A Final Reflection-

When I initially enrolled in this class, my children remarked favorably on my long-overdue foray into the digital environment.  While I owned a smart phone, communicated via email, maintained a profile on professional networking sites, and spent considerable time encouraging my staff to adopt new technologies, my personal use of technology remained limited and clouded by ignorance. I certainly could be classified as a “networked worker,” however, my ability to analyze and think critically about technology and its impact on my personal and professional life emerged throughout my readings and writings in this course. Thus, developing a blog became the first of many new learning experiences I engaged in as part of this course. 

Applying the Learning to My Professional Environment

Subsequent to the development of the blog, I began an intentional exploration of the personal technology tools that may enhance my effectiveness as a leader.  Over the past seven weeks, I found myself exploring technology as a mechanism for enhancing our organizational effectiveness.   I began questioning more intentionally the investments our institution was making into new technologies and I engaged our digital adult learning division with more interest and insight.  Specifically, I enrolled in the course our institution required for all faculty aspiring to teach online.  As I became more intentionally immersed in the technology shaping higher education, I became more cognitively aware of the important role leaders play in shaping technology strategy and thereby institutional outcomes. In my new institutional role, I realized that the previous administration’s decision to exclude the chief information officer from the executive leadership team had stifled institutional growth by encouraging haphazard technology investments, rather than embracing technology as a critical component of the institutional strategic planning and budgeting process.  Over the past eight weeks, I invited our chief information technology officer to the executive team and his team will be intimately involved in our new planning initiatives.  In the absence of presence at the executive leadership level, technology decision-making failed to align with the university’s strategic objectives.

Application of the Learning to Ethical Principles

The initial readings in week one provided contrasting perspectives on the impact of the flattened world on humanity.  Friedman (2007) provided evidence from the emerging economies of India, China, and other parts of Southeast Asia to suggest that a flatter world allowed more individuals access to opportunity, which thereby, strengthened struggling economies and facilitated the growth of a middle class.  In contrast, the Florida (2005) article asserted that the beneficiaries of a flattened economy were limited to a few players in the global marketplace.  While opportunities have strengthened cities like Bangalore or Gurgaon, most people across the world still lacked access to the benefits of globalization 3.0.  This contrasting analysis raised important issues of economic and social justice.  As the readings expanded throughout the course, much evidence suggested that technology continues to grow at unprecedented rates (Freidman, 2007).  From Google glasses to Dow Corning’s vision for future kitchens, technology has rapidly proliferated.  If economies continue to struggle with providing basic needs, the likelihood that many individuals can continue to make investments in the quickly emerging technologies remains questionable.  Do the rapid changes shaping technology suffocate the opportunities for the masses to access this emerging technology and truly seize new opportunities?  Do the resource-constrained livelihoods of many in the developing world limit an individual’s ability to garner the advantage of globalization 3.0?  Clearly, the emergence of new technologies provides access for millions to connect, network, and access knowledge that otherwise would not have been possible.  However, access to knowledge and the ability to translate that knowledge into economic opportunity are two distinct issues.  My growing concern is that the rapidity with which technology development is evolving limits access to those individuals or organizations that have the financial means to transform the knowledge into innovation.  Domestically, leadership and public policy have a critical role to play in ensuring equity of opportunity in the public schools systems of America.  Providing young people with the knowledge of how to use and access emerging technologies will be critical to expanding their opportunities in the future.  Globally, leaders must consider the ramifications of their investments on the citizenry of the developing world. 

