Job/Career Article Categories

Autonomy and Value in Social and Work Environment Learning

My colleague Jane Hart just recently shared the diagram listed below on her blog .

It shows the relationship in between relative worthandrelative autonomy as they associate with different methods for finding out in the modern-day workplace.

Jane's Model

‘ Learning in the Modern Workplace’ Design

Jane’s diagram shows the increasing value that can be launched through exploiting discovering chances beyond ‘the course’ and the curriculum. Broadening from courses to resources and then even more out to the exploitation of social partnership and personal learning (and. individual understanding mastery. ).

It struck me that Jane’s design closely lined up with others I’ve used to help discuss the boost in realised value caused by the use of experiential, workplace and social knowing.

IBM Core Model.

IBM Core ModelThis model, produced by IBM Consulting services in 2005, separates discovering services into 3 phases

  1. Gain access to Stage.: where learning is separate from work
  2. Integration Stage.: where learning is ‘enabling’ work
  3. On Need Stage.: where learning is ‘embedded’ in work/tasks

This design reveals the optimal possible worth that can be understood boosts as learning ends up being closer to, and more incorporated with, work.

I have mapped the elements of the 70:20:10 design at the bottom to reveal the link with the next design.

70:20:10 Model.

jennings 702010

The 70:20:10 model is a technique and set of practices to extend finding out into the workflow. The concept is that in the brand-new workplace knowing is the work. Harold Jarche has composed extensively about the. merging of work and knowing. .

I see the 70:20:10 design as showing, to some degree, IBM’s design. Extending and making use of finding out opportunities from point services (learning events) to constant development (knowing as a process and part of the everyday workflow) to increase value.

Organisations that are able to move in this instructions, and have the HR and L&D teams to support the move and facilitate, will draw out far greater value from labor force advancement than those that can’t.

The Autonomy-Strategic Positioning C-Curve’.

C-curve- original

This design, the ‘ Jennings & & Reid-Dodick C-Curve’,.was established in the early phases of an L&D improvement for a Worldwide FTSE100 company more than a decade back.

It links to Jane’s diagram at the top of this post and maps autonomy versus strategic positioning.

this design was established to specify the journey for the L&D change– firstly centralising processes and standards, and constructing a constant efficiency seeking advice from approach, then strengthening governance, and lastly ‘federalising’ to supply the autonomy required for agility, responsiveness and sustainability.

The C-Curve is based upon the principle that the end-point for an efficient L&D department is where the various units (which may be practical or regional) are tightly tactically organisationally aligned, however also have the level of autonomy that motivates them to be nimble and pro-active.

Lots of organisations flip-flop between centralised L&D and dispersed L&D. 5-8 years after that modification, L&D is de-centralised/centralised when again.

The addresses this ‘flipping’ problem.

The fundamental issue isn’t where the different L&D resources are sitting, but how they are lined up strategically and how responsive they have the ability to be. Merely flipping the organisational structure and reporting lines will do nothing to attend to the fundamental problem.

The ‘C’ Curve applied to Office Learning.

Some years ago Harold Jarche and I spoke about the ‘C’ Curve model. Harold then. aligned it. with a structure he had actually established for supporting efficient social knowing (in the context of a number of models– including Snowden’s Cynefin and Ronfeldt’s TIMN).

Harold mapped the autonomy/strategic alignment axes of the C-Curve versus knowledge acquisition models.

As John Reid-Dodick and I concluded back in 2004, Harold pertained to the conclusion that a dive directly from Phase 1 to Stage 4 is unlikely to succeed and that it requires a journey through a minimum of some other phases to reach the end-point.

Harold reported

More Job/Career Ideas & Resources

I’ve integrated the C-Curve [X= Autonomy, Y= Tactical Alignment] with the understanding acquisition designs from these three organizational types (simple, Complex, Complex). The concern that I ask here is whether it is required to follow the curve or if one can leap from Phase 1 to 4. If not, that means that companies need to carry out and comprehend something like a.human performance innovation.Perhaps this is why social learning is being withstood or put into an official training box in lots of companies. They have not made the move to Phase 3 (Performance Support). On the other hand, social knowing is only a brief leap for more tribal start-ups that have not established any structure at all for L&D as they are quite comfy with autonomy and untidy networks.

  1. L&D Autonomous = taking action as a People of its own.
  2. L&D Aligned with organization = coordinated with the Organization.
  3. L&D with governance & & standards = able to work in a collaborative Market.
  4. L&D tactically aligned = a co-operative member of (a) Network( s).


Article source: