It is not about the content, its about the interactions

The biggest limitation is traditional teaching is students may not fully understand the impacts and consequences of the knowledge they have “gained”. Vygotsky (1978) argued a long time ago that language and signs helped learners to develop a richer and higher level of understanding, thereby increasing the chances of converting content and thought into meaningful action. He described this transformation as a move from a life where action dominates meaning (or “rebus”) to one where meaning dominates action. For this evolution to happen, learners benefit from spaces where they can interact and reflect (alone or with others) to develop their thinking and interpretation of the content. Interactions across perspectives enhance the richness of these exchanges and this is what the Facilitator” should be doing in class rather than teaching content.
The idea of learning by doing and interacting with others is far from new. May writers have discussed action learning, action research, andragogy (or adult teaching method) and the limitations of these versus traditional content based teaching. One of the key limitations is that andragogy assumes the learner is a willing participant and will engage with others. Words Bloom used to describe the outcomes of traditional learning included: defines, describes, identifies, knows, labels, lists…
Whereas words Bloom used to describe andragogy are much richer and action orientated such as (and require a significantly higher level of understanding): appraises, compares, concludes, contrasts, criticizes, critiques, defends, discriminates, evaluates, explains, interprets, justifies, relates…

However, if students have not read the material before the interaction, the value of the dialogue is significantly reduced. Larry Michaelsen creatively got around this problem by setting short tests at the beginning of each class that count to final grades. If they did not read, they (and their teams) were penalised in the results (simple and brilliant). The truth is if they DO read before, they learn more and education is an investment in your future. If you want to maximise return on your time and efforts investment, you read before, interact during class and reflect afterwards. The truth is, your capabilities (what you are really buying in education) are as much influenced by what you do before and after classes than in them. Each enhances the quality of the other.
A quality education is one in which we (participants) understand what is already known from the past and apply this to inform decisions and actions (the same or differently) in the present, in order to create a better future. After all, one of the key the purposes of education (other than just being fun to participate in) is to guide us to a more sustainable and enjoyable future. Flipping the classroom is just one way to achieve this higher level understanding, others include conversation, games, metaphor, role plays, challenges, debates etc. The key in the interactive dialogue and being outcomes focused (around what you are trying to achieve).
I advise my research students that I want them to develop multiple perspectives:

• Understand the problem (but this is just the beginning)…
• Convert that problem into an opportunity (if it is an issue, then resolving it adds value right?)
• Then advise, specifically, how to act for the future (in a meaningful way that creates sustainable way.

That is, inspire our thinking by shifting our focus from “What is” to “What is POSSIBLE!”

References:

Bloom, BS, Hastings, JT & Madaus, GF 1971, Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, USA.
Michaelsen 2012 http://www.teambasedlearning.org/
Vygotsky, LS 1978 Mind and society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

The Zoo represents the organisation and each animal an individual behaviour (not a person as a whole). People are far too complex to put into a “box”. They behave differently in different contexts, sometimes automated (instinctive) and at other times somewhat deliberately. All organisations have an overall stereotypical culture, which in reality is the combination of many smaller subcultures. As you drill down through specific contexts, different behaviours are displayed resulting in variation on how the collective accept some behaviours and not others depending on the situation.

We can come to understand this better as we analyse the types of behaviours and how those involved categorise them according to context. A useful exercise to understand your (sub)culture is to determine which animals you prefer in each of the following categories:
• Expected (this behaviour is considered absolutely required in this context)
• Desired (we would like to have this behaviour if possible)
• Tolerated (prefer this was not displayed)
• Not tolerated (this behaviour is disruptive in the context and likely to lead to conflict)

Participants are asked to include twenty of the Organizational Zoo animals (place five cards into each of the four categories). In doing so, they engage in a rich exchange of perspectives of the impact of each animal on outcomes and performance. They often disagree and with good facilitation, insights into why this diversity exists and impacts each animal has in each category can generate terrific understanding between the people involved. This exercise has been done in a range of cultures/countries using a range of groups and every time it generates positive outcomes: participants learn from each other and have fun whilst disagreeing!

One key learning that often comes out is why cultures have clashes (see photo). Where two cultures (or subcultures within one organisation) have similar animals in the expected and desired categories, they are very compatible and cross fertilisation of ideas seems easy. There is a strong sense of common identity and willingness to engage with each other as indicated by the green zones. Cross overs between desired and tolerated between the cultures are inconvenient at times and can create some tension, but these can be managed with competent leadership. However, if there are some animals that are expected in one culture and not tolerated in another (red zones), there is a lot of tension and if not managed well, ultimately leads to conflict and culture clashes.

