Knowledge + Learning = Performance

Today we take an interesting turn in our exploration of epistemology—the challenges and opportunities that gender and sexual orientation bring to the management of knowledge.

Gender

Women’s perspective on knowing, as described by Belenky, Goldberger, Clinchy, and Tarule (1986) presents many opportunities for managing knowledge. For example, their concept of subjective knowledge encourages the development of one’s instinct and intuition as a means of being able to define one’s own truth. “Truth, for subjective knowers, is an intuitive reaction [where one is] not...part of the process, as constructor of truth, but as conduit through which truth emerges” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 69). This means less reliance on restrictive dualistic thinking of absolutes. It also embraces what the authors call “connected knowing, an orientation toward understanding and truth that emphasizes not autonomy and independence of judgment, but a joining of minds” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 55). And like Empiricism and Romanticism, it values pragmatic firsthand experience—”learning through direct sensory experience or personal involvement with the objects of study” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 74).

In the development of subjective knowledge, Belenky at al. cite the importance of trusted experts who can offer their experience and provide guidance. “By sharing reactions and solutions ...by being given the opportunity to talk things over with a sympathetic, nonjudgmental person with similar experience... [one can see that one] has experience that may be valuable to others” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 61). This, in essence, is similar to the concept of having a mentor to whom one can turn for reassurance and advice.

The subjective knowledge approach also presents challenges for managing knowledge. For example, through intuition and instinct, it relies on an increased usage of tacit knowledge, which can be more challenging to capture and share with others. There are also the challenges a subjectivist epistemology faces “in a world that emphasizes rationalism and scientific thought” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 55). It is difficult for a subjectivist voice to be respected in the light of centuries’ practices of emulating the scientific process even for the study and exploration of the arts and humanities. And more disturbingly, how can we encourage the development of subjectivist intuition without requiring the negative life experience, abuse, or “crisis of trust in male authority” that many of the women in Belenky et al.’s article described (1986, pp. 57-58)? Another challenge (or potential limitation) of subjectivism and those who adhere to its tenets, is the tendency to “insist on the value of personal, firsthand experience; and... if they listen at all to others, it is to those who are most like themselves in terms of life experiences” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 68). As Schwab (1971) taught us, there is greater value in applying multiple theories to get a more accurate and complete assessment of a situation.

Sexual Orientation

In DeCastell and Bryson’s chapter, they explore what insights the challenges of gay and lesbian studies can bring to pedagogy—which they define as “analyses of how knowledges are produced and resisted” (1997, p. 65). DeCastell and Bryson present many opportunities for managing knowledge. For example, their progressive pedagogy reminds us that it is best to consider all perspectives with equal tolerance and to strive to escape the restrictive bounds of us/them thinking.

DeCastell and Bryson’s knowledge approach also presents challenges for managing knowledge. For example, what were prevalent racist biases in the mid-twentieth century have now been replaced by homophobic biases; even if these biases are erased, there will likely still remain the challenge of new biases including those against certain races/cultures (often due to current local and world events). As DeCastell and Bryson state, “It takes intellectual, political, and emotional courage to withstand and work through the trauma that predictably results whenever the smooth operation of the normal/pathological binary is questioned and interrupted” (1997, p. 70). Changing viewpoints is never easy. DeCastell and Bryson also discuss at length the challenges of teaching more controversial subject matter, in a way cautioning those who do so to be prepared for the reactions and outbursts that may occur. Inherent also are the challenges and limitations of language and how one can discuss differences without inadvertently reinforcing old stereotypes and us/them biases, or putting “identities on trial” (DeCastell & Bryson, 1997, p. 76).

References:

Belenky, M. F., Goldberger, N. R., Clinchy, B. M., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Subjective knowledge: The inner voice. Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind (pp. 52-75). Basic Books, Inc. (Reprinted from CoursePack, p. 91, 2007, www.xanedu.com)

DeCastell, S. & Bryson, M. (1997). Querying pedagogy. In Britsman, D. P. & Miller, J. L (Eds.), Radical interventions: Identity, politics, and differences in educational praxis (pp. 60-80). State University of New York Press. (Reprinted from CoursePack, pp. 105-117, 2007, www.xanedu.com)

Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. School review (pp. 493-542). University of Chicago Press. (Reprinted from CoursePack, pp. 61-86, www.xanedu.com)

- Robin
Performance Associates, Inc.

We continue our study of epistemology today with a look into Drucker's view that “the adult – and especially the adult with advanced knowledge – will be as much trainer as trainee, as much teacher as student.”

