
Then what?
If the understanding of modern learning processes are the take-off for all we do in the company, then I would argue it will transform the way we communicate, how we lead the employees and how we plan and manage structures. This whether we work on problem solving, develop things, work on standard areas with firm structures and procedures, if we have plenty of time, are short on time, if we work with different cultures or working with teams.
I have tried to picture this thinking in the model above. Yu can look at the model as a pair of special glasses that you put on together with your own pair of ‘genetic/growth’ glasses.
Understanding modern learning processes then becomes a special perspective of reality. A special understanding about learning processes: How learning processes are started and how they are supported. An understanding that make employees, leaders, managers and teachers choose a different behavior towards reality and each other.
By obtaining an understanding modern learning, the teacher or the manager approaches work processes and tasks differently, especially the way she,
- Communicate.
- Lead people and manage systems.
- Organize.
- Support processes.
- Formulate goals and evaluate the results.
Now would the time in this post, to explain exactly what one should do.
Listen, think, speak…
I will however not reveal an answer but only offer a frame to reach your own answer. An answer that corresponds with your own pair of ‘genetic/growth’ glasses. The reason being that the creation of any answer (from a modern learning perspective) starts inside the mind of the involved persons. Unfortunately you have to think, and this comes as a surprise to many because it flips the conception that you just can’t lean back and have somebody else pour the right answers into your head.
Another precondition is that you should be given the opportunity to talk about your thoughts. It is my experience that if you speak your mind, this action also supports the learning process that takes place inside your brain.
A praxis oriented and simple approach to the basics of learning processes can be listed as:
LISTEN
THINK
SPEAK
To start up the brain process, you usually listen to another persons briefing or you read a paper. When listening you could ask yourselves the primary question, “What do I find interesting?” The answer is produced as you think (reflect). Then you turn towards a friend and colleague and tell about your thoughts. Your friend has also thought about what is interesting. And now both of you exchange thoughts. You listen, reflect and tell about your thoughts. You are now participating in a dialogue that creates an individual perception on the subject and at the same time developing a common idea.
The described process rests on some basic assumptions. But first some comments on the described learning process above.
“Start up the brain process” describes what happens when a person is not activating mechanisms to be able to imitate and repeat the ‘just presented’. The expression is a picture of a person that permits one self to think with a ‘take-off” in own genuine interest. A “take-off” from own mass of unique experience and a genuine interest that emerges out of the situation. That is why is it imperative that the question answered is, “what do I, and me alone, think is interesting among the presented?” Through this question you create a relation to your own motivation, based on a personal curiosity or wonderment. If you already have tried this approach you may have experienced that personal curiosity and wonderment can develop a fierce motivation, dynamic and drive in the ongoing learning process.
More persons constructing the picture together, is a way to reduce differences to reality. That is why it makes good sense to talk about your thoughts. It both nurtures your own learning process and at the same time presents interesting views that can inspire new thinking in the brain of your listening friends. “Talking your thoughts” brings firewood to the social learning process.
The teacher or the manager obviously knows best
I have often met the counter argument that the teacher or manager knows best. They know what areas are the most important within the branch of knowledge or field of study. My answer is that the teacher or the manager only represents a limited position of experience of the surrounding complexity. This points towards the understanding that more persons together better will be able to expand and deepen the insight contextual.
Sure, but the teacher or the manager – they knows what is relevant and right! E.g. the teacher can look up the right answer in his books! My answer is that absolutism and truth only exists within the individual in accordance with the argument about the pair of ‘genetic/growth’ glasses. As I see it the challenge is to recognize that we better can make sense together. Alone we do not know much.
Besides the specific position I have presented above, modern learning praxis is supported by some personal basic acknowledgements. Here they come.
Context
Nothing is 100% reversible. Nothing can be repeated exactly. If you could “freeze” a situation in all details (place, movement, tempo, rhythm, sound, light, smell, persons, gear and more), the involved persons would hold experience from the first run. They would not be “pure” inside their minds. But changed.
As I see it reality is irreversible. In praxis it means that every situation is unique. When a challenge is solved the solution is unique. It is characterized by the unique timeframe (time and date), the environment at the time, the tools and their condition, the participating persons and their mood, experience and relations. In a learning process, all learning is unique and contextual. The learning process is formed and influenced by the context.
Working with plans in general, I think it is sufficient to produce 50-70% ready plans. The reason being that the planner or planners are unable to predict the context when the plan is carried out.
The persons who actually carry out the plan will deal with the context and the challenges it brings at the exact time of execution. Together they will develop the appropriate measures that fits the context and solves he challenge.