The Zoo metaphor cards can be used to highlight such potential issues early in the formation of teams (such as acquisitions, mergers, new projects…). If such constructive dialogue is facilitated before tensions are allowed to escalate into issues, agreements on ways of interacting can be forged. However, if such conversations are not facilitated (or done badly), the underlying tensions build into an explosive crisis, after which resolution is extremely difficult. When this happens, trust and collaboration seldom develop causing derailment and destroying performance.

Often, it is not the conversations that DO happen that are most damaging. Its those that should have happened but didn’t (or did so too late and or with the wrong behaviours).

So here is your personal development challenge over the next few weeks… put away your initial reaction to what you hear. Reject the urge to say “Yes, but…” Give a moment to reflect on whether that statement that you heard a colleague state. Assess what merit it may have that you did not previously see: If it does adopt it into your approach. If it does not, seek further information about it – ask an OPEN question to learn more. You never now, it may be the best idea you ever subconsciously rejected before it had time to grow on you. It is also possible that it is as sub-optimal you first thought! If is it, then professionally questioning it often leads to the person offering it to realise it is not sufficiently robust. Intelligent people usually come to understand that there are other ideas or options that may be better. This is how effective conversations that matter work to generate better outcomes for all (assuming everyone wants win/win and as long as there is a respectful manner when challenging ideas). I know this approach works and has on many occasions educated me to adopt new ideas I would have not have benefited from without listening and engaging in dialogue. What happens when you get this right is we all end up with richer understandings from the interactions. If we don’t engage in this way, it is almost certain we will end up just maintain the status quo (at best) or worse, lead to conflict and everyone losing.
As Theodore Zeldin stated: “The kind of conversation I’m interested in is one which you start with a willingness to emerge a slightly different person. It is always an experiment, whose results are never guaranteed. It involves risk. It’s an adventure in which we agree to cook the world together and make it taste less bitter.”

Dorothy Leonard-Barton highlighted back in 1995 in Wellsprings of Knowledge that “creative abrasion” is a positive source of innovation and learning and something to be consciously acknowledged and leveraged. She went on to propose teams should be designed to include diversity and systems of thought that encourage different views and/or ontology to be expressed, argued and reconciled. This is why people SHOULD pay good money for high quality education that help them to think and constructively challenge! They get to interact with other string intellects and learn how to learn from each other. With the right focus and facilitation they become more capable. Another outcome of quality education is the participants are more effective, they can utilise more behavioural styles when engaging with others (and leverage groups for mutual benefits). After all, isn’t a “problem” just an opportunity to make something better? Well lead creative abrasion through professional conversation enables you to keep your eye on the outcomes and adapt your behaviour such that you can achieve this. This is one way the Zoo animal characters can be used effectively – reflecting on who you should be in that context, not allowing the context to drive how you react.

You deserve to enjoy your group interactions rather than endure them, so do the free online behavioural profile and assess how adaptable is your style to suit all the contexts you engage in…. (please be sure to challenge yourself and reflect on what you need to do to become who you want to be not just believe you are already there).

Start with some conversations triggered by questions about them in their contexts. Consider the impacts (or lack thereof) of combining aspects of people, process, tools and desired business outcomes.   These interactions will inform the next level of questions required to advance the cause and performance of the client.

Some useful generic starting questions are:

Questions open gates not premade answers

What are we trying to achieve in the business? (divergent)

What keeps you awake at night? (convergent)

What are the three biggest issues or lost opportunities? (convergent)

How is this aspect causing us issues in achieving our desired outcomes? (divergent)

What actions can resolve any barriers caused by these? (or even better, leverage them to create an advantage?). This one is potentially divergent or convergent- depending on how you lead the behavioural environment.

Who do I need to involve to realise the desired outcomes from these actions? (convergent)

When you have reflected on these and feel you have plausible answers, bounce the resulting plan in some more conversations with others.  Actively seek to get insights (pros and cons) from a range of people to leverage different perspectives. Then DO IT (implement the actions!).  Reflect on how it is going as you do it as well as reflecting how it could have been improved afterwards (more conversations that matter to gather a range of perspectives- not just your own thoughts).  One of the reasons we learn more from errors than from getting things right, is we reflect much more deeply when we feel the pain of a mistake, especially an expensive one.  When something works, we don’t tend to reflect as much, perhaps assuming the adequacy of our effort was optimal.  Without reflection, this is a BIG assumption!

