Hi, David, and everyone,
I would agree with you that culture as well as structure is involved in
tacit knowledge. You asked about how much effort it would be worth
expending to make tacit knowledge explicit. Recently, I was involved in
an exercise to recruit and develop 'direct entry' middle managers to a
prison service, which had reorganised in the past two years. The focus of
the restructure was on becoming competitive enough to stave off
competitive tendering, and to change from a rank based, quasi-militaristic
organisation to an open, collaborative approach to the business, with
promotion opportunities available to all. The Board was clear that what
it wanted from the recruitment exercise was successful business managers;
it felt it had plenty of managers who had come up through the ranks and
knew the business of 'wardering', ie the technical business of running a
prison. But even after two years, there was a lack of clarity over roles
and responsibilities of each level, and no clear picture of what the
organisation required of its existing or new managers.
However, the operational end of the organisation puts great stress on
credibility, ie competence in the business of 'wardering', but there is no
way of developing that short of spending a couple of years in uniform, and
as the board wanted people to be 'fully competent' managers within a nine
to eighteen month period, we had to find some way of meeting both demands.
So, working with consultants, we ran focus groups of existing middle and
senior managers, and talked about a range of issues, from what they felt
they were required to do (as opposed to what was in their job
descriptions), and the issues that they felt would be problematic for the
new starts, and how to resolve them with the least pain on all sides.
The consultants used the material to develop structured interviews, which
were perceived by test groups within the organisation as being appropriate
and fair. This was particularly important in this organisation, because
'open' recruitment as touted by the restructure was not perceived as such
by many individuals. I used the material to help me to structure the
candidates training, which was created as distance learning supported by a
local coach (distinct from a line manager), and three off the job
residential training programmes, focussing on different aspects of the
work of a middle manager. Support was also available from Prison Service
trainers if required, and from the learning support centre, but primary
responsibility lay with the candidates for driving their own development.
In such an environment, opportunities for specific technical learning
often do not arise; thankfully, we dont have people on the roof very often
(I hope); however participants knew what they had to achieve, and what the
timescales were for that, and worked with the line manager to structure
the programme accordingly.
Did it work? I am no longer with the organisation, so I cannot say what
the evaluation data showed, but in retention terms, we lost two from ten
starters, one headhunted very early on, the other unable to meet the
demands of the organisation. Governors appear happy with the quality of
the candidates, of whom most, if not all, began contributing to the work
of the prison they were based in very quickly.
Was it worth it? It was certainly a very expensive process, in cash
terms, at least in terms of the development of the structured interviews,
but it did give us useful tools, even though in many ways, the information
from the focus groups simply confirmed what most of us already knew was
the tacit knowledge, beliefs and values (culture...) of the organisation.
And it did mean that everyone involved was able to be very upfront with
the new starts regarding what was ahead of them, and help them to prepare
for that effectively. And the process was useful, partly to make sure of
ownership of the programme with the line (some of whom asked to be put
through the training as well as the new starts), and partly to ensure that
we challenged and continued to challenge the negative beliefs that
surrounded the programme from the first.
It also gave us champions of self managed learning, both among the
coaches, who learned from the process, and among the participants. The
organisation also runs a SML programme for high flyers, and they, too, are
enthusiastic about the approach. The organisation has always depended
heavily on traditional training methodologies; the creation of champions
in middle management, supported by the senior management who have
experienced success with SML methodologies, will, I hope, be very useful
in supporting the culture change which the organisation is slowly and
painfully undergoing.
Would I do it again? Ummmm...yes, but differently. More involvement,
much earlier on...but at the time, we did what the organisation could
tolerate.
Any more examples?
Marion Barnett
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>