I admit it may sound abstract, combined with my lacking ability to explain ☺.
You cannot decide what others shall think
This understanding seriously settles with the traditional position on learning (“pouring”). In the traditional conception learning has happened when the student repeats what the teacher has presented. In reality, repeating is just a picture of the student’s ability to imitate. Nothing else. Therefore you cannot learn someone anything. You can at the most force or invite someone to repeat or imitate.
Build into the modern learning position lays also the key to handle the process in praxis: Learning can only be supported – not dictated. As a teacher or a manager you need to present the plan or the subject as a position and then ask open questions to make the students or employees start up the process: Listen – think – speak. This to widen and deepen the knowledge and be able to make better decisions or make better sense.
How and where the learning process ends you will never know. In return it is my experience that the started learning process keeps on long after the lecture is over. The explanation is that due to a question supported process the brain works in such high tempo that it lasts long after, both conscious and subconscious. Which is why you may suddenly acknowledge something new long after e.g. while driving or talking a walk.
You are only a position
This position is described many places before in this text. But the understanding and acknowledgement of this view supports that the world comprises as many different conceptions of reality as the number of people. This also means that more persons represents a wider and deeper conception of reality. It also means that every person is right regarding his or hers position but also that nobody owns the truth. It all depends on the eyes that look.
“Right” or truth emerge contextual any given second between those who solve the problem together.
Next step…
You have just reach the ending of this blog post. If you seriously want to understand better then you need to think about what you find interesting and maybe tell your reflection to somebody: Listen – think – talk.
Especially if you decides to reflect on how a changed view of learning may affect your behavior and decision-making process.
I cannot tell you the behavioral or mental consequences if shifting from traditional to modern learning understanding. You have to think for yourselves.
Listen – think – talk are elements in my social technology:
Collaborative Man®
Hvad skal kreative med moderne læringsprocesser?
Svaret er, at kreative mennesker kan bruge moderne læring til noget, fordi netop forståelse for moderne læringsprocesser bedre sætter dem i stand til at facilitere og understøtte sociale processer, hvor man sammen konstruerer nyt. Læring = forandring = udvikling.
Svaret på spørgsmålet kan rammesættes ved at undersøge, hvad der forstås ved læring og hvad læringsprocessen indeholder. Læringsproces kan i denne sammenhæng også opfattes som forandringsproces.
I en kreativ proces hvor det drejer sig om tænke ud af boksen – er der fra et læringsperspektiv fokus på den læring som sker i individet i gruppen og den læring som sker mellem individerne i gruppen. Om du er medarbejder eller leder i en særligt kreativ virksomhed, så er det min opfattelse, at indsigt i såvel individuelle som sociale “mentale forandringsprocesser” vil gavne processen og understøtte arbejdet med at konstruere nyt.
Herefter har jeg indsat det meste af en tidligere post fra bloggen, som jeg mener kan perspektivere et svar på spørgsmålet. Indlægget er centreret om min egen læringsmodel Lyt – Tænk – Tal. Indlægget tager ikke specielt udgangspunkt i den kreative gruppe, men mere hvordan vores forestilling om traditionel læring dominerer vores måde, at udføre læringsrelaterede aktiviteter. Herefter gennemgås Lyt – Tænk – Tal.
Værdi i virksomheden
Hvad nu hvis værdi i virksomheden og samfundet grundlæggende skabes ved, at involverede medarbejdere sammen forholder sig til den rådige fælles ‘gamle viden’, sat i forhold til præcis den situation (kontekst) som de er til stede i og derudfra konstruerer nyt?
Hvis værdi (her: viden) primært skabes med afsæt i den logik – så er det ikke godt nok at nogle få personer definerer hvad resten skal gøre, hvordan de skal gøre og hvor det skal gøres. Ikke desto mindre er det desvære generelt tilfældet når jeg ser mig rundt på offentlige og private virksomheder, på uddannelsesinstitutioner m.fl.
Ukritisk tilgang til læringsprocesser
Jeg oplever eksempelvis at lederen eller underviseren stadig står ved tavlen og præsenterer sin plan for den kommende periode, for den næste opgave, den nye virksomhedsstrategi, fagets vigtigste indhold etc. En præsentation baseret på tankevirksomhed fra lederen og måske en eller to fra den nærmeste kreds. Selvfølgelig får tilhørerne mulighed for at stille afklarende spørgsmål – men ellers ligger oplægget klar.
Et oplæg som medarbejderne herefter bare skal lære udenad således, at genkaldelse af planen bliver en forudsætning for en “effektiv” proces eller i en eksamenssituation, at eleven scorer en høj karakter.
