6509s. A work in progress (Bob Mical/flickr.com)

What is a connector?

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

Where some believe that the value of their network is based on its exclusivity, connectors are people in the organization who have developed large networks of people and who see their role in introducing people in their network to each other.

This connector role is closely related to the knowledge brokering process that recombines existing knowledge and facilitates knowledge transfer.

The relationships leveraged by connectors may be personal or based on prior experience rather than ascribed to the current role, especially in the context of decentralization.

Building a dense network of relationships is a prerequisite for the connector function. As connectors, we are empowered toward the collection vision in which can act as knowledge brokers to foster, replicate, scale, and harmonize innovation by National Societies.

Photo: 6509s. A work in progress (Bob Mical/flickr.com)

Wire (Kendra/flickr.com)

What does it mean to broker knowledge in a network?

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

Our network function requires that we interact with the network. We observe profound changes in the nature of knowledge, how it circulates, and this affects how we work (learn).

Members in the network, too, have changed. We struggle to keep up with and adapt to these changes. In working with them, we prioritize results against their own expectations as well as those of donors and governments.

Hence, it is difficult to justify learning approaches that take us away from such priorities. We wish for time after delivery to reflect on lessons learned, but such wishes may be swept away by the next urgent task.

The alternative to this frustrating cycle of task delivery at the expense of reflection is to adopt a knowledge brokering approach. We broker knowledge when we link learning with innovation in the context of the long history of work done by the network.

When trying to solve a difficult problem, especially in emergencies, our “fear of failure” drives speed and urgency in finding innovative solutions. We trade off certainty for speed. By contrast, in most of our work, “fear of failure” inhibits speed and risk-taking, as we seek to execute what has been previously established as normative. Therefore, innovation processes require different indicators and metrics than those of execution.

Knowledge brokering provides a model for how we might be able to embed innovation and learning into work, by recombining our past and current knowledge, leveraging the old to do new things in new ways.

The historical model is for the center (headquarters) to produce “trickle-down” knowledge to be consumed by the periphery (network), with feedback as an occasional and exceptional event. For example, even though we know the importance of currency, we wait years before we consider updating guidelines, because making knowledge current requires stopping other work and concerted effort that is difficult to organize and resource.

This traditional model in which members of the network request assistance from headquarters becomes increasingly difficult to sustain when there is more knowledge and everything is faster, calling into question traditional models of expertise.

When we look for commonalities between network members, we question our assumptions about how different they are. In our new role as knowledge brokers, by working with many in the network, we facilitate access to the ideas, artifacts, and people that reside within one member or domain yet may be valuable in others. From this existing knowledge (which also considers existing trainings, guidelines, and tools), we strive to discover new combinations and new ways to transfer experience. When nodes in the network are thus empowered to “do for themselves”, the nature of our expertise changes and we change too.

If members do for themselves, what then is the role for those of us who work in headquarters?

Reference: Hargadon, A.B., 2002. Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational behavior 24, 41–85.

Photo: Wire (Kendra/flickr.com)

Danger of death (Lars Plougmann/flickr.com)

How do we learn from the network?

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

When our organization’s hierarchy prohibits direct contact with the field, indirect and informal contact becomes more important than ever. Global and regional meetings, bilateral programmes, and various kinds of informal events provide opportunities for staying in touch. In fact, decentralization raises the stakes of informal and incidental learning – activities “flying under the radar” of decentralization’s hierarchical relationships may become the primary mode for learning about, with and for the field.

How do we overcome barriers to learning from the network? First, when we reframe new ideas and possibilities, we ask how this aligns with the current characteristics of the nodes in the network (“the membership”). Second, we need to leverage continual learning to innovate, recombining and inventing new solutions (knowledge brokering). Third, we need to consider indicators other than the volume of programming, and consider how we can scale up quality.

Photo: Danger of death (Lars Plougmann/flickr.com)

Vintage Bank Vault (Brook Ward/flickr.com)

Death of the knowledge bank

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

The complexity of the networks in which our organization operates is scaffolded by a corpus of mostly-unwritten, tacit knowledge and ‘ways of working’ that we learn mostly from our peers. It would be impossible to justify time to study even a fraction of the written corpus of policies, procedures, regulations and other instruments of bureaucracy that provides the legal and operational framework – and even that would not provide access to the tacit knowledge that we need. So we learn as we go from our colleagues. In some contexts, we may proceed by trial and error, making adjustments when we receive negative feedback.

When asked where we learn such knowledge, sources may remain apocryphal. We seldom reflect on where, when, how, and from whom we learn.

Relegating learning about operational complexity to the informal domain may seem to present a risk for the organization. In practice, we find that we do tend to learn what we need, when we need it as we work. It would be costly and time-consuming (i.e., impossible, as stated above) to achieve the same ends through formal training. Instead, the organization stands to benefit from recognition of the value of what is learned informally and learn to trust its validity.

