Study Skills for Managers - Essay Example

1 Introduction My company recently requested that the IT department, of which I was the administrator, propose a solution to the problem of managing outsourcees. As we were expected to work as departments, as teams, I forwarded my proposed guidelines for a solution to my department colleagues. Most of them appeared in agreement and, on that basis, we proceeded to draw up a framework which outlined the different steps in the proposed solution and divided the responsibilities for executing the various steps among us, the members of my department. Within two weeks we had finished and our department submitted the proposal, along with a demo of the software application we had suggested as a strategy for overcoming the geographic factor in the outsourcer-outsourcee relationship. It was subsequently accepted by the organisation’s leadership and, in acknowledgement for our efforts, members of the department received rewards. The financial rewards we were given had been determined by our position and hence, within my department, I received the highest bonus. The financial differentiations, although standard practice in the company aroused the anger of one of my colleague, following which he lodged a complaint stating that he had carried much of the responsibilities which had been assigned to me in the design of the stated solution, in addition to which, he often has to step in and execute my departmental responsibilities. Following receipt of the complaint, the HR manager called me in. He informed me that, upon subtle investigation, he ha discovered that the complaints were baseless. He also advised me that there were two possible approaches to the problem at this stage. The first was for the HR department to step in and officially investigate the claim, following which the outcome f the investigation will determine actions to be taken against either my colleague or myself. The second option was for me to resolve this obviously personal problem on an intra-departmental level. After considering the two options, I decided that the second one was the better of the two. In the first place, this was a problem which was rooted in personality clashes and differences. In the second place, were it not resolved on an intra-departmental level, department cohesion and unity will be jeopardised and, naturally, so will the department’s ability to work as a tram. Thinking over this particular problem, I realised that the key to the solution lay in both my academic and experiential learning. The extent to which this realisation guided me towards the arrival at an effective solution shall be outlined in this research. 2 Literature Review: Learning Theories As English (1999) points out, the process by which humans learn is a complicated one and, hence, the focal point of theories, debates and discussions. From the perspective of one whose learning must have practical implications and applications, I believe that all learning theories are valid, whether the behavioural, the cognitive or the experiential. Nevertheless, to date the experiential learning theory remains the most viable and valid, if only because, rather than seek the negation of other learning theories, embraces them, culminating in the articulation of an as holistic as possible theory of learning. Through a critical review and discursive analysis of the leading learning theories and theorists, this section shall clarify the contributory value of each to the development of the effective, problem-solving manager. 2.1 Behaviourism Behaviourism, as a learning theory and approach, largely derives from stimulus-response research and, as such, rather than focus upon the cognitive dimensions of learning, seeks to address the non-cognitive human instincts and motivators. Learning is based upon operant conditioning, as proposed by Skinner, or upon classical conditioning as theorised by Pavlov, and largely relies on motivating learner through a conditioned response-reward paradigm (McNeil, 1996). This learning theory has proven successful vis-à-vis the management of employee behaviour and actions within an organisational setting. Accordingly, being an integral tool for the management of employee behaviour this approach furnishes tools for the resolution of the earlier identified problem. It does so in the sense that it provides managers with such strategies as would allow them to generate positive responses from subordinates and commitment to both the organisation and the department. 2.2 Cognitivism Cognitivism, as defined and theorised by Spiro et al (1992), Papert (1993) and Scandura (2001), has particularly useful applications for managers. It directs them towards the reflection upon their past experience vis-à-vis new situations, on the one hand, and towards the identification of the correlations between academic/theoretical learning and practical application, on the other. Indeed, as Martin (2004) points out, management’s embrace of cognitivism ultimate leads to the evolution of an organisation full of reflective practitioners. It is within the context of the stated, that cognitivism substantially contributes to effective, problem-solving management. Again, as with behaviourism, it has the potential to furnish strategies which would contribute to the resolution of intra-departmental problems, even if they are rooted in personality clashes. It does so by motivating reflection upon problems. 