Application to Leadership

Perhaps most notably, the readings throughout the course reminded me of the important role critical and collaborative thinking, learning and leadership play in our response to emerging technologies.  Fundamentally, the technology is only as good as the user.  Ultimately, we may be able to access millions of terabytes of information, but transforming that information into useful knowledge requires individuals skilled with sophisticated abilities to discern critically reliable, valid, and relevant information from a myriad of sources. One must be careful that in our quest to access information, we do not become victims of “group think” and unable to creatively problem-solve.  We can rely on our network of collaborators to contribute to problem solving, but we must be wary of the consequences of failing to think independently and instead copying the ideas of others.  Collaboration does not imply copying.  Rather, it implies direct interaction with the problem and an engagement of potential solutions with other networks of experts.   Creative thinking still requires an ability to focus, delve deep into an issue, and generate a response to a difficult question.  Unfocused searching for answers, fleeting investments in problem solving, and an inability to develop original thoughts and ideas yields mediocre outcomes.  Douglas Engelbart, an early technology innovator, suggested “The grand challenge is to boost the collective IQ of organizations and of society” (Gruber, 2008).  To achieve this end, technology must maximize access to knowledge and humans must be prepared to actively engage, sort, and discern the usefulness of the resulting findings. Thus, the human and machine must “each do what they do best” (Gruber, 2008, p. 5).  

Fundamentally, technology will continue to change the course of humanity.  Whether those changes manifest themselves as a greater divide between the rich and poor, or alternatively as a pathway of opportunity for the masses depend upon leadership.  Effective leaders understand the importance of integrating technology into our education systems and organizations, promoting learning and work environments that value the ability to create new ideas, delve deeply into subjects of substance, critically and collaboratively engage information, and make decisions that use sound ethical judgments.   If leaders demonstrate ability to value new ways of working, networking, and collaborating, they will be able to seize emerging opportunities and gain competitive advantages.  Access to technology and support of education systems that leverage this technology in the learning process will be critical to improving opportunity both domestically and across the globe. 

Sources:

Gruber, T. (2008).  Collective knowledge systems:  Where the social web meets the semantic web.  Journal of Web Semantics, 6, 4-13. 

Florida, R. (2005, October).  The world is spiky.  The Atlantic Monthly. 

Friedman, T. L. (2007).  The world is flat.  New York, NY:  Picador.

 

Week 7: A New Tool A Day? Adoption of Technology As A Strategic Imperative

As technology has evolved and the triple convergence has occurred, leaders face growing challenges about the management and integration of technology into the organization (Friedman, 2007). Unfortunately, many companies have been reluctant to view technology as a strategic and competitive advantage, and instead have simply exercised coping strategies to integrate the new technology (Thompson, Peteraf, Gamble & Strickland, 2012). Rather than view technology as a critical component of an organization’s strategy, technology often is viewed merely as a tool. Thus, organizational leaders must begin to place technology at the core, or center, of an organizations planning process. In this manner, the organization resources and equips itself to quickly seize competitive advantages by its innovation and integration of technologies into the organizational vision and plan. Effective leaders identify champions of technology and rely on the expert insights of chief technology officers. These individuals should have a seat at the executive table, thereby able to encourage a visionary and integrative approach to technology in the organization. Too often, the absence of a comprehensive technology plan yields misguided purchases that fail to demonstrate a return on investment.

Leaders must be vigilant about staying abreast of technological change. A variety of trade magazines, conferences, and networking keeps leaders informed of emerging trends. Leaders must continue to demonstrate a willingness to invest in technology to improve the organization. However, these technology investments should be guided by important questions: What impact will this technology investment have on the current business practices within the organization? What is the likely return on investment? What implementation challenges does this investment pose? What professional development may be required to ensure effective implementation? Leaders prepared to ask difficult questions begin a process of discernment about how a particular investment in technology may strengthen the strategic outcomes of the organization. These questions may guide decision-making processes as well as resource allocations.

Kevin Kelly highlights six key trends shaping the evolution of the web. Web users now view screening, interaction, sharing, streaming, accessibility, and generative data development as key qualities of web usage. Businesses and consumers alike expect the web to be interactive and engaging through a variety of senses. Similarly, where the web was once considered an information warehouse, it has now become a stream of constant data, capable of being shared, reacted to, and generative, instantaneously. While many leaders still view the web as an information minefield, the evolving manner in which users co-create knowledge with instantaneous response forces leaders to reconsider how they are capitalizing on this stream of knowledge and the impact of these new forces on the organization (Kelly, 2011).