En tilgang som få er kritiske overfor, da vi alle indeholder masser af oplevelser fra vores skolegang, hvor netop den måde at undervise på står som billedet på hvordan læring og præsentationer skal “se ud”. Den traditionelle tilgang kan ligefrem understøtte en tryghedsfornemmelse i eleven eller medarbejderen: Jeg skal bare møde op, sætte mig godt tilrette i stolen, slå ørerne ud og forsøge at finde ud af hvad lederen/læreren præsenterer – således at jeg kan genkalde/gentage stoffet senere.
I udviklingssammenhænge hvor en gruppe samles for at udtænke en løsning på en given udfordring, ses ofte at en eller to i gruppen griber teten og egenhændigt definerer “gruppens” svar. Også i tilfælde hvor en procesagent er til stede men ikke faciliterer, så flere fra gruppen kunne få plads til at byde ind og påvirke mod en egentlig fælles løsning.
Lederen som “tankpasser”
Overordnet kan man kalde den tradtionelle måde, at undervise på for “indlæring”. Forestillingen er at lederen “hælder” sin plan ned i hovedet på sine medarbejdere. Og den forestilling dominerer generelt vores forestilling når vi skal præsentere noget, undervise, igangsætte forandringer og udvikle. Vi ved måske inderst inde, at det ikke fungerer sådan længere, men vi har heller ikke umiddelbart noget alternativ til hvordan vi skal gribe det an.
Og lærebøgerne indenfor organisationsteori samt ledelse og management beskæftiger sig ikke klart med området pædagogik, herunder moderne læringsprocesser i praksis.
Men inden jeg præsenterer en praktisk tilgang til moderne læringsforståelse, er det vigtigt at svare på spørgsmålet:
Hvorfor er det ikke godt nok at arbejde med, at kun en person langt hen ad vejen definerer hvad der er “rigtigt”?
Virkelighedens kompleksitet og foranderlighed
Det korte svar er, at ingen kan overskue virkelighedens kompleksitet alene. For det første er vi alle massivt forbundet. Og gennem disse forbindelser løber større og større mængder af data. Data som både kræver ekstrem kapacitet for at overskue og vælge fra, men også data som forældes hurtigere og hurtigere.
Med til billedet hører også, at vi alle oplever verden forskelligt. Grunden er, at hver person kan ses som en unik genetisk masse og unik opvækst med særlige oplevelser og erfaringer. Når vi ser på verden med vores unikke “opvækst/genetik briller”, så ser vi også forskellige billeder.
Samlet betyder det, at en leder eller underviser reelt repræsenterer en mangelfuld og unik oplevelse af verden, fordi vedkommende oplever gennem sine særlige “briller”. Den måde at organisere og lede på gav måske mere mening frem til midten af det 20. århundrede hvor verden var knapt så kompleks og “sammen filtret”. Men idag mener jeg, at et afsæt som kun er baseret på en eller to personers oplevelse af verden, langt fra er tilstrækkeligt for at udvikle resultater som udnytter de muligheder som eksempelvis markedet indeholder.
Hvad så?
Hvis forståelse for moderne læring er afsættet for alt hvad vi foretager os i virksomheden – så vil det også få afgørende indflydelse på hvordan vi kommunikerer, hvordan vi leder og hvordan vi igangsætter arbejder – uanset om det drejer sig om udviklingsarbejder, forandringsprocesser eller tilbagevendende opgaver, om det skal gå hurtigt eller vi har god tid, om vi arbejder med forskellige kulturer eller om der er tale om en sammenspist gruppe.
Man kan se forståelse for moderne læring som et særlige sæt briller vi kan tage udenpå vores egne unikke opvækst/genetik briller. D.v.s. at forståelse for moderne læringsprocesser bliver et særligt perspektiv på verden – en særlig bevidsthed om læringsprocesser, hvordan de igangsættes og hvordan de understøttes. En bevidsthed der medfører, at vi som medarbejdere, ledere og chefer vælger at gribe tingene anderledes an – særligt i forhold til hinanden.
Med en særlig viden og forståelse for moderne læring, griber lederen tingene anderledes an når det eksempelvis drejer sig om den måde hun,
- kommunikerer på – både generelt og i specifikke sammenhænge,
- udøver ledelse af mennesker eller management af systemer og strukturer,
- organiserer arbejdet,
- understøtter processer og konstruktionen af processer, og
- fastsætter mål, følger op og vurderer effekten.
