Working Out Loud: Our Sponsored Mentoring Program (WIP)

We've been sitting on the idea of an organization-wide mentoring program for quite some time. This is mostly due to being a small team, just Nona Gormley and myself, with other short-term initiatives to address. As a key component of our overall learning vision of "A Connected and Continuously Learning" organization, mentoring is something we'd like to see become a part of the culture.  However since it is currently not, a more formal framework to kick start it may be warranted.

Until now we have shared the concept and conversation in our ESN in an effort to invite opinion and ideas.  Today though I felt compelled to expand our working out loud and invite the world to our approach.  Mentoring is nothing new and frankly one could argue that our Sponsored Mentoring is a misnomer really since I believe a true mentor is not selected for you, but by you.  Like I said above however, a mentoring culture is the long-term goal, and quite possibly a more formalized framework could support the effort until it is institutionalized and the scaffold could simply fall away.

Of course any program should be taken with a grain of salt when there is no context behind it.  So to help understand why this approach has been chosen, I've shared a bit about my organization here which can be found in detail along with our vision in Dr. Clark Quinn's new book "Revolutionize Learning and Development: Performance and Innovation Strategy for the Information Age."

Systems Made Simple (SMS) is a privately owned Healthcare IT company with concentrated attention on government contractual work (primarily in health care clinical and delivery systems at the Department of Veteran Affairs, Military Health Systems, and the Department of Health and Human Services). Systems Made Simple specializes in four core areas of competency: Program and Project Management; Systems and Software Engineering; Infrastructure Management; and IT Services. Systems Made Simple uses an extended workforce model. With roughly 450 employees working on more than forty contracts, we work closely with partners and subcontractors to ensure the right talent mix is in place to meet the customer's need. Systems Made Simple is geographically dispersed throughout the United States, with offices in Syracuse, New York, Vienna Virginia, Salt Lake City, Utah, Austin, Texas, and Clearwater, Florida. Our project teams include a mix of work from home, in government facilities or in an System Made Simple office. The workforce is not only extended by time and geography, but also by function and relationship to the organization. Many Systems Made Simple employees are accustomed to working closely with other project team members to function as a single, cohesive team as seen by the customer. While a large number of employees are hired for direct contractual work, the intention is to provide career growth opportunities for each employee. Our employees are more often experts and practitioners not novices; well versed in their craft, often coming to us often with a wealth of experience.

So with that, I invite you to look at what we're thinking about - click here. Far from being a complete set of thoughts, I believe the materials will give you insight into the approach, give you a chance to offer an idea or two and maybe some take aways for your own efforts in building a mentoring culture.

Learning in 2024: Same As It Ever Was

The eLearning Guild posed the question of: "What will learning look like in 2024?"  Of course I could be snarky and say well, learning is learning and that's an internal process that's been the same for thousands of years... but I know what they mean - How will the external influences on learning be different in 10 years.

On Friday they sponsored a Twitter chat (#LRN2024) which got me thinking of how difficult it is today to predict what will be in 10 years let alone in 3 months.  However, regardless of technology and methodology changes, I simply see learning going the way of work.

As the way we work changes, learning will follow suit or better -flow more within the work. Work will continue to change of course due in great part to technological advances and that technology will ultimately automate many tasks. The automation and outsourcing of work will continue and create increased productivity but also reduce the need for certain jobs.  The jobs that will be needed will require more emphasis on cognitive skills.  So rather than look ahead, let's do look back. And not just 10 years, humor me and think of where we have been as a species in say the last 10,000 years.

Thousands of years ago, during the Agricultural Revolution, I suspect the way most everyone learned was through Observation, Experience, Conversation and Reflection, what Charles Jennings has referred to as "Real Learning". This learning was individually and independently organized, and happened in the work. The tools for learning were the tools of work. Learning was informal and social, an outcome of the work itself. Later, in the Industrial Revolution, mass production was the work model. People were appendages of their machines and like mechanical parts bolted on, people were bolted to seats for uniform training - which was then mirrored in the academic settings. The products of industry were identical and so was the education. Organized learning shifted to formal and consistent because the work was consistent. The formula was still the same but the mixture was different - Experience, Practice, Conversation and Reflection was mostly managed by others. The time for each dictated and directed by instructors not the individuals.

So again, the work is changing. Rather than consistent and uniform, the real work of people will be inconsistent and growing more complex. Mass production remains but with fewer people and more machines. Machines will handle the simple rote work. The work that requires training, slightly more difficult, is increasingly being outsourced and likely too will be automated. The work then that will really propel organizations tomorrow is creative work, involving critical thinking and problem solving. Fast changes requires fast learning and that can't be supported by classrooms or elearning courses, it can't. The learning to support this will be highly independent and individualized. It will again heavily favor social and informal. At it's core learning will always remain with the same elements of experience, practice, conversation and reflection but like during the Agricultural Revolution, I see it more happening in our work and through and in the tools of our work. This will be critical, as the work of the future will be many people coming together for short periods and disbanding,  a swarming economy. The outputs or products and the collaborative knowledge will be equal in value as "learnings" will not reside in a summary document but in an ever evolving portfolio of various content types to be tapped into and continually added and edited.

