Teams & Knowledge Management: New Publication

My most recent published article is now available from the Journal of Knowledge Management.  I was fortunate to work with my professor, Dr. Jeff Allen, and my colleague, TK.  The electronic version is now available from Emerald publishing with their EarlyCite version. Once the finalized version is available for their print version the EarlyCite version will be transferred to a permanent, fully coded, electronic version.  The content will remain the same, only some publication alterations will be made and the author's biographies will be new. The reference for the new article is listed below:

Turner, J. R., Zimmerman, T., & Allen, J. (2012). Teams as a process for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6).  Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1367-3270

The Abstract / Purpose is provided below:

Within the expansive body of literature on knowledge management, very little research is found that examines the use of teams as a sub-process for knowledge management. This article addresses this limitation by providing a theoretical framework that examines the similarities between the benefits of incorporating teams into the workplace and incorporating knowledge management principles. Recognizing that knowledge management has several critical dimensions, the framework that ties workplace teams to each of these knowledge management dimensions is built. Knowledge management and teams in the workplace are viewed at the individual, team and organizational level of analysis.

The full article will have to be read via JKM due to copyright rules.  However, once the print version is out, if you have trouble obtaining the article, I can probably help with forwarding a pdf version of the article. Just let me know. 

Multitasking Illustration

Multitasking can cause cognitive overload, thus reducing the actual amount of material learned and the quality of your output.  People who practice multitasking have "greater difficulty filtering out irrelevant stimuli from their environment... are less likely to ignore irrelevant representations in memory... and they are less effective in suppressing the activation of irrelevant task sets" (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009, p. 3 or 5). More information can be found in my previous blog post titled Media Multitasking and Memory Processes.

Attached below is an illustration that captures the downfalls to multitasking. This illustration was presented by OnlineCollege.org

Please Include Attribution to OnlineColleges.org With This Graphic

References:

Multitasking. Retrieved from www.onlinecollege.org/Multitasking

Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 106(37), 15583-15587. dpi: 10.1073/pnas.0903620106

Incorporate a Mindfulness Culture

Weick and Sutcliffe (2007), in their book Managing the Unexpected,  identified that it is one's expectations that can get a team, group, or department into trouble. Expectations work well for predicting planned change and for setting future goals. However, these are only perceived states. Expectations never go as planned. The difference between one's expectation and what actually occurs is what Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) identified as the blind spot. To counter these unexpected events from occurring, the blind spot, organizations need to develop a more mindful culture, termed mindfulness (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007): "This enriched awareness, which we call mindfulness, uncovers early signs that expectations are inadequate, that unexpected events are unfolding, and that recovery needs to be implemented" (p. 23).

Being mindful includes a culture where employees are able to notice the unexpected, to update plausible interpretations continuously, and to identify potential problems and remedies (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). Five common keys to incorporating a mindful infrastructure were outlined by Weick and Sutcliffe (2007):

• Principle 1: Preoccupation with Failure.
• Principle 2: Reluctance to Simplify.
• Principle 3: Sensitivity to Operations.
• Principle 4: Commitment to Resilience.
• Principle 5: Deference to Expertise (pp. 9 - 15).

Incorporating your team, unit, department, or organization into a mindful infrastructure takes time. One way to begin this phase is to start with small wins. Small wins that move people from a mindless culture to a mindful culture start with the following steps outlined by Weick and Sutcliffe (2007):

• Remember that mindfulness takes effort.
• Offer support to people who are making an effort to become more mindful.
• Frame mindfulness in novel ways.
• Mitigate complacency.
• Remember that reliability is not bankable.
• Carry your expectations lightly.
• Balance centralization with decentralization.
• Let culture do the controlling (pp. 148 - 150).

Having the capability to recognize problems when they occur and the ability to react to these problems will help reduce the amount of down time due to unexpected events.  As stated by Weick and Sutcliffe (2007): "We find failures of expectations everywhere, which is why managing the unexpected is so crucial" (p. 21).

References:

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the Uunexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Activity Theory, Expansive Learning Cycle

Activity theory addresses learning activities that take place in a complex environment (non-linear, dynamic, heterogeneous) as opposed to a linear learning environment (homogenous, static, instructional). In the following diagram the subject interacts with the object mediated by various influences from the environment; instruments, division of labor, community, and rules (Engerstom, 2001).

Retrieved from: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/File:Activity-theory.gif

When viewing theories Engerstom (2001) poised that any theory must answer the following four questions:

1. Who are the subjects of learning, how are they defined and located?;
2. When do they learn, what makes them make the effort?;
3. What do they learn, what are the contents and outcomes of learning?;
4. How do they learn, what are the key actions or processes of learning? (P. 133).

It is from activity theory that Engersom (2001) derived the Cycle of Expansive Learning. This cycle could be viewed as an extension of 

Shewart's Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (McLean 2006, p. 19) and Lewin's planned approach to change. Both of these change theories are identified under the action research literature. 