2.3 Experientialism As defined by Sugarman (1987), the theory of experiential learning, somewhat similar to cognitivism, proceeds from the premise that students learn best by and from experience. Adopted within some fields of study and practice, such as the managerial, as the optimal learning and teaching methodology (Sugarman, 1987), it has been strongly critiqued by some professionals as wholly lacking in empirical support and logically flawed (Martin, 2004). It is logically flawed insofar as it presupposes the presence of “the skill and will to learn,” on the one hand, and the “capability of individual human beings to make choices and to act on these choices,” (Martin, 2004, p. 135), on the other. Despite criticisms, the extent to which experientialism addresses the work-setting and directs adult professionals towards refection upon their own professional experiences and their utility vis-à-vis present settings, on the one hand, and towards a greater understanding of personal managerial strengths and weaknesses, on the other, it stand out as one of the more popular of the professional adult learning theories. Within the matrix of this particular approach, and despite the criticisms which have been directed its way, Kolb’s learning model stands out, largely because it correlates between personality types and learning approaches, directing professionals/managers towards the identification of that learning model which best firs their personality type. Kolb’s theory is diagrammatically represented below: As may be deduced from the above diagram and as further supported by critics and theorists (Sims, 1983; Raelin, 1997; Martin, 2003; Manning, 2004), as with all experiential learning theories, Kolb’s proceeds from the premise that experience is the best educator. He differs from others, however, in his assertion that learning styles need to coincide with personality types for their full potential and utility to be realised. The experiential learning process, as theorised by Kolb (1984) is comprised of four learning phases or cycles and in the course of the experiential learning journey, the learner passes through, and combines between, all phases/stages. The weight, however, awarded to each stage is immediately linked to one’s personality type, with the argument here being that a degree of self-knowledge, self-awareness, is fundamental to the effective and constructive utilisation of experiential learning tools (Kolb, 1974). As earlier noted, Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning approach has been criticised but, insofar as the business professional/manager/executive is concerned, it is extremely influential, forming, as it does, the basis for learning organisational theory, on the one hand, and functioning as a guideline for constructive manager learning, on the other. Indeed, Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model is possibly the most effective insofar as it directs one towards the identification of the leaning phase which best correlates to one’s personality type. 3 Critical Reflection The completion of the Learning Style Inventory during class enabled a better understanding of my personal learning inclinations and approaches. As indicated in the diagram below, I fall into the theorist category, scoring 18 in this particular area, followed by 17 as a reflector and 16 as a pragmatist. As the scores for the learning style inventory established, I tend towards both cognitive and experiential learning. As a theorist, I bring my classroom learning with me to the workplace and seek its practical application to problems and work responsibilities/tasks. At the same time, I am an experiential learner with the implication being that I reflect upon workplace experience and correlate them to academic learning as a strategy for the determination of the optimal approaches to situations and problems which may arise during the course of my work. In other words, as I discovered subsequent to the completion of the learning style inventory, although I am predominantly a theorist, I am also a reflector and a pragmatist. As such, and as shall be established through a critical review of the approach I adopted towards the resolution of the work problem outlined in the above, I combine between academic and experiential learning, in order to arrive at a pragmatic/applicable solution to problems which may arise. As outlined in the introduction, the identified problem called for the determination of a strategy which would enable the more effective and efficient management of department employees, thereby allowing for the level of cohesion and unity which determines upon which quality teamwork is predicated upon. The fact that the department was able to articulate a successful solution to the organisational problem identified at the outset may lead one to conclude that the department has reached the aforementioned level of departmental cohesion and unity. The fact, however, that problems arose immediately following the presentation and subsequent acceptance of the solution, indicates otherwise. Indeed, critical reflection led me to conclude that the department was only seemingly unified but, in actuality, it was not. Further reflection forced me to acknowledge that, as the department manager, the problem was of my own making as the creation of cohesive departments was the responsibility of department managers. The first solution which came to mind was for me to request the transfer of the employee in question from my department. Were I either a pragmatist or an activist, I would have probably fallen upon this as the optimal solution to the problem. Not only does this approach provide an immediate solution to an existing problem but, more importantly, it is an effective solution which does not require the expenditure of valuable time in either planning or executing. I, however, rejected that solution almost immediate to my thinking of it. As a theorist, first and foremost, and a reflector, secondly, I realised two things. The first was that the initial solution was a non-solution as it could lead to long-term tensions within my department. It would reflect upon me as a manager who, upon entering into any sort of clash with a member of my team, take the easy way out by requesting the transfer the person in question; the removal of the problem rather than its confrontation. Indeed, had I taken this approach, I would have been communicating a message of disloyalty to my department, essentially stating that any who clashed or disagreed with me will be removed from the department. As a reflector, the second thing I realised I realised was that the problem was largely of my own making. While it was easy to blame the other party, all the more so because his complaint had been motivated by corporate policy regarding the distribution of bonuses, critical reflection led to me acknowledge my own responsibility. The roots of the problem effectively lay in my inability, as a manager, to create true departmental loyalty, cohesion and team spirit. The complaint in question evidenced my own failings. As an immediate outcome of my reflections, much of which turned to both my academic learning and professional experience, I decided that I had to confront the problem. This meant sitting down with the complainant and listening