As emerging markets continue to increase technology use, and in particular web use, organizations must ensure their strategies align with these emerging trends (Meeker & Wu, 2013). How are organizations prepared to meet the expectations of a tech savvy customer? What strategies demonstrate the value of immediacy, personalization, and allow the user to embody the product? Failure to recognize the value of these qualities jeopardizes the financial success of the organization and threatens to minimize the loyalty of traditional consumers.

In higher education, this trend manifests itself in the growing competitive presence of online degree programs. Programs which fail to adapt to new technologies and complimentary pedagogies jeopardize student loyalty. Students are prone to transfer rapidly to other institutions who offer technology services and support better aligned with the student’s expectations. Universities that fail to commit adequate resources to technology support, technological innovation, or professional development of faculty to ensure relevant and current technologies enhance appropriate pedagogical approaches quickly lose student interest and struggle to achieve the enrollment goals established by their institutions. Thus, failure to adopt best practices in online teaching and learning, including a complimentary technology infrastructure, lose competitive market advantage.

In conclusion, technology leaders within the organization need to be integrated into the executive decision-making processes within organizations. While mission must always drive the organization, technology may be a useful component of organizational innovation and strategic positioning. Caution must be rendered, however, in the selection, application, and investment in various technologies. Critical questions must guide the investment process to ensure the tools truly enhance the effectiveness of the organization. Ultimately, the technology is only as effective as the implementation strategy and the professional development invested in the process to ensure its use and application to improve the organization. Critical thinking, collaboration, and continual learning must remain hallmark traits of leaders prepared to leverage the benefits of technology.

Friedman, Thomas. (2007). The World is Flat (3rd ed.). New York: Picador.

Kelly, Kevin. (Keynote Speaker). (2011, March 29). Keynote Speech. Web 2.0 Expo San Francisco 2011. Audio posted to

http:/​/​web2expo.com/​webexsf2011/​public/​schdeule/​detail/​19292

Meeker, M. & Wu, L. (May 29, 2013). KCPB Internet Trends 2013. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/kleinerperkins/kpcb-internet-trends-2013

Ethics and the Misuse of Workplace Technology

Thomas Friedman’s seminal work, The World is Flat, presents compelling evidence of the impact technology has had on organizational structure, the nature of work, the velocity of change, and the expansion of the traditional definition of network.  Research validates the increases in efficiency, economic opportunity, and productivity that result from integration of technology in the workplace.  Moreover, data from the Pew Research Center confirms that advancements in technology yielded increases in overall productivity and economic development (Madden & Jones, 2008).  Despite the strong data correlating workplace productivity with technology, continuing questions persist about the ethical use of technology in the workplace.  Specifically, what types of personal web-based activities constitute unethical employment practices? Further, does use of the internet for personal reasons during work time constitute employee theft? As more and more people discuss abuse of technology in the workplace, little consensus exists on what actually defines “workplace misuse of technology”. 

These complicated legal and ethical questions are compounded by growing evidence that suggests a blurring of the definition of workplace and work hours.  In a recent report, legal expert Carolyn Burnette highlights the growing use of personal technology use in the workplace.  The report revealed “85% of employees use office email for personal reasons and that nearly 65 percent of internet usage in the workplace is not workplace related” (Burnette, n.d.).  Moreover, the report for the Pew Internet and American Life Project confirmed that nearly half of all Americans conduct some work from home (Madden & Jones, 2008).  Clearly, the definition of the traditional workspace has grown increasingly complex in recent years.  No longer are people simply working a traditional forty hour week.  Many individuals log on and conduct work related business from home.  While employee use of technology for personal reasons may arguably threaten workplace productivity, little research has been done on how the use of technology at home may alternatively enhance workplace productivity.  Thus, as technology enables more individuals to access information – for personal and professional use – the time, and place of such information gathering has become increasingly fuzzy and little data exists to suggest how this affects overall productivity.  Productivity gains should not longer rely solely on the traditional forty-hour work week model of measurement.  How does one account for gains achieved through the ability to connect to work from home?  How much work are individuals conducting at home for work-related business?  How does this balance employee time used at work for personal business? 