Go ahead – start a new emergent conversation triggered by reflective questions today!

Creativity is too often underestimated by (left brain dominated) detailed/logical business people (I was there too myself in my distant past, before evolving through learning).  My recent research (very applied not theoretical) and that of others shows creativity, conversations and humour were significant stimulators of learning outcomes. People who want to learn “facts”, actually don’t learn (and often don’t remember facts later, or worse, they facts become obsolete).  A key to true learning is to being exposed to content in creative, left field ways and then applying the concepts in out of pattern approaches.  This ensures their right brain is engaged in a creative way which allows the new patterns to enter rather than be rejected (because logically they “don’t fit the known pattern”).

That is, we hear what we want to hear and reject the rest when “thinking”. However, we are susceptible to new ideas when having fun (like being involved in a creative activity that is unpredictable and emergent).  Such activities engage both sides of the brain simultaneously and have us both thinking and feeling, whilst out of our comfort zone.  When introduced to new clients, I find people who “know exactly what they want” are unlikely to get the value without considering why they want it and what way it is likely be be achieved (see conversations that matter).  If they are not prepared to have a divergent conversation first before converging on an approach, they limit in their thinking  as they do not know what else is out there.  Unknowingly (unless they are just “ticking the box” to pay lip service to appease), they limit their own performance and potential achievements because of a closed mind to alternative ideas (although this is often subconscious).  If one truly wants to change and build capability, one must be open to trying new ideas (absolutes are rarely true, but this one comes very close!).  Whilst some experiments may not work, they still lead to cultivating an open mind and learning outcomes.  There is plenty of research that shows we learn more from errors than we do from getting things right (mainly because when things go right, we don’t reflect on whether it could have been so much better – something intelligent people do when they make have a “learning experience” stimulated by mistakes).

One assumes potential clients seek expertise to help them learn what they don’t already know, otherwise why bother to pay for something you already have?  Putting tight constraints (time, formats and areas of content) around what they want is very limiting for (and by) them and also limits what we can achieve for/with them.  You can’t truly learn if you control the limits so you remain within your comfort zone!  This will just reinforce what you already “know”.

Life is not a formula (or at least an enjoyable and fulfilling one isn’t).  Giving away a little control allows you get greater ROI and learn so much more.
Let go! You may even have some fun in the process whilst you build greater relationships, confidence and trust among your team members.

Mentoring is experienced guidance, not teaching

Firstly, my association with many young people from a range of cultures through coordinating courses for RMIT University’s MBA, which led me to revamp and lead the student mentoring program in which volunteer business leaders offer their time to invest in conversation with MBA students.
Secondly, my interest in the influence of behavioural awareness through my PhD research leading to the concept of behavioural environment optimisation to enhance trust and team dynamics and
Thirdly, my personal desire to “give back” something to the professional and social communities though which I have enjoyed being part of, such the Melbourne Knowledge Management leadership Forum and Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network and some other on-line communities that share knowledge and expertise.

Talking to a number of the mentors and mentees over time about what they do, why and the outcomes they achieve has been very rewarding and revealing.  The importance of conversation and metaphors as tools to engage and share complex concepts so that the mentee can gain a richer understanding of what is being said within their own experiences has become a common theme.  Conversations that Matter form a useful framework for mentees to elevate their awareness to a new level and gain deep insights into how the experiences of their mature mentors can help then in their own contexts and situations.  It is not about “finding a solution” to their problem, it is more a process to discover a range of options. Reflection with others helps to “bounce ideas” and adapt the mentors insights into something that will work for them and their own situations.

When metaphor is added to the conversation a new dimension of understanding can be shared and lead to more creative generation of options. The process of reflecting on your your thoughts with others provides greater perspectives and triggers ideas and emergent opportunities that you may not have considered without this process.  My recent research highlights that there are synergies gained by combining metaphor and conversation in that the two together, combined with reflection are creative provide a more creative environment for insightful exchange (and is more fun).