Lyt -Tænk – Tal
En helt ny og praksisorienteret forståelse for læring kan være min model: Lyt – Tænk – Tal.
Bagved modellen Lyt – Tænk – Tal er en grundlæggende forståelse af læring som noget der sker i spændet mellem den enkelte, gruppen den enkelte indgår i og den kontekst som den enkelte og gruppen er til stede i i f.m. Læringsprocessen (forandringsprocessen eller udviklingsprocessen).
Det betyder bl.a. at læring altid indeholder alle tre dimensioner. Den enkeltes opvækst/genetik-briller påvirker læringsprocessen, de mange forskellige relationer til gruppemedlemmerne og medlemmernes indbyrdes interaktion påvirker læringsprocessen. Og den situation – den kontekst som hele processen udspiller sig i påvirker læringsprocessen. Læringsprocessen er med andre ord altid unik og kan ikke genskabes. Den er irreversibel.
For at igangsætte, at sker noget “inde i hovedet” på de tilstedværende personer, så tager læringsprocessen som regel udgangspunkt i en oplevelse, eksempelvis at lytte på et oplæg eller læse en tekst (Lyt). Herefter må personen spørge sig selv det grundlæggende spørgsmål, “hvad er særligt interessant?”. Svaret fremkommer ved at personen tænker over spørgsmålet og når frem til nogle svar (Tænk). Personen vender sig mod en kollega og fortæller sin refleksion (Tal). Kollegaen har også tænkt over hvad der er særligt interessant. Så de to personer udveksler tanker, lytter, tænker og taler. De to personer er nu i dialog og udvikler nu både en fælles og en personlig forståelse af det oplevede.
Den beskrevne proces hviler selvfølgelig på nogle grundlæggende opfattelser. Men først nogle kommentarer til den skitserede læringsproces.
“Sker noget i hovedet” er et udtryk for, at der sker noget andet end når personen aktiverer sine mekanismer til gentagelse og imitation af det præsenterede. Udtrykket er her ment som at personen giver sig lov til at tænke med udgangspunkt i sig selv og egen ægte interesse. Derfor lægges der også vægt på, at personen spørger sig selv, “hvad synes jeg selv er særligt interesant i det præsenterede?” Gennem spørgsmålet skabes en klar forbindelse til motivationen på baggrund af nysgerrighed, undren og optagethed. Nysgerrighed er en formidabel motivation og understøtter dynamik og kraft i den efterfølgende læringsproces.
En måde at reducere forskellene til virkeligheden er, at være flere om at “konstruere” læringen. Derfor giver det god mening at tale om sine tanker. Både fordi det helt konkret har vist sig at understøtte den personlige læringsproces, men også fordi den ene persons tanker kan være ny inspiration til den anden, og på den måde “bringes brænde” på den igangsatte læringsproces.
Læreren eller lederen ved jo bedst
Et modargument jeg ofte har hørt er, at det jo er lederen eller læreren som ved hvad der er det vigtigste og derfor kan man ikke overlade opgaven til eleven eller medarbejderen. Mit svar er, at læreren eller lederen på alle måder repræsenterer en begrænset oplevelse af den omgivende kompleksitet. Det er måske godt nok i f.t. En læseplan og medfølgende eksamen og krav om at kunne gentage “det rigtige”. Men i en virksomheds kontekst og hvor et kreativt team arbejder sammen om at konstruere nyt, så vil flere personers opfattelse af det præsenterede tilsammen vil kunne bidrage og udvide forståelsen i flere dimensioner.
Det absolutte og sandheden findes i min verden kun for den enkelte jf. argumentet om den enkeltes unikke genetik og opvækst. Så i mine øjne repræsenterer læreren eller lederen bare en enkelt position. Intet andet. Udfordringen er at erkende, at vi bedre kan forstå sammen. Alene ved vi ikke ret meget.
Samlet kan Lyt – Tænk – Tal beskrives som funktioner som alle bør være til stede i enhver læringsproces for at understøtte mest mulig læring. I en gruppe af mennesker som konstruerer sammen, vil processen køre igen og igen.
Ud over de særlige opfattelser som jeg har præsenteret, er der nogle helt grundlæggende som støtter op om den præsenterede læringspraksis.
Kontekst
Er nævnt tidligere men jeg vælger at præsentere begrebet yderligere: Intet er reversibelt. Intet kan gentages 100 %. D.v.s. at hvis man kunne fastholde en situation i et forsøg i alle dens detaljer (placering, bevægelse, frekvenser, hastigheder, lys, lyd, lugte o.s.v.) så ville de personer som gentog forsøget have erfaringer fra den første gennemførelse og derfor ikke helt “rene” – men forandrede.
