Interesting approach to turning around a failing enterprise.
About 3 years ago, psychologist Lia DiBello surmounted a business challenge that would have stumped Donald Trump. Armed with an unconventional theory of how people learn, DiBello and her colleagues coaxed some key employees at three financially endangered companies to confront their organizational failures and to devise new, successful operations. What's more, these transformations of workplace thinking and culture unfolded in a matter of just months after DiBello's team ran mere 2-day exercises at each site. The National Science Foundation partially underwrote this effort as part of a larger attempt to encourage research on how learning occurs in organizations.
DiBello, who heads Workforce Transformation Research and Innovation, a private company in San Diego, takes a different instructional approach. She designs fast-paced, stressful simulation exercises in which small groups must assemble products, ship them to customers, and turn a profit, at least as determined by computer software that tracks each mock venture.
In line with psychological positions known as activity theory and situated cognition, DiBello holds that what experienced workers understand about their jobs grows out of their daily goals, such as making products on time or quickly satisfying a few major clients' demands. If a business' goals change, then employees must reorganize what they have come to know intuitively about their jobs, or that company won't succeed.
This type of learning requires a hands-on challenge that mirrors workplace demands and enables employees to tap into their collective knowledge, in DiBello's view.
Three decades of learning research coincide with this approach, says psychologist Lauren Resnick of the University of Pittsburgh. Evidence indicates that what a person already knows about a subject or an activity lays a foundation for new learning and achieving expertise in that area, she adds. Data also show that knowledge is best cultivated through active participation in relevant tasks, not through memorization or drills.
Read more here. So does this approach work only for organizations that are in the do-or-die situation? Would employees rework their intuitive approach if they knew things were just fine with their organizations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogging About
HR Issues
Social Media
Organization Development
consulting
career management
business blogging
recruiting
strategy
talent
learning
innovation
leadership
management
Organizations 2.0
HR2.0
Knowledge Management
Social Business
networking
training
talent work
skills
employment branding
Enterprise social software
Human resources
Social Networking
india
marketing
Enterprise 2.0
Employment
business books
news
Twitter
Business
future
Online Communities
Social network
communication
jobs
Facebook
personal branding
HR professionals network
Interview
Recruitment
Strategic management
LinkedIn
Employee engagement
Job Search
Talent management
personal
Community
Community Management
the imagence partners
Competencies
Social Enterprise
collaboration
Education and Training
Social web
entrepreneurship
salaries
youth
Employee Relations
Virtual community
socialmedia
coaching
lifestreaming
Human resource management
Knowledge base
Sexual harassment
Trial and error
satyam
"Just fine" is saying nothing at all--there have to be other dials on the speedometer.
ReplyDeleteAgain, what is you say at the end of the post is probably why the expectations from a firm that does hange when it doesn't need to , keep growing astronomically. The risk of failure is high too--then the chant is " If it ain't broke, why fix it ?"
anand s
"Just fine" is saying nothing at all--there have to be other dials on the speedometer.
ReplyDeleteAgain, what is you say at the end of the post is probably why the expectations from a firm that does hange when it doesn't need to , keep growing astronomically. The risk of failure is high too--then the chant is " If it ain't broke, why fix it ?"
anand s
That's true Anand...that's the chant that can spell the death knell of organizations that are 'good, but not great'
ReplyDeleteYeah, the concept of creative destruction was good only in concept :-)