Drucker was very prophetic when claiming in 1993 that “training in one form or another will …become lifelong” and that “the adult…will be as much trainer as trainee, as much teacher as student” (p. 207). In my over 20 years as a workplace learning and performance improvement professional serving the corporate sector, I have observed and participated first-hand in the evolution of the knowledge worker as both continuous learner and instructor.

When I first developed training in the late 1980’s, workplace training was being treated as an event, often long and going over multiple weeks—very similar to what employees experienced when they were in college. Indeed, as instructional designers we were directed to design these courses like boot camps to indoctrinate the new employees into the culture, procedures, and expectations of the company; lecture, discussion, and business-school style case studies were the instructional approaches of choice. Fast-forward now to today and training is no longer a school-like event; it is woven into the every day processes of all the leading corporations with which I work. The direction to instructional designers today is not to recreate a college-like experience but rather to design highly-interactive practice and application-based programs that also incorporate pre- and post-learning event elements to ensure better transfer of the learning. Courses now are much shorter in duration, often just ½ day or less and only multi-day at major career milestone/promotion points. Courses no longer just occur in a classroom; they occur via web conference or more informally via coaching relationships and on-the-job training supported by knowledge bases, job aids, and the individual’s own research and reading.

Thus, today’s knowledge worker alternates between trainee (when participating in short classes or web conferences, reading the company’s Intranet/knowledge base, or collaborating with their coach, supervisor, or other peers) and trainer (when leading short classes or web conferences, adding their expertise to the company’s Intranet/knowledge base, or coaching and developing their direct reports and mentees). This alternating of the individual between trainer and trainee is critical to fostering the self-directed lifelong learning which Drucker argues is critical to the knowledge worker. Davenport and Prusak also echo this need in their emphasizing that everyone in an organization needs to actively “create, share, search out, and use knowledge in their daily routines” (2000, p. 108).

Add to this the research being done to quantify the impact of these HR-related activities on firm performance (Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Niehaus & Swiercz, 1996) . Hopefully research will soon be able to display solid empirical evidence that knowledge and learning are both critical components of individual and organizational performance. Meanwhile, as knowledge managers in the knowledge society we can do our part to continually support and foster employees’ ability to apply their meta-learning skills individually and collectively to help ensure the sustainability of both individuals and organizations.

- Robin

References:

Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996, August). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 779.

Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know (paperback ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1998)

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. (Reprinted in Xanedu course pack).

Niehaus, R. & Swiercz, P.M. (1996). Do HR systems affect the bottom line? We have the answer. Human Resource Planning, 19(4), 61-63.

Wright, P., Gardner, T., Moynihan, L., Park, H., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. (2001, Winter). Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 875-901.

We're in the home stretch now of our journey through epistemology. Today we'll look into how a team leader would implement Senge's discipline of dialogue.

As Senge (2006/1990) emphasized, the skill of dialogue is an important prerequisite element to the discipline of team learning. In the follow-up book to The Fifth Discipline (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994), William Isaacs outlines the levels and stages of dialogue beginning with conversation and ideally ending with true dialogue rather than discussion or debate. Isaacs and Smith go on to discuss the basic components of a dialogue session and how to design a dialogue session. For example, key elements of a positive dialogue session include an invitation to the dialogue session, generative listening, allowing for silence to consider individual and team thoughts, suspending judgment, and using disagreements as an opportunity to identify areas the team needs to explore further. Additional dialogue session guidelines offered by Isaacs and Smith include allowing at least two hours, checking in with every team member at the beginning and end of each session, not having an agenda or being overly prepared, not meeting over a meal, speaking to the center of the group and not to each other, and agreeing to meet for at least three times to allow adequate opportunity for the conversation to grow into dialogue (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, pp. 377-380).

With these recommendations in mind, as a team leader I would take a multi-pronged approach for implementing a discipline of dialogue. First, ensure that upper management supports and models the use of dialogue within the organization. Second, provide training and practice in critical dialogue skills such as listening, suspending judgment, and brainstorming. Third, implement a method—similar to the Army’s After Action Reviews—that uses dialogue to capture key learnings at the end of project efforts, posts those to a shared knowledge base, and then uses those key learnings to help shape future projects. Fourth, publicly recognize and privately reward those who practice positive and productive dialoguing. Also, another important element per Senge (2006/1990) to support dialogue and the learning organization is to allow time for reflection (both within and between dialogue sessions). For this, I would recommend adopting 3M’s “Fifteen-Percent Rule” that supports employees spending up to 15% of their time in individual learning and knowledge-building pursuits that benefit not only them as individuals but also the organization in innovation (McElroy, 2003).

- Robin

References:

McElroy, M. (2003). The new knowledge management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
S
enge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed ed.). New York: Doubleday. (Original work published 1990)

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.