Need Based Learning and Emergence of Meaning

Some days back a colleague and I were discussing about ‘meaning based learning’. He said he disagreed with this concept; the reasons being:

• Many a times we stumble across something useful.
• The moment we decide that we want to learn something, we close ourselves to other learning’s which might have, otherwise, emerged in the process.

My mind wandered back to something I had heard a few years back. A senior had mentioned that his learning retention used to be better when he learnt something which was of importance to him at that point of time. That was the first time I had heard about ‘meaning based learning’ and it had made sense to me then.

I later read about ‘phenomenology (Donald, Snygg, and Combs)’ which give credence to meaning based learning theory.

I must accept that the concept does make sense. Many a things which have stayed with me over a period of time have had some meaning to me at the point of time at which it got inculcated. So be it MBTI, Transactional Analysis, etc……..these had significant meaning for me at the time I focused on them.

But there also have been things which I have stumbled across in my life which have stayed with me e.g.: What matters more – Youth or Youthfulness? Experience or Capacity for Experience?- these are not things which I aimed for but I stumbled across.

But then, even though I had stumbled across these learning’s, they had relevance for me at that point of time. Hence there was meaning associated with them though I was not necessarily looking around for solutions/learning’s.

So the term should be Need based learning (directed or stumbled across- which has relevance/meaning for us) and this would be different from Meaning/direction Oriented Learning (where Learning is an outcome of only ‘directed’ efforts).

I remember another discussion with a different colleague. He was talking of wanting something to happen (getting fixated to one outcome - which would arise from a fear of waiting for a situation to emerge and consequently being uncomfortable with the unknown outcomes which might emerge) vis-a-vis allowing a situation to emerge.

What I can make out from this is that we need to be keyed on to what are our developmental needs at a point of time, and consciously work on addressing these need but also be open to ‘accidental/stumbled upon learning’. At the same time the our mindset should be ‘let things/learnings emerge’ instead of ‘I need answers quick’. In this way we would avoid a major learning disenabler, Cognitive Dissonance, too.

-

Sourav

Being OK with not being OK

A few months ago a colleague asked me if i had a model to depict the challenges a new joiner faces at work. I told him about a framework i used to follow for an induction program I handled in a previous role:

• Program objective: An individual should be in a position to take over independent handling of any role in the function he/she has been hired for at the end of the induction period.
• Program focus: the triad of Learning, Contribution and Relationships and how all 3 need to be worked on.
• Program Principles: How do you facilitate the anxiety associated with learning (getting over the Cognitive Dissonance problem)? ...my statement about “One has to be OK with not being OK for some point of time.” This would allow you not to jump to the first acceptable solution (just because you wanted to get over your learning related anxiety).

This framework, in parts, has been influenced by an understanding of the difference between Orientation and Induction – a difference highlighted to me by a senior colleague in my 1^st year of working.

This is a helpful framework for looking at the program. It comprehensively covers the way the company would look at the program. It also considers a major difficulty which the learner faces in the learning process.

But is that all that is required to ensure an effective induction process?

We say that the role of the learner is paramount in the learning process. If the learner does not want to learn then there is not much a trainer or a facilitator can do about it. I also have usually believed (though lesser nowadays) that all learning is meaning based (Snygg and Comb’s theory - phenomenology).

So can we as a facilitator/process owner create a context through which an individual derives meaning for the learning? The choice to learn or not to learn would still rest with the individual but atleast we would have created a space in which the meaning for the learning may find expression.

Some years back I had read about a learning cycle theory, frequently used in NLP. The theory is about 4 successive stages in learning, viz:

• Unconscious Incompetence
• Conscious Incompetence
• Conscious Competence
• Unconscious Competence

This model has a lot of face validity. When a newcomer comes into the system, he/she is in a stage of unconscious incompetence. How do we facilitate the movement to Conscious Incompetence? (providing a context from which an individual derives meaning for learning). This seems to be the crux of the issue.

I am not sure whether we can tell an individual the meaning. A space has to be created in which an individual reflects/experiences something and consequently derives his/ her own meaning.

How is this space created? Well, that’s where the role of the facilitator comes in.

The consequent challenges would be to provide the resources which allow the individual to work towards Conscious Competence while at the same time anchoring him/her around “It is OKAY, NOT TO BE OKAY for a certain point of time.”

All of these would have to be done with the additional process of anchoring the newcomer towards the importance of the active role of the learner in the whole process – “You can take a horse to the water, you can give the horse enough water to drink, tell the horse that drinking is good for its health, but the choice to drink or not to drink lies with the horse.”

-

Sourav

P.S.: Over the last year I have started developing an alternate point of view on meaning based learning. Learning is not necessarily meaning based..You also stumble upon learning!:)

Phenomenal Field and Informed Choices

Some months back a friend shared an article on how learnings from the Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” can be applied to selection and recruitment. The article spoke about 3 ways of approaching selection and recruitment:

• Psychometric paradigm – this is about selecting a candidate for the organization. Hence look at what is required of an individual to do the job and then assess the candidate on these parameters. The underlying assumption here is that jobs are relatively stable and individuals are the variable which result in performance or non – performance on the job.
• Social Process paradigm – an interview is a part of wider gamut of social interactions..don’t look at an interview as an end in itself..be sensitive to people.
• Person – Organization Fit paradigm –This is about both the parties getting full information on each other and then making an informed choice. Hence there is a lot of mutual information sharing which happens. Hence anchoring candidates onto the company would start off much before making the final offer. It would ideally start off from the first interaction he has about the company. Second, you just don’t stop with evaluating the person for the job. You get to know his “phenomenal field”. The underlying assumptions here are that jobs are not relatively stable and individuals are not the only variable that impact performance/non – performance on the job. You will need to evaluate an individual in terms of the context he would be getting into (the work team, bosses, culture, etc).

Should we look at the “phenomenal field” of an individual?

At the end of the day, all change is caused by individuals. Hence individuals are the instruments for change. But then is there a case for considering the social context s/he would get into? There is a risk of stereotyping here but at the same time it is imperative to understand how an individual would be able to work with and through the key stakeholders in a social context. The focus here is not on whether the individual is significantly different from the others in the system. The focus is rather on how the individual would be an active creator of effective social interactions.

What about “anchoring an individual” towards the company?

Anchoring an individual should start off from the first interaction. Irrespective of whether an individual gets selected or not, s/he still would have formed impressions about your company and would be a messenger. Sharing information with individuals is an important part of creating buy in for the individuals. Anything which is different is bad – that’s normal human reaction. This is the mindset of a new comer to the organization – especially a lateral hire. Anchoring him around how things might be different in your workplace is an ongoing responsibility of the recruitment manager until the joining process is completed, and subsequently of the immediate boss.

In today’s world the individual chooses the organization as much as the organization chooses the individual. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the organization to ensure it makes an informed choice and the candidate gets the opportunity to make an informed choice too.

-

Sourav