The organization’s mission and mandate – as well as its ability to deliver on these – is the subject of much internal discussion in both the central organization (“headquarters”) and the network.

What do we do if a formal review finds limited change management capability in-house to keep pace with the rapid change in the external environment? We know that this is a critical gap because of the increased competition in the humanitarian and development world between the traditional service providers and new providers who are looking to enhance value-for-money offerings. Worse, other significant gaps may be found in our ability to drive strategically-guided programs on the ground, leading to diluted service delivery.

Such diagnosis leads to a refocus on knowledge production, circulation or exchange, but often misses the point that learning is what brings knowledge to life. The knowledge bank model is bankrupt: accumulation (or transport) of knowledge is a costly dead end, because the nature of knowledge itself has changed. It flows and becomes obsolete faster than ever. It is process, not product. Quality is in the ‘pipes’ that connect networked knowledge. Learning is in the network. That is why it is necessary but insufficient to retool in order to move knowledge throughout the world.

Why do organizations confronted with the same problem so consistently fail to consider that learning is knowledge-as-process? The blog posts in this series on learning strategy have consistently highlighted both the centrality of informal and incidental learning and its lack of recognition and near-invisibility to the organization. The more highly developed the ‘pipes’ of informal and incidental learning – or the more politically volatile the environment–, the less likely it becomes that the value of what is learned outside of formal contexts will be visible or acknowledged. And what cannot be seen is, of course, unlikely to be taken into consideration in times of change or reform.

Photo: Vintage Bank Vault (Brook Ward/flickr.com)

Crop Circle - Waylands Smithy (Ian Burt/flickr.com)

Decentralization done wrong

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

Leave the global functions to headquarters, and shift responsibility for the field to those who are actually there (or close by). It sounds perfectly sensible. And, in fact, it is an approach to decentralization adopted by some organizations. What are its implications for learning strategy?

At the most obvious level, decentralization for those of us who work at the global – and, to a lesser extent, regional – level has reduced direct contact with the network. We often experience this as a constraint, limiting our ability to stay current with what is happening in the network to ensure that our work is closely aligned to the mission.

We duly note that privileged relationships with donors have been preserved at the global level, despite decentralization.

We observe mostly negative consequences of decentralization, even though in principle it should be the best support to take into account differences from one geographic region to another. In the organization’s culture of consensus and the political context for decentralization, such frustration may not be expressed publicly. Yet, decentralization is increasingly perceived as an important barrier to working with the network, much less working as a network. This is because responsibilities shifted but hierarchies remained to erect new walls that obscure knowledge and limit its flow.

How do we compensate when the ‘pipes’ of knowledge networks dry up or are dismantled? In working with those in the field, we leverage the fact that we are likely to be peers, often having ourselves “been there”. We rely on prior knowledge that we may have acquired through experience. However, we are keenly aware that what we know may be out of date. After all, how long can we be in a global position while being out of touch from the field?

Photo: Crop Circle – Waylands Smithy (Ian Burt/flickr.com)

The hub upon which all things turn (Nic McPhee/flickr.com)

The hub in a network

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

We sit at the hub of a distributed network. In the past, only some organizations sought to organize as networks – those that had to bring together, federate or otherwise affiliate disparate groups characterized by diversity. Today, an organization that does not distribute its functions is unlikely to leverage its network. Learning strategy therefore carefully considers how to decentralize the means while sharpening the aim. We explore the tension between the consequences and risks of decentralization and the benefits of learning in the network.

We share a collective vision and commitment to building the capacity of our network and leveraging our organization’s connectedness to improve. How well we execute on that commitment is measured by mission performance.

We are empowered as connectors in the network: from members to the hub, from the hub to the members, and members to each other. What is changing about the collective vision we share? What needs to change? How do we broker knowledge and learning in those relationships? What are the effective forms of collaboration (liaison, representation, coordination) with the members? What do we learn from working with the members, how and from whom? What is our role in brokering knowledge and learning from the global to the national level? What are the barriers and enablers to learning with members?

We believe that working together means learning together to strengthen our vision for a long-term, sustainable and resilient future. Strengthening our collective vision empowers us to translate our mission performance into innovation to adapt and grow.

Photo: The hub upon which all things turn (Nic McPhee/flickr.com)

Under the Bridge (Kim Hill/flickr.com)

Mind the gap

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

How do we establish a mentoring relationship? What do we do when we identify a knowledge or performance gap in a colleague? This is a sensitive issue. Pointing to a gap is more likely to lead to a productive process when mutual trust is a pre-existing condition.

When we mentor a colleague, we rely on our relationships as peers and our shared values. We deploy a range of context-specific approaches.

We use sophisticated strategies to provide support while respecting silo boundaries, personal pride, and limitations circumscribed by institutional culture.

