Sep 04 2009
Reflections for My Mirror, Organizational Learning: #1
And class #2 of the semester, Organizational Learning, is off and running. After the sessions so far, and completing the first couple chapters of Nancy Dixon’s text, I have some new ideas about organizational learning. During our class discussion Tuesday night, one concept stuck in my mind,
Learning is constructed from a collective.
A diversity of opinions is needed within organizations, or any learning environment, to form different perspectives. If the same opinions and ideas constantly rotate around a board meeting or department, how would changes or an increase in knowledge be obtained? I started thinking about my department and the learning that takes place within it everyday…
The concept of learning being constructed from a collective of different opinions and meanings is not being utilized as much as it should. For example, I have 5 different personal investigators in my department, who each have their own labs. Even though the projects within the labs are different, they all have similar interests and the love of research. The downside to my department is they never collectively share their research discoveries or ideas. Each lab acts as “one”, where what seems to be the more beneficial way of collaborating would be to share with everyone.
After our discussion, I realized the lack of a “collective” within my department. What can be done to help strengthen the learning that takes place? One idea I had in mind was holding monthly seminars. Each week the labs get together and have “lab meetings” amongst themselves, but there is never a departmental seminar. I think this would be a great way to share not only research ideas and studies that have succeeded, but also discuss what didn’t work. Students and faculty would benefit from the discussion of information and this would lead into sharing of ideas and experiences… therefore collective learning!
These are just some initial thoughts, and I look forward to pulling ideas from this course and learning as much as possible. (And hopefully helping my department grow into one, instead of many!) I also agree with what Ed said in the last class, that it will be interesting to compare some different departments/schools within the university, and see how we are similar and different when it comes to organizational learning. Bring on the semester!
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
I so appreciate Jenn’s energy. Love the “Bring it On!” Makes me glad to be in a class with someone (actually one of many I’m observing in these adult ed courses) who is studying what they really want to and excited about it.
The subject of this entry, the idea that collective learning must be collected from individuals’ learnings – and that it can’t simply start from group think – was/is a new concept to me. Something I’d never put much thought to before. However, I must admit its a concept that is not difficult to agree with immediately. One of those simple truths that one doesn’t realize until someone else shows them.
Jenn’s experience with her department of 5 labs working separately in silos sings true to one of the problems much larger organizations (two I’ve had direct experience with – The Martin Agency, Capital One). And the immediate thought of trying to create structured, intentional shared experience moments for the different groups to listen to one another is right on.
I acknowledge the idea as fact that like minds can breed too much consensus. Diversity of thought yields invention. I completely agree and feel most everyone would agree with this. Including corporations. Capital One for example makes intentional decisions to recruit scientist and engineers to become business process analysts, and not just mathematicians or MBAs. In this light they’re on the right track.
I used the term group think earlier. I believe it’s normally a negative term. Brings to mind poor group decisions. In my past live working in advertising agencies, I’ve had clients say they needed to “socialize” a creative concept for an ad with their colleagues before providing direction/decisions back to my agency. This could mean they’re not comfortable making a judgment on it until they see what others think. It can often be reality in a corporate culture. One educated person’s opinion, in this case my client, who has worked their way up the ladder to have authority to work with an agency, needs to identify their collective opinion before giving an agency direction. It’s the way the game needs to be played. However, it can lead to less effective marketing, less progressive, edgy decisions that might generate more of a response. But in the light of the individual’s making the marketing decisions, the political pressures faced internally are more important than the collective marketing goal. Silly if the goal is to sell product, but not so silly if the individual goal is to get promoted and stay in the game. Impress your colleagues. Make them feel important so they want to work with you.
This “playing of the game” is definitely an individual incentive. Its’ individual learning that must occur. This awareness is not necessarily the type of corporate learning we’re discussing in class, but its relationship to the whole parallels our thought process here. Individuals are decision makers. They make things happen. Its on the individual level that any effort must begin. Whether that effort is to advance the company, to maintain shared knowledge, or to get promoted – organizations must not get too big as to forget the incentives placed on their individuals. A bit out there – but interesting to ponder.
Unfortunately what you just described is why I left the medical research field. Back in 2001 right out of college I was in the PhD program in Human Genetics on the medical campus. I loved the research and subject matter, what I hated was the cut throat attitude of the researchers. Everyone was out for themselves. I looked at some of the the 5th year students and realized I did not want to be them in 5 years. I came from a small college where ideas were shared and collaborative work was the norm and entered into a world where if was fend for yourself. It is amazing to me that a non collaborative, non sharing environment can cause other aspects of the organization to break down also. Most of the researchers in my department were barely friendly to each other. Do you find that in your department also? Do you feel that if the researchers collaborated and shared information that it would make for a friendlier environment? Do you think that the reason they don’t share is because they are afraid someone will steal their ideas?