Learning is still and will always be an internal process. What will change most will be where the dependency resides; no longer on the organization outside the work but once again upon the individual in their work.

Changing Words. Changing Practices. Changing Cultures

"Culture is an emergent property of the many practices that happen every day. Change the practices and a new culture will emerge."   - Harold Jarche

I always thought Harold nailed it with this quote, showing equally how obvious yet how difficult organizational culture change can be.

But where, when and how does change start? Is it through a huge strategy and subsequent tactics or is it smaller, more individualized, gradual. Practices are the actions we undertake and the behaviors we exhibit. Everything from how we conduct meetings, organize project teams, or decide how long to stand with a colleague talking over a cup of coffee. All are practices that make up our culture. Words to are practices as they are deliberate actions; thoughts transmitted. In the organizational learning subculture the words course and training are unfortunately defaulted to when people who don't understand them toss them around as THE solution to work performance problem. So if the words change does the related practice follow and then the culture shifts? Are words then the spark to ignite the potential change to come?

For me, each and every opportunity where the cry of "we need training" or a "we should have a course on xyz..." is raised I swoop into performance consultant mode and probe to determine the nature and significance of the issue and remind them for example that a PowerPoint deck is NOT in and of itself Training.  I'm relentless to the point where my staff asked me if I have a template of my responses. I'm also confident that on the other end of the call or email, eyes have rolled. 

Recently though a key leader responded in an email to my typical inquiries with the words "training" and "course"...

The words were in quotes. 

I sensed some subtraction by addition with these quotes bracketing the terms. Maybe it was an element of uncertainty, a glimpse into his internal questioning. However possibly he only wrote it that way to stave off my railing against training first, training always. Regardless, he was singling out the terms as being different than the definition. He was unsure what the solution was but used the only terms he knew with a subtle punctuational caveat. 

Maybe this then is the trigger, the first practice to change in an organizational culture - Words shared, one conversation at a time. 

The Space Between Us

In a recent webinar by Luis Suarez (@elsua) he asked the question of the attendees of what the biggest problem was in organizations today.  He stated that it was employee disengagement.  I do agree that it's a problem but I believe this disengagement is more a symptom of a greater problem. That problem being space; the space between us.

Space is created naturally or deliberately. It's also physical and psychological. We have space when organizations expand; space exists in time, geography, and culture. We have space when a workforce is geographically dispersed, no longer can we see the many we work and interact with. Space exists when hierarchy places people in rank and file as an artificial pecking order is created and this space between us defines who we are and how we interact.  Finally, our departmentalized functions create silos of work where space exists between them. And those functions of course are controlled by people who decide on how much space. 

When space exists we can choose to fill it constructively or like a vacuum, it just gets filled like silt settling after a heavy rain. Regardless, it never stays empty for long. Hierarchies fill the space with the written and unwritten. Policies serve to reinforce space between people by having somewhere to point to rather than someone to have conversation with. Unwritten protocol is that which maintains space by authority and creates a false respect based on fear. 

Disengagement then doesn't create space, space creates disengagement. 

What can be done? The opposite of disengage is to engage and to engage is an action of people and their work being drawn together. If we want to eliminate disengagement, we must first create the opportunities to engage, to fill the space.

Social media is that opportunity in organizations that bridges the geographic divides, opens up silos of work and can level hierarchy so meritocracy can flourish. There is no question it can do the job - but it can also be an empty vessel if not strengthened by the substance of meaningful conversation, dialog and debate. If social channels swell only with courtesies to avoid conflict, content that reinforces positions, or sharing to show off, then the space not only remains but becomes more permanent.

There are far more pressing questions to be answer in organizations than "how do we measure this?" Or "how do we get people to use this?" when considering social media in an organization.  We need to first be able to answer "Who are we?" And "who do we want to become?"

Openness: the agent of inclusivity

"How do we get people to ... ?"

I hear this all the time in my work on organizational learning initiatives and social tool use is definitely no exception. I've heard it so much that it's just became unquestioned white noise - until I heard it today, and something just felt wrong.

Worse than the directive of "get" is "we." The we here speaks of only those involved in the exclusive conversation and nobody else.

Us and them. Owner and worker. Manager and employee.... Have and have not.

If we start with a goal of changing people's behavior without those people in the conversation haven't we just set the stage for manipulation and disempowerment? Won't we just be playing the traditional role of power broker reinforcing all that is wrong with hierarchy?

Here's the thing. Don't we instinctively speak differently when we know everyone is listening? If everyone could at least hear the conversation, be in that space (if they choose to listen or join in is on them), I suspect the "how do we get people to..." questions wouldn't even be uttered or better yet, would be phrased in a very inclusive way. How could they not?