When we establish a mentoring relationship, we take a careful, considered approach, respectful of the other person’s experience and context.

Developing mentoring is easier in smaller teams.

Because the concept of “mentoring” implies different levels of experience, we emphasize mutual support between peers.

One recurring gap is the lack of knowledge or experience in the organization or industry. Those of us who have a long affiliation feel a responsibility to induct “outsiders” to the values and practices we share.

We feel responsible to our colleagues, whether or not they are our direct reports. Our ability to collaborate is improved when we help others address gaps.

Photo: Under the Bridge (Kim Hill/flickr.com)

Chinese Garden of Friendship in Sydney Australia (Ajith/flickr.com)

Being mentored

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

Mentor was the name of the adviser of the young Telemachus in Homer’s Odyssey. A mentor is an experienced and trusted advisor. In the workplace, mentoring usually involves providing counsel to colleagues. Mentoring relationships may be purely informal one-offs or imply a deeper investment for both mentor and mentee. For mentoring relationships to deepen and become sustainable requires mutual identification and recognition.

The organization does not currently formally prescribe or support mentoring. And, for some of us, at times we have had to find our own way because there was no one to turn to for guidance or support. Yet, most of us can recall how support, counsel and advice received from more experienced colleagues both helped collaboration and furthered our individual development. By exploring when and how we received mentoring, we can better envision how the organization might be able to recognize and support it.

Line managers may be de facto mentors, although this role overlaps in complex ways with the guidance, direction and leadership as well as evaluation and feedback they are responsible for. When our line manager takes the time to provide context and explanation, we find this helpful. Unlike other relationships with colleagues, which require prior negotiation, turning to your line manager for guidance and support is perceived as legitimate. And, in fact, in our resource-scarce context, there is often no one else to turn to.

Some of us find mentors amongst our external partners as well as trusted colleagues and friends who may in completely different areas of work. Such mentoring relationships with people outside our immediate work environment provide additional benefits by connecting us to other ways of thinking and doing.

Photo: Chinese Garden of Friendship in Sydney Australia (Ajith/flickr.com)

Boarding Royal Carribean's Vision of the Seas in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (Light Nomad/flickr.com)

Onboarding

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

How do we get newcomers onboard?

Onboarding refers to the mechanism through which new staff acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and behaviors to become effective “insiders” of the organization.

The organization’s onboarding process, for most us, was very informal and lacked structure, except for various administrative tasks. We know that there are no shortcuts, given the amount and complexity of tacit knowledge that is difficult to transfer. When we started working in the team, we may have found gaps in our knowledge, skills, or experience – including ones that no one could foresee or expect.

Efforts to formalize onboarding inevitably run into the same difficulties as formal training. When a person arrives in a role, there are likely to be urgencies to attend to. In the process of dealing with these, newcomers have to establish themselves, begin building relationships with others, and make sense of the complexities of the workplace, often on their own (as everyone else is supportive but simply too busy).

This points to issues at the level of the organization (beyond the team) around succession planning and handover. For example, the budget for a post does not allow for the new hire to shadow outgoing staff, and there is no established mechanism to ensure a comprehensive handover.

Gaps in technical knowledge are possible, but less likely than gaps in “understanding how everything works together and the procedures and so on”. Other gaps will appear over time. Yet onboarding is a repetitive process, some gaps can be identified ahead of time, and there is a tangible benefit to abandoning the prevailing sink-or-swim” approach.

Photo: Boarding Royal Carribean’s Vision of the Seas in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (Light Nomad/flickr.com)

Benjamin West, Calypso's Reception of Telemachus and Mentor (Daniel Reinberg/flickr.com)

Mentoring

Reda SadkiLearning strategy

Fostering relationships that enable and sustain collaboration and inquiry requires building trust about both technical competencies and each person’s interest in dialogue.

Therefore, two contexts require special attention. First, when newcomers come onboard to the team, they may or may not be familiar with the general organizational context or the specific working conditions. This requires thinking through how they are brought on board (“onboarding”). Second, when a performance gap is identified, in-service coaching and mentoring may be considered, especially if stopping work is not a possibility or the gap covers tacit knowledge that is not taught formally.

Although coaching and mentoring require specialized skills, most of us recognize that the mentoring and support we receive helps develop our capabilities. Having received support, we are also willing to provide it, with or without institutional support. When we identify a gap in knowledge, skills or experience in a new colleague, how do we provide support to address this? When and how do we mentor colleagues?

Yet, like other dimensions of informal learning, mentoring may no longer be assumed to “just happen”. Despite our recognition of its importance, it is seldom included in formal tools such as job descriptions or performance reviews that are supposed to identify competencies, experience and achievements. This needs to change.

Photo:  Benjamin West, Calypso’s Reception of Telemachus and Mentor (Daniel Reinberg/flickr.com)