Publications update 04
7 Theses on learning in teams
by Martin Hagen
Editorial
3. He who sows the wrong learning subject
will reap difficult learning in the team
Often, managers have a clear idea of what teams must learn. Many managers have a very restricted view of the ‘world’ of the team. For example, there are the relationship fans who like to interact directly and intensely with their team – and no longer perceive the context they are in. This is as if a car mechanic prefers to tinker around with the coupling. Whether this helps the car or not, depends somewhat on the problem …
In our experience, teams often react allergically to over-hasty lightning diagnoses. The closer we look at the learning step that the team is to face next, the easier we receive acceptance for this from the team. For everyone who notices the team hesitating to learn what they believe the team should learn: check again whether that was only your personal view of matters or whether it stands up to ‘objective’ observation.
4. Blessed be who can distinguish:
easy and difficult learning subjects for teams
It is generally true that factual subjects are the easiest to convey, structural subjects are considerably more difficult, and relation subjects represent major change.
What does that mean precisely?
- With a little energy, one can convey subjects on the factual level: a joint aim for everyone, a credible vision.
- Structural subjects require somewhat more attention and also control and perseverance: we are working out a new discussion culture, examining e.g. the satisfaction with the flow of information in the team.
- Relational and cultural subjects are often a key to substantial changes in teams – but also require much more energy. We have spared a lot of teams this kind of work over the last few years. They had the experience that structural changes have also brought about substantial improvements in interpersonal relationships.