Business students involved in the mentoring process often write highly reflective articles of their personal and professional development expressing their gratitude towards their mentor. A few examples of such statements follows:

“I found out that speaking about me and listening to peers were an incredible and mind opening experience. It was enriching to learn what fellow classmates were thinking in terms of job perspectives as well as gain global industry insights from my mentor.”

“I gained a lot more than these expectations and realized an extension of skills and work choices that I was not aware of.” 

“Without mentor guidance, it would have taken me a much longer time to answer the career questions of moving vertical or horizontal in my career.  In future, I do anticipate looking for life coaches as well as mentors to routinely keep my work and personal goals in direction.”

“I became comfortable and confident to discuss my professional developments with my mentor towards the later sessions. I learnt that an active mentoring relationship with regular communications and a two-way exchange of ideas was much more effective than a formal lecture student relationship.”

Both personally and professionally, seeing/hearing such statements is the ultimate reward, especially when they contact you several years later and describe how they attribute elements of their success to application of their learning from the mentoring.  Knowing that one’s efforts and guidance have made an ongoing difference for the mentee is satisfying far beyond “just teaching” (although the value and responsibility of this too is not to be understated).  I can only encourage everyone to invest a little time in being involved in mentoring at some stage (as either mentor or mentee or through group peer mentoring) to experience the exhilaration of making a difference for someone else and watching them prosper as a result.

Participants define behavioural profile for a specific context

Over the last few months I have been involved in a number of workshops using the Organizational Zoo metaphor character cards to engage people in conversations on how behavioural interactions impact knowledge sharing and relationships. These fun interactions draw on the diversity of behaviours, experiences and cultures in the room to generate shared insights that i believe would not have occurred if it were not for the creativity and “out of the box” interactions.  Participants have said that having the metaphor character cards enables them to depersonalise the conversation about behaviour and create a safe environment to exchange perspectives (Watch 3 minute video summary of the research: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONyVOkXNOFE ).

In the last workshop at KM Asia (Singapore), there were people from several cultural background involved in the dialogues. Participants in small groups categorised the behaviours into “expected”, “desired”, “tolerated” and “not tolerated” within a self selected context (example being: forming a community of practice, being a parent, in a crisis, as a project manager and building high performance teams). Each group then explained their choices of “animals” (behaviours) to the whole group which immediately stimulated a rich conversation about different perspectives on which behaviours were in which category.  People brought out their values in the conversations showing how people can constructively discuss differences of perspective and still be involved in a constructive dialogue. Entertaining and insightful!

It was interesting to hear the exchange of values when the group were discussing the “correct” was to be a parent.  Some were heavily supportive of strong discipline and others for more invest in fun with your children. The  most important point was that they were able to have this exchange of views both constructively and deeply through using the relationships between the metaphor characters to come to a point where they each understood more deeply, rather than trying to argue about who was right. When was the last time you had a positive and constructive conversation with a group of colleagues?

Although it is a LONG story, in short it took several drawings over several months to get the message right.  We wanted to portray the behaviours people encounter on their career path through a typical organisation.

You can see the kid (naive recruit) about to enter the front gate of the zoo (organisation) and as one would expect the Owl (eternal mentor) ready to greet them at the gate.  Many of the basic tactical behaviours are more heavily represented at the early stages of the career path (central walkway) whilst the the more mature and strategic behavioural styles dominate the top of the zoo.

The highly political rattlesnake can’t decide if they want to be in or out of the zoo, the change resistant triceratops has found a corner to mope about the good old days whilst the pestiferous insects clearly are trying to bust in. Quercus (the majestic Oak) is creating energy from outside and providing shelter for the inhabitants.  Each animal finds their optimal niche (except the unicorn, that is “perfect manager”, which of course doesn’t exist). Ultimately, the culture of the organisation is governed by the types of animals you have, where they are in the hierarchy and how they interact.

A good leader manages is aware of the behavioural interactions and leads the environment rather than being a victim of it.  It is possible to enhance your performance (individuals, teams and organisation) by proactively choosing which animals get to impact the environment through active conversations about what behaviours are appropriate for each context.  It is OK to be critical (vulture, piranha)  in a risk management analysis, but not in a brainstorm.  It is not about which is right and wrong animals – it is about being the right animal in the right context and being constructive about the animal interactions.

An astute person manages their own animals to interact most productively with others animals to generate more value and desired outcomes.  Consequently they flow more quickly up the hierarchy and generate greater trust and stronger relationships.
How proactively and consciously do you think about which animals you should be in each situation to achieve your desired outcomes?