Defining workplace misuse became somewhat more complex because of a recent legal case involving a New York department of education employee who was removed from his position for surfing the internet during work hours.  Specifically, the judge suggested, "It should be observed that the Internet has become the modern equivalent of a telephone or a daily newspaper, providing a combination of communication and information that most employees use as frequently in their personal lives as for their work” (USA Today, 2006).  Thus, this case provides precedence to suggest that some personal use of the internet is acceptable in the workplace. 

In contrast to this example, clear cases of the misuse of technology exist in the workplace today.  For example, use of workplace time and space to promote hate, sexism, or other forms of discrimination are clear violations of workplace ethical standards.  Moreover, the use of the internet to surf pornographic sites or engage in other surfing that fosters workplace unease is clearly unacceptable.

As use of technology continues to evolve, Norbert Weiner’s methodology for identifying important ethical questions related to technology may be complimented by Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (Zalta, 2011).  Ultimately, Weiner asks that question of whether the information technology is good.  Does it enhance the good and well-being of society (Zalta, 2011)?  Using Weiner’s methodology, organizations may be best served by developing clear policies and codes of conduct related to information technology in the workplace (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).  The second step in his methodological approach would require the company to leverage legal precedent related to appropriate use of technology.  For example, legal rulings that describe workplace harassment, or alternatively permit collective bargaining activity or personal surfing of news-related sites, clearly provide a framework for what could be included in an acceptable use policy.  Moreover, employees should be informed of job expectations and performance goals.  If employees fail to meet these employment goals due to “cyber-slacking” or for other reasons, the employee may be removed for simply failing to meet performance expectations.  If surfing the net jeopardizes performance than the employee risks losing his or her job.  In these cases, clearly articulated performance outcomes accompanied by well-defined technology-use policies will clarify difficult gray areas related to the use of technology in the workplace.

Moreover, human resource personal may be advised to consider the potential application of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development to technology ethics.  In level one of Kohlberg’s theory, “individuals have not yet come to understand societal rules and expectations” (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998).  At level two, “individuals identify with the rules and expectations of others” (Forney etal., 1998).  While in the final level, “individuals separate themselves from the rules and expectations of others and base their decisions on self-chosen principles” (Forney etal., 1998, p. 174).  Organizations that equip employees with acceptable-use policies assist the individual in raising his or her moral decision-making to level two or level three. Thus, as workers are informed of the expectations related to performance, they may choose to alter their behavior to focus more on desired employment outcomes as opposed to personal information gathering.  Similarly, as the evidence suggests, as people become more engaged in their work, they begin to develop a set of principles, which guide their decision-making.  An acceptable technology-use policy as well as by workplace culture and expectations provide an important framework for this decision-making. 

Ultimately, organizational leadership establishes an organizational culture that clarifies the acceptable use of technology in the workplace.  As the definition and location of “workplace” continues to evolve, so will the ethics involving decision-making related to personal and professional use.  While organizations should have no-tolerance policies related to harassment and other clearly defined illegal uses of technology, leaders must be continuing to adapt to how the intersection of personal and professional obligations, learning, and workspace may continue to reshape the technology policies related to acceptable use.

Evans, N., Forney, D., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998).  Kohlberg’s theory of moral development.  In Student development in college.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Friedman, T. (2007).  The world is flat.  New York, NY:  Picador.

