In a quest to prepare a workshop on the use of social networking technology for business school alumni I stumbled across an interesting tool by Forrester called the Social Technology Profile Tool.

This tool enables you to find out your social technology profile. It is one of the nice spin offs of Forrester research in this domain. For additional information you can view the presentation of the different stereotype profiles.

A New York Times article summarized an interesting research report on Evidence-based practices in Online Learning of the US Department of Education. The research took a longitudinal view spanning from 1996 to 2008 and investigated a sample of 99 comparative, quantitative studies of online versus classroom performance for the same courses. The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. Believers in blended learning will be happy to see that the research found that this form produced the best results. Hence instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction. Other interesting findings include:

• Variations in the way studies implemented online learning did not affect student outcomes significantly.
• The effectiveness of  online learning approaches appears broad across different content and learner types.
• Online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control of their interactions with media and prompting learner reflection.

I would say that the instructional strategy used also plays an important role in the effectiveness of the education programs researched. The researchers admit this aspect by highlighting that in the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the classroom and online learning conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. The research also used some studies with rather small samples. Therefore it is hard to say if online learning really beats conventional education in the end. I think it still depends on the design and conditions, but some evidence for the effectiveness of blended approaches is found. 

My respected former colleague Wilfred Rubens pointed me to an interesting posting on the HBR innovation blog of Scott Anthony. It is about the danger of knowledge blocking innovation. The central issue: people who have deep knowledge about a topic sometimes assume other people have that same knowledge. That in itself can be problematic for innovation, because R&D of companies can have wrong assumptions about level of knowledge of potential customers for their innovations. They assume customers know more then they do, making them blind for opportunities & threats regarding their innovations. Anthony supports this notion with a Gillette example. Although I agree to the expert blindness effect of having a deep body of knowledge in a field, I don’t see it block innovation. Most organisations involve multiple (knowledge) perspectives in their innovation processes, ranging from experts, production, marketing to customers. At least they will have extensive market research and field testing to overcome the issues Anthony is pointing at.

Greater impact of this phenomenon can be perceived  in the field of learning & education and especially in rapid e-learning. When subject matter experts develop (e-)learning programmes the effect Anthony illustrates has direct impact on learners. In my work I come across some quite comprehensive (rapid) e-learning courses that aim too high for novices, are too comprehensive or focus on the exceptions rather that mainstream knowledge. Also for rapid e-learning it is important to counter this effect with professional development approaches. This shown the need for a triangle of involvement of the subject matter expert, instructional design and learners in rapid e-learning development processes

Henry Mintzberg wrote an interesting Business Week column about Leadership versus Management and it’s relationship with the financial crisis. He argues that the separation of Leadership (do the right things) and Management (do the things right) might sound feasible, but has shown to cause trouble. Too many leaders have become detached from the crucial aspect of good management practices in their organizations. We are overled and undermanaged is Mintzberg’s conclusion. So it is back to good management in the first place. This is the fundament that has built most successful organizations anyway. In it’s new form Mintzberg calls this ‘Engaged Leadership’ (both leading + managing). Something he finds Barack Obama a striking example of. Instead of distinguishing leaders from managers, Mintzberg states that we should encourage all managers to be leaders. And, we should define “leadership” as management practiced well. This is an interesting new emphasis for business schools and leadership development programs. Besides charisma and communicating strategic vision, leadership is back to being just hard and decent management work again! It is time for what the Romans called gravitas.

Ever since the work of Peter Senge (1990) the concept of the Learning Organization remains the Holy Grail of management in contemporary business. This is merely due to the ever increasing pressure to keep reinventing products & services, business models and operational processes. Critique of Senge’s work was that it was too abstract to implement in organizations with rather vague dimensions as: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Recent research into characteristics of learning organizations made the concept a bit more transparant for management. After “Is Yours a Learning Organization?” by Garvin, Edmondson & Gino now Erwin Danneels published an interesting research paper on (sort of) this subject. In his “Organizational Antecedents of Second-Order Competences” Danneels looks at competences that enable organizations to develop new competences, something that can be viewed as the source for innovation. In fact two types of learning can be distinguished in this respect: 1) learning that is aimed at improving existing product, services and processes, 2) learning that is aimed at producing new knowledge resulting in new product, services and processes. As the driving force for this learning Danneels points to five factors:

1. Organizational Slack: the room an organization offers its employees for reflection and renewal. Not all worktime employees spend should be absorbed by the day-to-day job. Or as John Cleese put it: “If your want people to be creative, give them time to play!”. Companies as Google and 3M are good examples of embedding this in management practice.
2. Constructive Conflict: openness in the organization to challenge the existing ideas, beliefs and assumptions. Internal discussion (with mutual respect) is stimulated to foster innovation. This is of key importance for the double loop learning Argyris & Schön published about in 1978.
3. Willingness to Cannibalize: active support for innovation projects that potentially take away sales from existing products or services. Don’t neglect technological innovations because they can cannibalize your existing business, but embrace them and embed them into the organizations competences.
4. Environmental Scanning: stimulation of active environmental scanning by employees is crucial. Make them establish networks beyond the borders of the organization via professional associations, networks, conferences, trade shows and researchers. This is crucial for picking up new knowledge and competence in the ’outside’ world. 
5. Tolerance for failure: failure should be seen as a potential source of future success. Mistakes should be seen as opportunities to learn. With this mindset employees sense the room for entrepreneurship that will enable the development of new competences. 

An interesting article that is enhancing the growing body of research into learning organizations from the perspective of strategic innovation and the so-called second-order competences.