Often people can work together for years without really understanding one another. They might sit at the same desk, share lunch together, but still not know the names of the other person’s partner or children. Conversely, people can work together or a short while and build a relationship that is closer in many ways than they have in their home life. This might be characterised by the camaraderie and closeness that one associates with the emergency services - organisations where people spend large amounts of close intimate time together under stressful situations.
This issue was considered earlier because the assumption is that the nature of the interaction is likely to affect the rate and depth of knowledge exchanged between people, so as people become closer, and more in tune with each other’s schema, so the flow of knowledge will improve.
The model shown suggests that two factors might be considered when mapping the nature of a relationship. The first point to consider is the depth of the interaction. Do the individual’s discussions, thoughts and feelings operate on a deep level, as between close friends, or are they at a surface level as one might correspond with a stranger in a bar? Second, does the drive for interaction originate from an extrinsic factor, or is it intrinsic as in something they choose to do? The combination of these two dimensions offers four potential interaction scenarios that might impact upon the learning process:
 |
Pseudo - This type of interaction operates at a superficial level and is driven by an external agent. It might be the manager telling someone to go along to another department to learn some of their tricks, or being given a question to ask at a senior manager’s presentation. Whatever the context, it is unlikely that any significant knowledge will be socialised or transferred. Critically, if a team of people is operating on this type of level, then the chance of the socialisation process being effective is likely to be limited. |
|
Prudent - In this case the interaction is of a deeper level but is still driven by an external agent. The flow of open knowledge might be eased but there might be some suspicion about its adoption and use. This might be likened to a good friend offering someone unsolicited advice about how to fix a leaky tap. There is every possibility that the individual will carry on and do things their own way because the advice was unsolicited. Had they chosen to ask someone’s advice, there would be more chance that the wisdom would have been received and acted upon. |
|
Polite - This desire to share the knowledge and learning is driven by the individual without any external prompting, but the degree of openness and depth is limited. Hence, knowledge might be transferred, and some wisdom will be internalised, but there might be a question around the depth of experience that is being transferred. The learning might be focusing on tinkering and making small improvements, rather than delivering any really innovative ideas or changes. |
|
Perceptive - In this quadrant there is a greater chance that learning will be effectively socialised, and there is also a chance that it might be acted upon. This might be indicative of a product team member who has come up with a radical improvement and is sharing it with colleagues. The team is motivated to listen to the idea, and have a deep enough relationship to take the proposition seriously. Any decision from the team, be it move to embodiment, storage or discard, has a good chance of being accepted by the innovator as a worthwhile judgement. |
(c) Mick Cope