Verden er irreversibel. I praksis betyder det, at enhver situation er unik. Hvis en opgave skal løses så bliver løsningen unik – karakteriseret af det særlige tidsinterval, de deltagende personer og deres indbyrdes relationer, den fysiske ramme og de særlige redskaber. I en læringsproces betyder det, at læringen er kontekstuel. Den er påvirket af den unikke situation som er gældende på tidspunktet og derved unik.
For en opgaveløsning gælder eksempelvis, at det er “rigeligt” at udarbejde en 50-70 % plan da man i planlægningstidspunktet ikke kan forudsige konteksten på tidspunktet for opgaveløsningen – og dermed opgaveløsningens reelle krav til de som løser opgaven på tidspunktet.
De personer som konkret sættes til at løse opgaven forholder sig til konteksten med den viden de har på tidspunktet. I fællesskab, og påvirket af situationen og rammerne, udvikler de den fælles løsning som præcis passer på det pågældende tidspunkt.
Du kan ikke bestemme hvad andre skal tænke
Denne opfattelse gør for alvor op med den traditionelle (ind)læringsopfattelse. Her er det forestillingen, at når eleven gentager det som læreren har sagt – så er stoffet indoptaget i eleven. I virkeligheden er gentagelsen blot et udtryk for at eleven kan imitere og gentage. Intet andet. Du kan ikke derfor ikke lære nogen noget. Du kan højst tvinge eller opfordre andre til at gentage.
Indbygget i denne opfattelse ligger også tilgangen til hvordan moderne læring skal håndteres i praksis: Læring kan kun understøttes. Det betyder, at du som lærer eller leder kan præsentere stoffet og derfra kan du stille åbne spørgsmål som får eleven eller medarbejderen til at tænke selv.
Hvordan læringsprocesen ender ved man aldrig. Til gengæld er det min erfaring, at læringsprocesen fortsætter længe efter seancen er slut. Forklaringen er at læringsprocesser hvor eleven understøttes med spørgsmål medfører en så høj hjerneaktivitet, at hjernen fortsætter i høje omdrejninger længe efter – både bevidst og ubevidst.
Du er bare en position
Perspektivet er også beskrevet flere steder ovenfor. Men forståelse og erkendelse af netop det forhold bidrager til en forståelse af, at verden består af lige så mange opfattelser som der er mennekser på jorden. Og alle har en forskellig vinkel på alt. Det betyder at flere sammen bedre kan konstruere en bredere og dybere viden om et emne. Det betyder at alle har ret i forhold til dem selv, samtidigt med at ingen ejer sandheden. Ingen kan derfor påstå at være ejer af det “rigtige”.
Det rigtige eller sandheden opstår kontekstuelt mellem de som sammen løser en given opgave på et givent sted “i sekundet”.
LYT – TÆNK – TAL er elementer i min sociale teknologi: Collaborative Man®.
You need to talk change as if you were the Chief Financial Officer!
To be understood; Chief Innovation Officers should present their innovation initiatives in a hard-core operational manner!
I acknowledged this when attending a splendid lecture about leadership and innovation last week. During the session I reflected about the statement, “Chief Innovations Officers have a tough job convincing the CEO and other top officers in the company about innovation initiatives!” The statement was presented in the context of the financial crisis and some examples were delivered about Chief Innovations Officers that had been fired and innovation departments closed.
My conclusion was derived from the following thoughts:
- All businesses are about making a profit; a profit greater each year.
- Constructing new can seriously level your profit which is why operational minded leaders need the change mindset too. The problem is they have a hard time understanding it. (Just as change minded persons have a hard time understanding operational mindset)
In other words, the hard-core operational discourse dominates all businesses. The discourse is characterized by a positivistic and very practical approach to reality. Values are numbers, structure and systems that support control.
In order to reach in and sort of “balance” operational and change discourse, the Chief Innovation Officer, employees and chiefs from “less operational departments (human resource and organizational development) must learn to speak the operational language. If they do not, they will have less to none impact on decision-making processes within the company.
On the other hand, traditional operational chief officers could help the company (and themselves) trying to understand some of the many change discourses.
I think a more balanced approach (both operational and change) will support a higher and more strategic profit earning.
In a time where change happens al the time and at a faster pace, the ability to create new products are imperative to be at the front of the market and keep up profits.
5.000!
A milestone is reached as my blog site has been visited more than 5.000 times.
Thank you all who has followed my blog on a regular basis.
I will be back soon with a transformed lay out and new categories.
Have a nice summer!