Engerstom's cycle of expansive learning is shown in the following figure:

Figure Retrieved from: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/File:Expansive-learning.png

In this expansive learning cycle the following steps are followed:

1. Charting the Situation
• Something must be done.
• Commitment to change.
2. Analyzing the Situation
• How did we work in the past (history)?
• What are our present troubles and contradictions?
3. Creating a new Model/Vision
• How do we want to work in the future?
4. Concretizing and Testing the new Model
• What changes do we want to try next month?
5. Implementing the new Model
• Putting into practice the first steps.
• Pushing for the next steps.
6. Spreading and Consolidating
• Teaching others what we learned (knowledge distribution)
• Codifying the new rules, etc.
• Permanent reflection (Weber, 2008, p. 53).

Activity theory focuses more on cultural theory while action research focus more on conducting research in natural settings. In either case, there are similarities in the various change models from both schools of theory. Diversifying one's knowledge base can only be productive in allowing one to view change models from different perspectives, resulting in more productive results.

References:

Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156. doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747

McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization Development: Principles, Processes, Performance. San Francisco, CA: Berrtt-Koehler.

Weber, S. (2008). Intercultural learning in business and human resource education. In Nijhof, W. J., & Nieuwenhuis, L. F. M. (ads.), The Learning Potential of the Workplace, 47-69. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Senge.

Action Research, Action Learning: Research in Organizations

Action research is a research method that was designed to conduct research in the field as opposed to conducting research in the lab. Action research was coined and practiced successfully by Kurt Lewin and has been used extensively in various disciplines and differing field (live) situations since.  

Compared to traditional research, action research is considered more as a quasi-experimental design. Bryman (2008) identified quasi-experiments as: "studies that have certain characteristics of experimental designs but that do not fulfill all of the internal validity requirements" (pp. 40-41). In natural settings, such as those found in educational settings and in organizations, it is nearly impossible to conduct a pure 'traditional' experiment: resulting in action research being one of the primary experimental designs utilized in natural environments (in one form or another).

Bargal (2008) identified action research as being composed of both quantitative and qualitative research methods: "the scientific and systematic accumulation of data as well as the development of the interventions that represent practical solutions to problems experienced by people and their communities" (p. 18). Bargal (2006) highlighted Lewin's 'action research' systematic steps:

1. Action research combines a systematic study, sometimes experimental, of a social problem as well as the endeavors to solve it.
2. Action research includes a spiral process of data collection to determine goals, action to implement goals and assessment of the result of the intervention.
3. Action research demands feedback of the results of intervention to all parties involved in the research.
4. Action research implies continuous cooperation between researchers and practitioners.
5. Action research relies on the principles of group dynamics and is anchored in tis change phases. The phases are: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Decision-making is mutual and is carried out in a public way.
6. Action research takes into account issues of values, objectives and power needs of parties involved.
7. Action research serves to create knowledge, to formulate principles of intervention and also to develop instruments for selection, intervention and training.
8. Within the framework of action research there is much emphasis on recruitment, training and support of the change agents (p. 4, Figure 1).

A more condensed version of action research can be found in Gall, Gall, and Borgs' (2010) steps:

1. Selection of a focus for the study.
2. Data Collection.
3. Analysis and interpretation of the data.
4. Taking Action.
5. Reflection (pp. 491-493).

As a version of action research, action learning has developed to become a unique problem solving activity used in the classrooms, training rooms, and within organizational teams. Action learning is similar to a training exercise; however, the main difference is that a real problem is being considered opposed to some hypothetical simulated scenario. This process is beneficial to the organization by resolving real issues as well as providing a means for training groups to learn together and to solve real-time problems. Gorrell (2012) identified the benefits of action learning as: "Action learning provides an opportunity to combine the real work objectives of an important offsite event with the beneficial outcomes of a reflective team-building experience" (p. 26). Recommended action learning steps provided by Gorrell (2012) were:

1. Restate the problem statement.
2. Determine assumptions behind the issue.
3. Set goals that would solve the issue at hand.
4. Set specific tasks to realize the goals.
5. Create an accountability matrix.
6. Offer post-action learning feedback (p. 29).

Various other versions of action research and action learning can be found. Regardless of the steps or design, it is recommended to take care to: a) identify the problem carefully, b) place the problem in the environment, c) carefully collect any appropriate data, d) properly analyze the data, e) make a decision, and f) reflect on the processes practiced to make the next problem solving exercise that much easier. And above all, and probably most important, g) assure you have management buy-in.

References:

Bargal, D. (2008). Action research: A paradigm for achieving social change. Small Group Research, 39(17), 17-27. doi: 10.1177/1046496407313407

Bargal, D. (2006). Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewin's paradigm of action research. Action Research, 4(4), 367-388. doi: 10.1177/1476750306070101

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2010). Applying Educational Research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Gorrell, P (2012). Action learning for teams. Chief Learning Officer, July, 26-29.

Training & Learning Theories: Pedagogy, Angragogy, Heutagogy

Basic theories of learning include Pedagogy (child and adolescent learning theories), Andragogy (adult learning theories including self-directed learning), and now Heutagogy (self-determined learning theories).

Andragogy includes learners who are actively involved in identifying their needs and how to meet those needs in which the educator takes the role of a tutor or a mentor (Blaschke, 2012).  The goals for andragogy include: "helping learners develop the capacity for self-direction, supporting transformation learning" (Blaschke, 2012, Andragogy).

