LEADING THOUGHTS

According to social network theory, people on average are only a few connections away from the information they seek. But in large organizations, this theory falls apart: some employees clearly have longer search paths than others in locating the knowledge they require. Is this simply because they have an inferior network?

Not really, say researchers from INSEAD and Apple University. Singh, Hansen, and Podolny suggest there are two dynamics at play. One, employees who belong to the periphery of an organization — women and those with lower tenure or poor connectedness to experts — have limited awareness of who knows what in an organization and a lower ability to seek help from others best suited to guide the search. Two, when these employees do seek information, they tend to contact colleagues like themselves who are also outliers.

The researchers say employees on the periphery need to cross social boundaries to discover “who knows what,” and that their managers have a role in making this happen.

“We speculate that reliance on interpersonal networks remains crucial when a firm’s knowledge cannot be easily codified and stored in databases, when it changes
quickly (making it difficult to keep track of who knows what), and when it is distributed across people who are not official experts,” the researchers write in their working paper The World is Not Small for Everyone. “This calls for managers to recognize that formal IT systems are rarely substitutes for inter-personal networks. The implication is that managers need to help members on the periphery develop their networks.”

“The World is Not Small for Everyone: Inequity in Searching for Knowledge in Organizations”, by Jasjit Singh, Morten T. Hansen, and Joel M. Podolny; INSEAD working paper 2009/49/ST/EFE

photo credit: Sambhu Sankar

Does age have an impact on having and offering ideas at work? According to the “deficit model”, older people are less likely than younger people to be a source of innovation due to deficits from the aging process. Up to now, there is more evidence for a decline in innovative work behaviour and creativity during older age than for no age effects, though the findings are not conclusive.

To test this assumption, Birgit Verworn (HTW Dresden, Germany) studied the suggestion systems used at two German locations of a large European company, focusing on a sample of 633 submitted ideas. In these systems, suggestions were rewarded depending on their quality; quality was assessed by the resulting potential revenues or savings.

The surprising finding: the over-55 age cohort scored highest. “In contrast to our assumptions, older employees submitted more valuable ideas than younger employees,” Vermorn writes in the journal Creativity and Innovation. “The most and the most valuable ideas came from employees older than 55, who also achieved the highest average value per employee of that age group of EUR24,918.”

“Does Age Have an Impact on Having Ideas? An Analysis of the Quantity and Quality of Ideas Submitted to a Suggestion System,” by Birgit Verworn; Creativity and Innovation Management (Vol. 18 No. 4, 2009, pp. 326-334)

photo credit: Adam Melancon

The answer to this provocative question, according to John Peters and Kate Snowden of Emerald Group Publishing, is “no, but. . .” Organizations still have a role to play as centres of learning but their role of “controlling and specifying a learning environment” is on its last legs.

Peters and Snowden write that the democratisation of information, from Google and blogs to wikis and YouTube, is an “irresistible tide.” On a personal level, we can easily call up information on any subject, “and can add our own voice, usually unmoderated, to the discussion, or start a brand-new discussion of our own.” In the organizational world, a company can buy an online collection of management research and own a  library of research similar to that found in a business school.

So in this information-saturated environment, what can organizations add of learning value? The authors suggest two things: action learning and critical thinking. Action learning is essentially “learning by doing” and then reflecting on successes and failures, either with the support of other learners or a coach. Critical thinking is a particularly vital skill these days because it enables people to be more discerning about the information they consume.

“Both of these, the latter especially, will help both individuals and organizations gain more from the increasing democratisation of information, and from the increasing informality of learning.”

Video killed the radio star, but has Google killed the learning organization?, by John Peters and Kate Snowden; The Learning Organization (Vol. 15 No. 6, 2008 pp. 449-453)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: swortman53

Here is a video clip of Hal Varian, Chief Economist at Google, speaking at the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business Deans’ Conference. Skip ahead to the 16:10 mark, where Varian talks about Google’s people management principles.

At 19:27, there is an amusing anecdote about Google CEO Eric Schmidt arriving at his new private office and being met by a squatter who introduced himself as the “Chief Lumber Jack” (the guy in charge of the logs). As it would happen, the two  bunked together in the office for a few months, giving Schmidt a great introduction to the organization.

At 21:20, Varian talks about “OKRs”, Objectives and Key Results, that all Google employees complete to list work plans for the following quarter.

At 27:02, he talks about how business decisions are made either by HiPPOS (“Highly Paid Person’s Opinions” or hard data.

Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning (a publication of the E-learning Network of Australasia) is a new publication focusing on e-learning in organizational settings. It will be an online journal, publishing refereed and non-refereed
contributions from both researchers and practitioners relating to the design, implementation, evaluation, and management of workplace e-learning.

Here’s your chance to get in on the ground floor: Submissions are invited for the inaugural issue. The theme: “Current issues and future directions in workplace e-learning: Mapping the research landscape”. In addition, best practice examples and commentary articles may be submitted to be either peer or editor reviewed. Non-refereed contributions in the form of technical/application notes (tools, how-tos) and book/Web site reviews are also invited.

Manuscript deadline: June 1, 2009.

Everything you need to know can be found at this site.

I often wonder why some management theories seem to have great legs and others can’t get out of the stable. How do paradigms shift?

To find out, Nick Oliver of University of Edinburgh studied the adoption of Japanese “lean” manufacturing methods in the UK, in a couple of unconventional ways. First, he was a participant-observer in a one-day seminar by lean guru Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt. Second, he studied the response of the UK engineering community to the publication of a report questioning the financial benefits of lean manufacturing methods.

Oliver found in these two cases that the language used to discuss lean ideas sounded a lot like the language used in religious conversions, and the responses to criticism of the methods were similar to responses to religious blasphemy. So much for rationality.
Oliver concluded that factors such as the aesthetics of ideas, their intuitive appeal, the method by which they’re delivered, and the characteristics of their promoters all influence their acceptance at least as much as hard evidence of their efficacy.

There is a payoff for change management practitioners. If the author is to be believed, purveyors of new ideas (such as org change) should project “expertness”, trustworthiness, and personal dynamism. As for the ideas themselves, there should be local demonstrations of applicability and they should somehow predict events and/or solve problems previously considered to be intractable.

Rational choice or leap of faith? The creation and defence of a management orthodoxy; Nick Oliver; The Learning Organization Journal (2008, vol. 15, no. 5, 373-387)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: systemsrelaunch

Goodman and Beenen from Carnegie Mellon University recently developed the concept of an “organizational learning contract.” The key is the first word: organizational. Their learning contract creates shared and specific expectations among students, faculty, and educational administrators concerning learning outcomes, learning environments, and the educational assessment system.

Goodman and Beenen developed the contract specifically for university management schools, and you can guess why: schools are under continued pressure to be relevant and deliver value to their “customers.” But it is intriguing to consider how their model can be applied to a non-academic organization. If you are truly committed to building a learning organization, writing this into a contract with each employee is one powerful way of getting your point across.

There are three basic elements to Goodman and Beenen’s organizational learning contract:
1. Learning outcomes. These are specific, explicitly communicated, and developed with the organization in mind.
2. Learning environments. What types of learning environments will be used to ensure the various outcomes.
3. Learning systems. How the contract will be implemented, outcomes measured, and curriculum redesigned.

The authors say organization-level learning contracts build in accountability, are a force for integration, and can be used as diagnostic tools to identify learning gaps or mismatched expectations. This is quite a radical concept for business schools but is no less valuable for non-academic organizations.

Organization Learning Contracts and Management Education; Paul Goodman and Gerard Beenen; Academy of Management Learning & Education (2008, vol. 7, no. 4, 521-534)