Chapter three in the readings this week (Dixon, 1999) brought to light the use of "Hallways" within an organization in order to promote collaboration, sharing of ideas and construction of new social meaning (org learning), with the hopes that the construction of these shared spaces will create the substrate for learning to occur.
It was brought up in class that the construction of such spaces is, in a sense, artificial. I would say that intentional creation of a space is no more artificial than, say, home decorations or the layout of a classroom. It is a suggestion as to what might go on inside, not a script which requires a certain outcome. However, I was fascinated by the idea that organizations can dictate the space which its members will be occupying in the same way that they can dictate how time is used within the organization.
There are various extremes to which they can take this. A typical meeting has both an agenda (time is dictated by whomever wrote it), and seating arrangements (spatially dictated by the authoritative figure leading the meeting), while a hallway might be a constrained space (here is your coffee bar/sofa/common area) but not temporally controlled (use it as you see fit). At the other extreme are completely unconstrained parameters - perhaps when one is telecommuting or is responsible for one's own field work. The bottom line is that it implies the organization offer it's members at least some element of trust in their own use of time and space. So my question to you is, to what extent is an organization's ability to learn contingent on implicit and explicit acts of trust?
My second question is, do different people deserve (or are they able to handle the responsibility of) different amounts of trust (in the context of use of space and time) within an organization, and if so, how does this impact collective learning?
Dixon, 1999. The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively (2nd Ed). Hampshire, England: Mc-Graw Hill Book Company 0-566-08058-3
These are GREAT questions, Joy, and they remind me of a conversation that we had recently in our class on Design and Delivery of Adult Learning Programs (ADLT 606). In that class, we spoke of the need for a relationship of trust between learners and the facilitator of learning (the teacher) and how necessary it was for that sense of trust and respect to be in place before any significant learning could occur.
ReplyDeleteThe same experience applies, I think, to the concept of organizational learning. A closely monitored employee whose every movement is followed on cameras to guard against theft or other prohibited acts, tend not to experience a relationship of trust within the organizational setting, I would think, unless he or she has created a supportive relationship with a supervisor that works to create a sense of security and trust in spite of the monitoring system. This close monitoring would seem to work against the use of space and time to support processes necessary for organizational learning.
If we want employees to learn, we are also asking them to experiment, take risks, and extend themselves in new ways for the (ultimate) benefit of the organization. Both implicit and explict trust that they will not be punished for trying something new (i.e., learning) would seem to be very necessary for this to occur on a regular basis.
Likewise, in my experience, people tend to live up to the expectations placed on them by supervisors and significant others in their lives. In management theory, there are two concepts to support this -- the Pygmalian Effect and the Galatea Effect. These say that managers and others in positions of influence (teachers and professors, included) give off subtle signals that are tacitly perceived by others as indicators of how competent or capable the employee is perceived to be. Studies have shown that people actually live up to (or down to!) the expectations of others who matter to them.
In addressing your second question, I would say that employees intrinsicly know whether they are perceived to be trustworthy and capable in terms of managing their activities that involve time and space within the organization.
Collective learning, it would seem to me, depends upon creating and nurturing an environment of trust. Those who cannot be trusted to handle responsibility well, including use of time and space, are likely to be less involved in contributing to learning in the hallways or elsewhere. This is a tragedy for both the individual and the organization.
Very provocative questions -- I would like to hear more from others! tjc
Joy,
ReplyDeleteTrust is a funny thing when it comes to organizations. They seem to be very reluctant in giving it out. They want to make sure that you play by their rules and follow their agenda. I can see when you have proved yourself with the higher ups that you are on board with their mission and do things their way that they will give you more leancy in using the classrooms, seating, and other space.
Are far as students, it has been my experience that you get what you expect. If you are positive, real and trusting with a student you tend to get that back. If I have low expectations and are untrusting of a student I see low accomplishments and a lack of enthusism. I think that building a relationship with the student is very important and allows for the trust factor to develop and encourages the student to perform well.
As I ponder your questions, I reflect back to a question I brought up in class about Schein's book. Schein uses an example where the basic assumption is that everyone will take advantage of us whenever they have an opportunity. He discusses the ideal that people who are at work and appear busy are producing quality work. Our assumption is that idle posture (lazy) and work from home (shirking). It can be a personal assumption of the boss that could be "spread" to a shared understanding.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the assumption, one could distrust a person's work ethic if they assume loafing or shirking.
You know what they say about "assuming."