to the rationale for his complaint. I did and, in so doing, realised that the person in question was not objecting to the bonus distribution as much as he was to the fact that I did not award him the necessary acknowledgement for the work he had put into the creation of the demo programme. He had worked more than any other team/department member but, in the end, had not received the necessary acknowledgement/recognition for doing so from me, his manager. Realising that his complaint was valid, I informed him of that and provided him with the necessary acknowledgement during the department meeting. I further wrote a memo to both the company’s GM and HR Director in which the person in question was acknowledged for his having contributed more than any other to the realisation of the solution in question and my own shortcoming in failing to have realised this earlier. The complainant felt morally vindicated and the problem was resolved. An added benefit of this approach was that I earned the respect of my department colleagues by demonstrating both my loyalty to my team and my willingness to listen and admit my own shortcomings when appropriate. While the nature of the proposed solution is important, of greater importance is how this solution was identified. The learning style inventory had identified me as a theorist. This means that my immediate response to any problem is its dissection and analysis from a theoretical perspective. Theory and academic study does not exist in abstract but are borne out of practical problems and situations. Theory, in this instance, or as reflection led me to conclude, may be defined as the objective, although generalised, analysis of particular situations, their causal factors and the optimal response to the challenges they pose to practitioners. Accordingly, my immediate inclination is to approach situations/problems from an objective/theoretical stance. Following from that, I look towards, reflect upon, professional experience and the lessons learnt therein in order to articulate the outlines of a solution. Following that, I analysis the practicality of the solution, asking question regarding its cost-feasibility and obstacles to implementation. The answer to these questions lies in both academic and experiential learning. By following the strategy outlined in the above, the solution to the identified problem quite nearly evolved out of its own accord. 4 Concluding Thoughts: Critical Evaluation of Learning Outcomes In order to be able to accurately evaluate the experiential theory in relation to the working professional/the efficient, problem-solving manager, it is contingent upon us to note that it does not seek the invalidation of earlier theories and does not call for their replacement. Instead, as Raelin (1997) explains, this learning theory proceeds from an acknowledgement of the validity of its predecessor and exploits many of the tools that they have devised. For example, it borrows from the interactive learning-teaching paradigm forwarded by cognitivism and equally acknowledges the participatory role that students need play in their own education; just as with the humanistic approach, it recognises the import of individuality and self-actualisation even though it does not actively seek the development of either, presupposing their existence; ad insofar as behaviourism is concerned, it similarly acknowledges the constructive role that a reward system can play in the motivation of learning (Raelin, 1997). In other words, it derives from and exploits existent theories, even as it transcends them. It transcends them by recognizing that the baggage of experiences which adults carry can function as an obstacle to their learning or can be constructively exploited to facilitate learning; it transcends tem insofar as it recognises and utilises the constructive educational value of implementing abstract knowledge and, thereby, allowing the learner to absorb abstract concept through practical experience (Sims, 1983; Raelin, 1997; Martin, 2003; Manning, 2004). In other words, this theory does not only embrace the principles and tools of those earlier mentioned but customises the learning and teaching paradigm towards a greater fit with the adult learner and his/her requirements, as is precisely what Kolb sought. Not only does it recognise the vale of all that which has been indirectly learnt through experience but articulates a learning-teaching model which allows the adult the opportunity to utilise past experiences and to digest, or assimilate new information through practical and interactive engagement with it. In is recognition that adults learn best through and from experience, this theory emerges as the one most suited for the problem-solving manager, as argued throughout the research. 5 References English, L.M. (1999) `An adult learning approach to preparing mentors and mentees.’ Mentoring and Tutoring, 7(3), 195-202. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning; Experience of the Source of Learning and Development. London: Prentice-hall. Manning, P.R. (2003) `Practice-based learning and improvement: A dream that can become a reality.’ Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23, 56-59. Martin, J. (2004). `Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory and agency.’ Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 135-144. McNeil. J. (1996). Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introduction. New York: Harper Collins. O’Conner, T. (2000). Persons and Causes: The Metaphysics of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine : Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books. Raelin, J.A. (1997) `A model of work-based learning.’ Organisation Science, 8(6), 563-578. Scandura, J.M. (2001). `Structural learning theory in the twenty-first century.’ Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14, 271-305. Sims, R.R. (1983) `Kolb’s experiential learning theory: A framework for assessing person-job interaction.’ The Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 501-508. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). `Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.’ In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Sugarman, L. (1987) `Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.’ Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8(4), 359-360. Read More