The Andragogical model is based on six general assumptions:

1. The need to know.
2. The learner's self-concept.
3. The role of the learners' experiences.
4. Rediness to learn.
5. Orientation to learning.
6. Motivation (Knowles, Holton III, & Swanson, 2005, pp. 64-68).

Heutagogy is the study of self-determined learning in which the focus is person-centered (Davis, 2001) as opposed to teacher-centered or teacher-student centered. Heutagogy was coined in 2000 by Hase and Kenyon, acknowledging that "learners do immensely valuable work for themselves by filling in the gaps of their formal education through discovery and reflection" (Parslow, 2010, p. 121).  A heutagogical environment would focus on both the development of the learner as well as the development of the learners capability to learn and capacity to learn (Blaschke, 2012).

The educator in a heutagogical environment facilitates the learning process through guidance and by providing appropriate resources, much in the same manner as with andragogy. However, in heutagogy the educator relinquishes control/ownership of the learning path and process (Blaschke, 2012).  Here the learner determines their path and sets their own learning goals.

Heutagogy is influenced by Argyris' theory of double-loop learning. Schein (2010) described it best in his discussion on implicit assumptions: "To learn something new… requires us to resurrect, reexamine, and possibly change some of the more stable portions of our cognitive structure" (p. 28).

Compared to andragogy, self-directed learning requires the acquisition of both competencies and capabilities. Blaschke (2012) identified competencies as one's ability to acquire knowledge and skills, compared to capabilities that are the learner's self-efficacy on their ability to recall and use their new knowledge or skills. 

Heutagogy was termed and utilized to describe today's online learning environment where learning activities have moved away from the traditional classroom setting to a more asynchronous environment for both the instructor and the students. An equal and similar environment, that of training and development in the workplace, heutagogy principles could be found to be beneficial.  For example, focusing attention on both competencies and capabilities for training and development efforts could prove to be most successful. Additionally, Blaschke (2012) provided course design elements to support a hetagogical approach to training:

• Learner-defined learning contracts
• Flexible curriculum
• Learner-directed questions
• Flexible and negotiated assessment

As part of the reflection process (the 'reexamine' portion identified by Schein) Blaschke (2012) identified the following design elements to support reflective practice:

• Learning Journals
• Action Research
• Formative and Summative Assessment
• Collaborative Learning Environments

As informal and non-formal learning initiatives increase in the workplace with the aid of mobile technologies, these training functions could benefit from utilizing the general principles provided by heutagogy learning theories. 

References:

Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of hetagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076/2087

Davis, L., & Stewart, H. (2001). The river of learning in the workplace. In Research to Reality: Putting VET Research to Work. Retrieved from ERIC.

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Parslow, G. R. (2010). Multimedia in biochemistry and molecular biology education. Commentary: Heutagogy, the practice of self-learning. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(2), 121. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20394 

Organizational Culture and Change

Meyerson and Martin (1987) view organizations as cultures in which organizational change incorporates "changes in patterns of behavior, values, and meanings (p. 624). From their research, Meyerson and Martin (1987) identified three paradigms of organizational culture: integration, differentiation, and ambiguity.

Paradigm 1: Integration

Integration views of organizational culture identifies with those views that are shared: "for example, a common language, shared values, or an agreed-upon set of appropriate behaviors" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 624). Through an exhaustive search of cultural studies and theories, Meyerson and Martin (1987) identified three common characteristics for integration cultural theories: "consistency across cultural manifestations, consensus among cultural members, and -usually- a focus on leaders as culture creators" (p. 625). An integration culture would be found in most organizations that operate in a traditional top-down, controllable, manner.

Paradigm 2: Differentiation

Differentiation theories of organizational culture espouse diversity, where attention is paid to "inconsistencies, lack of consensus, and non-leader-centered sources of cultural content" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 630). Where an integrated culture is more closed, a differentiation culture is more open, influenced from both inside and outside influences (Meyerson & Martin, 1987). A differentiation culture would be found in organizations that operate with a flat or horizontal hierarchy, allowing more decisions to be made from front-line employees.

Paradigm 3: Ambiguity

Where paradigm 1, integration, resists ambiguity due to its rigidity, paradigm 2, differentiation, is more open to ambiguity so that it can be managed. For paradigm 3, ambiguity is accepted as "the way things are, as the 'truth', not as a temporary state awaiting the discovery of 'truth'" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 637). An ambiguity culture would be found in organizations that operate on a network theory or a complexity theory model.

Organizations address culture differently, partly based on the type of environment they operate in. Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) recommended to make your organization as complex as the environment - the more complex the environment, the more complex the organizational system will need to be in order to function accordingly. 

No one organization operates completely in one paradigm, there are usually portions of each type of paradigm present in any organization. When addressing change, it is recommended to view the change effort from each of the three paradigms rather than solely from one paradigm. As Meyerson and Martin (1987) pointed out: "An awareness of all three paradigms simultaneously would avoid the usual blind spots associated with any single perspective" (p. 643).

References:

Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), 623-647. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-6486

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing The Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.