Societies are the composition of what is welcomed, what is tolerated and what is rejected.  Some draw others in to increase the range of compatible flavours  and appreciate this new addition without trying to blend them into the amorphous pulp.  However, others only allow similar fruits into THEIR mix and quickly adjust the newcomers flavour to suit their environment.

On vacation, we often visit other countries to immerse ourselves in something different and enjoy those differences, BECAUSE  they are highlight a new perspective on how others are.  More often than not though, we then return to the warm and comfortable “same” feeling that is “home”.  But home can be a bit amorphous like completely blended fruit pulp – one overall mixed flavour with bit of many, but representative on none. Is this truly how we want our cultures to be when we can have a fruit salad mix that still has elements of individual identity from many cultures each augmenting the others?  The pineapple is still recognisably pineapple AND has influencing hints of orange and kiwi and a dash of passion fruit making it more interesting, tasty and a point of conversation.

Organisations and teams that have a specific consistent cultural norm forced upon them become boring, navel-gazing, prone to group-think and stifle conversations.  However, those that genuinely cherish a range of behavioural styles, differences in values and perspectives and actively/respectfully engage these differences to leverage situations are happier and more productive.  Drawing upon the variety available to them stimulates emergent conversations, increases creativity and drives innovation and productivity. A “Fruit Salad culture” provides a new unique blend of excitement with each mouthful and keep us interested in participating.  An amorphous fruit blend is completely predictable and does not offer the spicy variety many of our most talented colleagues thrive upon.

What kind of culture are you leading or participating in?
Can it be different to what you now and and what impact would this have?

For me it is mostly fruit salad, but in some specific circumstances a single piece may be best, and on very few occasions in a simple context with a known desired outcome, perhaps the blended juice will suffice.  Behavioural choices to best leverage the mix need to be sculptured to suit the context. Be the one to choose before someone else makes a choice which is not to your taste!

Figure 1. Align behaviours with intent to optimise performance

For some people, life is like a series of somewhat unpredictable interactions that just happen to them – and can lead to benefits or tragedies.  They react to what the environment “allows” rather than create the environment they would like to experience.  However, occasionally, we also see someone who always seems to “get what they want” and appears to lead the environment rather than be constrained by it.
How does this happen?
What do they have that others do not?

The key differences between leaders and followers are mindset and planned behaviour.
People who successfully manage the behavioural environment invest time and energy reflecting on HOW they should behave to lead the environment and adapt their approach as they interact with others. This way they draw followers into their dialogue and actions in a way that generates the outcomes they are seeking.  Thinking about the people involved in advance and confidently displaying considered behaviours can set the mood of an interaction (meeting, discussion, review etc.) in a way that adjusts how participants perceive the situation (The media do this all the time with the tone and content of voice-overs and which images they display as do well-targeted advertisements).
Manipulative?
Well yes, but potentially highly successful and not necessarily wrong…

If you set the behavioural environment to take advantage of others for your own benefit, clearly this is inappropriate and immoral (and diminishes trust leading to conflict- see Figure 1 above). However, if your focus is to create mutual benefits for all parties, then such “manipulation” is positive.

Imagine having a catalyst that could assist you to positively manipulate the behavioural environment for greater awareness of those present and focus the engagement on a common shared set of outcomes.  Utopia?  No … a (potential) reality…

Deliberately incorporating behavioural metaphors through reflective conversation cycles can enhance creativity and build rich insights into how to optimise interactions and idea generation.  This new concept aligns behaviour with purpose to combine simplicity, a trusting and sharing environment, creative metaphor and constructive conversation.  A series of metaphor based card games has been developed that recent research has shown to enable people to engage in constructive and non-political conversations about which behaviours will generate the desired outcomes. Participants intuitively engage with each other to develop positive interactions which generate trust which inturn increase knowledge transfer and collaboration and ultimately enhance performance (Figure 1).

Having such Conversations that Matter about what behaviour is and is not appropriate in each situation leads to better outcomes. Not conversing about behaviour creates the opportunity to misunderstand each other an inappropriate mix of behaviours that are not aligned with the desired outcomes… Not the best place to end up!
Are you actively discussing which behaviours are appropriate in your different contexts.
Are you leveraging the full set of behaviours and aligning them with your outcomes?