More community, less control.

Being There

People often shake their heads at a common scene today; families in a restaurant, all tapping away at their phones, rarely looking up while loved ones sit a mere 2 feet away. Oh, the demise of the Family they cry! These of course are just snapshots in time and in no way reflect anti-social behavior, or should mark the downfall of the family unit. On the contrary, the family is exhibiting Supersocial behaviors by interacting with physical and virtual participants synchronous and asynchronously... simultaneously.

Recently a co-worker in IT pinged me on our internal IM system. He was inquiring about some images we might have to support an interface he wanted to redesign. I told him who to ask but encouraged him to post the request in our ESN and tag the person in Marketing. This way more than he could benefit from the exchange. He was hesitant and jokingly shared that the system he was developing was one that would get him hated throughout the organization.  He further explained that it was a password reset process to take place every 3 months and that he was to roll it out. OK, I thought, maybe not hated but certainly annoyed. We then preceded to exchanged funny, sarcastic comparisons; 5th horseman of the apocalypse, blame it on "Obama care" and on and on it went. I'm confident that in our 3 minute exchange we both chuckled quite a bit. In the end he got what he needed, a few new thoughts and all with a smile.

Later that day we passed in the hallway, eye contact and a head nod hello and on our way. Nothing more, no smirk or recall of our earlier humorous exchanges. It was over, it was actually over shortly after the last sarcastic quip. Some might say that is a problem, that we are perpetuating some type of anti-social behaviors and losing our ability to converse live. I pondered this experience for a bit and as I walked from his office to mine I counted that it was 28 steps away from my office. He could have been 2800 miles away as many of my exchanges; humorous or informative are. I thought that if communication is used to transfer ideas and information then this type of communication, the one we experienced together is the heart of social. It had cognitive fodder but also emotional sentiment. Between us, in that flurry of humorous exchanges, we felt the same emotions of happiness, connection, and a kindred spirit as if we had been seated together. It was just as real as being there.

Social tools can do much more than connect us to others as sources of knowledge, they can (if we accept it) extend the entirety of our humanity.

...Of These, Isn't The Greatest Modeling?

I found myself inspired by the #wolweek (work out loud) movement that took place across the Web a few weeks ago. The concept is relatively simple; share what you're doing, make the tools of your work visible and open so others can see, comment, and contribute.  This means working in more public "spaces".  So if you followed #wolweek on Twitter, many people blogged about their work, successes, struggles, thoughts, questions, etc.  Still others really opened the gates and let people see materials and prototypes. 

I shared the concept internally in our ESN. I said: 

...Organizations have the same opportunity to do this and reap the potential rewards within their own walls.  In a small way we do this already without thinking. We ask questions of others in and outside of our ESN such as Who has a certain certification? Where can I find a form? What's the best way to...?  In each of these questions we really reveal a little about our efforts. Imagine then if the work that the answer to these questions fed was just as visible? Would we have to even ask as many questions anymore?

I didn't get much of a response to the idea.

So....it's been said that L&D is ideally positioned to lead organizations in Social Learning, Curation and Personal Knowledge Management (PKM); supporting people in learning how to learn independent of courses and classes.  Of course doing this means L&D must let go of formal approaches and instead serve as coaches, models and guides. Most important in my opinion is the modeling. It really is the least intrusive action where others can see, reflect on, and if done right, feel they can approach to have meaningful conversations. 

A little back story first.  L&D in my organization has been moving (slowly) on an initiative to help create a mentoring culture.  The idea is ultimately to 1st help new hires acclimate to life and work here by not only having material resources readily available but a real human resource to lean on.  We always knew this how how people really get up to speed in an organization and the idea of finding a "buddy" has always been haphazard... left to the individual to figure out.  What if this was just something we helped everyone with? What if each new person came aboard and in addition to their team and manager they had another they could just tap into. Having an expert available, get a question answered, and a few tips on "how it really works here" goes a long way.  Can't this model scale we thought? And so through research inside and out, we began the slow process of developing a multi phase program to not only to help new hires but also look to weave a program like this into the career path as well. Imagine someone desiring to be a manager and having to show that they can first successfully mentor another? Isn't that the main job of a manager, to develop his/her people? 

Behind the scenes, in our own silo, we talked, researched, developed, reviewed and shared all of this. And I thought it time we eat our own dog food (for lack of a better expression) regarding openness and transparency and WOL.  We needed to practice what we preach and take what has been a young internal L&D initiative and make it very public - wild hairs, half-baked prototypes and conversations included.  It was a perfect way to model open collaboration in the workplace and build proof of concept, help others see how it can scale, and ultimately open the door to conversations on how to get it going in their own areas. Our once hidden work and process is now available for all to see and comment on... and some have. In the end people outside our area can add much value by sharing their own experiences in mentoring with us, maybe post a few good documents and ideas we should consider in making this a reality.  Maybe they will do nothing at all but "lurk" but at least now they are in the know and invited to the conversation.