CCK09 Group Think and Emotional Intelligence

This is my response to Jenny’s interesting post on Group Think

Hi Jenny and Carmen, I love to join your conversation. @Jenny, as posted here https://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/cck09-emotional-intelligence-in-online-and-community-learning/ I have been studying, researching EQ for more than a decade and am still intrigued by its application and implication. I always referred back to Gardner’s multiple intelligence to start with, followed by Daniel Goleman when thinking and applying EQ in education. What I found was that many educational leaders have deep interests in this “niche” area and thus got training in it. However, the implications are: They are going back to their workplace and “mentor” their “subordinate” or peer educators. The educators have since been so accustomed to the “closed door” policy and “autonomy” regime in teaching. Since a coaching or mentoring approach starts from the coachee or mentee’s needs and wants to improve and develop, if the educator doesn’t see the need to be involved in the “team improvement process or COPs” or “mentoring process either individually or in a group”, what happens? Nothing? So, the result is: “Silence” is golden on both ends”. Training and development completed on a “one stop” workshop with theory only will be hung on the wall as certificates of competency, or even hall of the fame, but not much might have happened in the workplace. What happened next? Community of Practice approach (Ning, SL, wikis, twitters, face-to-face COPs across schools or universities, on the other hand, have appealed to a lot of educators, as there would be less conflicts, when working with educators in other schools, other sides of the communities. The issues are the security, trust, autonomy, and “intrusion” of privacy as perceived by educators when surfing on net.

Besides, the self awareness, self control aspects of EQ are really personal, and not too many educators/learners would like to share their results online. Also, empathy is far from easy to fully understand, especially when people are “packed” with emotions or overly critical in heated debates, conversations or interactions online. So EQ is still a ‘myth” to many educators, and cannot be “easily introduced” IMHO.

More research is needed to unfold the realities. I have once suggested Assumption Theory (see my post on this in https://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com ) as we have often made lots of assumptions in social networking and online learning, which would later found to be doubtful or false. I couldn’t find any significant research on this “Theory” except the one by Stephen Brookfield: The Getting of Wisdom: What Critically Reflective Teaching is and Why It’s Important I would surely look into Carmen’s reference.

@Carmen: I agree with your conclusions. It is too easy to assume in an education/teaching/learning situation. I would like to explore with you two about the implications of EQ in online learning. I would compose some more posts that relate to my experience about team working, individuals, EQ and learning. My previous experience with EQ, team working revealed that EQ could have a great impact on learning. However, it seems that the more EQ one has, the more “power” and “control” it could exercise on others – “silence” is the most powerful influence on others….

There has been a few researches done that correlate EQ with online learning. The findings were that those with high EQ would be more successful in online learning. This sounds like common sense, but is interesting. Is high EQ required in MOOC or MOON? How could we evaluate it? What are the measures of EQ in MOOC or MOON?

Thanks Jenny for your insights. And Carmen for your interesting comments.

John

CCK09 Management by Objectives

In The Purpose of a Business is to Create a Customer – Peter Drucker Centenary.

Another famous Drucker quote: ‘Management by objective works – if you know the objectives. Ninety percent of the time you don’t‘.

Within well-designed, loosely coupled business units there’s a lot more room for experimentation than between and within rigid ones: Hagel’s ‘institutional innovation’ centers around bringing ‘the force of attraction to bear on tens or even hundreds of thousands of participants around a common platform‘.

…We are no longer talking about flexibility in configuring modules with given performance levels.  Now we are talking about flexibility to configure modules that are rapidly improving their own performance.  This combination of flexibility plus accelerating performance improvement is what drives the real power of loosely coupled systems.

Drucker’s ‘Managers who have retired on the job‘ are notorious for inflexibly driving to illogical objectives which baffle staff and destroy their enthusiasm: modern 2.0 technologies enabling participation and collaboration around common platforms have come of age, but management thinking is mostly not yet aware of their potential.

The report that I composed in the mid 1980s: Management by Objectives in Manufacturing industry (Case Study) had proven that it worked. I hadn’t published it. The conclusions were:
1. MBO has been introduced successfully in the industrial organisation (a company)
2. From the case studies in Sales & Marketing, Production and Engineering illustrated, the positive benefits results from the MBO applications are – improvement in management performance and productivity, communication, superior-subordinate relationship, better performance measurement & appraisal and personal development
3. Effective motivational and interpersonal skills are important in enhancing successful MBO implementation. These are highlighted in the analysis and remedial actions discussed in the cases.
4. Review of MBO indicated that high reception of MBO by management in all levels, good industrial relationship, education of MBO, strong sense of belonging, good financial and marketing status are essential points which enhance MBO’s success in the company.
5. Finally MBO will help managers on all organisation levels to develop their potentials more fully, and will enhance the overall productivity of the total enterprise.

Did MBO work in companies? 

From most top management points of views, vision, mission and objectives are important in steering the organisation in the right direction.  All managers and employees would need to align their strategies and action plans to the vision and mission developed. That’s corporate leadership. 

From rank and file (most employees) (or in education – the educators and administrators) point of views, they are looking for their personal learning and development needs at work. There are many who enthusiastically align their thoughts and actions with middle and top management, and these are part of the jobs.  This is important to ensure that both organisation and team goals are met strategically. It is also imperative to get the job done effectively and efficiently (as a team leader or manager), to collaborate with top management, to build community that is attuned to the top management’s philosophy.   These could be achieved through Management by Objectives, or alternatively Management with Objectives, if flexibility and responsiveness to the environment and stakeholders including customers are taken into consideration. 

Cooperation and collaboration is the key to success, for both individuals, networks and organisations in MBO.   This could be greatly mediated via Web 2.0 and social networking.

Would MBO also work in networks?  I would like to know if there has been any researches done in this area. 

Due to the complexity nature of learning and the networks, I find it hard to conclude whether MBO would work throughout networks or community of practice.  As each network member has his/her own vision and mission, it seems hard to have common and agreed vision and mission.  However, as time evolves, some network members may be able to collaborate with others and achieve great results using an MBO approach.

Can we apply MBO to networks with Web 2.0? 

Comments?

CCK09 Open Content – Part 1

In this ten years of Open Content by David Wiley, he highlights:

History of Open Licence, open content, open education.

Some problems ahead

  • License compatibility – How can we re-mix?
  • Noncommercial

Opportunities ahead

  • CCPlus is done
  • CCO is close
  • On the education side – Open High School of Utah – Public, online completely open curriculum

What are the implications of open licence and open content on higher or open education ?

CCK09 What to do next?

This is a response to the posting by Frances on Moodle – Comments and Reflection on Elluminate Session

Great ideas Frances,

1. Self-organised study groups –

Following CCK08, we have formed the Connectivism Ning Community Network and many of the CCK08 participants have joined it.  Every one in CCK09 are invited to join.  There is also a Connectivism wiki that participants could consider.

2. “Moving on Connectivism” workshop could be organised after CCK09, using various social media. We could use the Connectivism Ning Community Network to organise such workshops, with Elluminate run on a need or regular basis.  

3. We have got distributed networks on Facebook, Twitters (tagged under #CCK09), CCK09 Ning, Diigo #CCK09Connectivism Research Google Group Delicious/tag/cck09Friend Feed, various wiks – wikispaces on PLE/N, WordPress (tagged under #CCK09) for us to consider….

Would a list of the links help? 

Would you mind to include your links in subsequent threads?

That’s my 10 cents worth blush

What do you think?