 

Madden, M. & Jones, S. (2008).  Networked workers.  Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.  Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org

USA Today. (April 24, 2006).  Judge:  web surfing worker can’t be fired.  Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-24-websurfing_x.htm

Zalta, E. (2011, Spring).  Computer and information ethics.  Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.  Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-computer/

 

 

 

 

Week 5: The Professor and the Snap Shot -- Living in a Networked World

I recently enjoyed a conversation with a faculty member at our institution.  He has served the university as a professor of business and economics for over forty years.  He sauntered into my office perplexed by a recent confrontation with a student.  He was teaching a business ethics class and had just drawn an elaborate schematic to highlight various choices and coinciding values and philosophies that supported each potential choice.  He spoke animatedly of the complexity of this particular lesson and his aspiration to truly engage students in a thought-provoking discussion of business ethics and tradeoffs.  He repeatedly wondered why students were not taking notes, either on their computer or in their traditional notebooks.  On five separate occasions, he suggested that this was content for the upcoming test.  And then it happened, at the end of this thoughtful, well-articulated lecture, several students asked him to step to the side so they could take a picture of the elaborate schematic.  Within milliseconds, the students captured the essence of the lecture, imported the picture to their notes and sauntered out of the classroom.  This particular professor found himself caught between the ease of technology in capturing information and his concern about how much the students really internalized during the lecture.  Was it merely enough to photograph the schematic, or did the student miss something by not engaging the material in a more intentional manner?  This incident necessitated a discussion of the pros and cons of living in a flat world.  I reminded him that he could merely take a picture of the schematic and beam it up through the projection system sparing him of the work of elaborately drawing this all out on the whiteboard.  Then he suggested, merely taking a picture failed to capture the critical thinking gained through repetition, Socratic engagement, and questioning of the schematic and the process.  So began an intriguing discussion of the pros and cons of the networked world and its implications on learning and organizations.    

Friedman (2007) constructs a strong argument for the flattened world, first by introducing the ten flatteners and subsequently by illustrating the power of the triple convergence.  Clearly, organization’s benefit from the expanding use of technologies that strengthen teamwork, collaboration, and communication across the organization regardless of location, time or space (Pew Research, 2008).  Moreover, business is no longer confined to physical spaces, and networks now transcend the organization (Friedman, 2007).  Information remains instantaneously accessible, whether at work or at home.  Knowledge-sharing appears greatly enhanced by the growth of networked workers.  However, as with all advances, without clear organizational leadership that defines productivity expectations and provides timely feedback, these technologies may yield less robust outcomes than originally projected (Pew Research 2008).  The data suggests that networked workers find technology distracting.  The propensity to check email, quickly gather updates on breaking news, communicate with personal friends, or check our social networking sites yields decreases in focus and productivity (Pew Research, 2008).  Personally, I have found it necessary to establish personal habits about technology use to ensure appropriate work-life balance.  Without vigilance and discipline, I can easily become consumed by work and neglect important time with family, friends, and other responsibilities.

As Friedman suggests, “there is absolutely no guarantee that everyone will use these new technologies, or the triple convergence, for the benefit of themselves, their countries, or humanity.  These are just technologies.  Using them does not make you modern, smart, moral, wise, fair or decent” (2007, p. 536).  Friedman’s argument suggests again that the technology is only as effective as the leadership guiding the use of the technology or as the individual choosing to create disciplined approaches to the use of technology in one’s personal life.  Living and working in a networked world requires a new model of organizational guidance that clearly defines expectations and outcomes and gives appropriate feedback to ensure workers are aware of organizational expectations.  Similarly, leaders must equip teams to sort through a myriad of information to discern which knowledge may be reliable, valid, and useful for the organization.  Technology can enhance the effectiveness of the networked worker, but the technology alone remains incapable of determining how to best convert the information to useable knowledge. 

Thus, much like the professor in the opening story of this reflection, technology should not be confused with leadership or learning.  Technology may enhance both, but it still requires the human to sort through, process, discern and disseminate what is valuable for the organization.  Technology can crunch thousands of data points, but humans must still be able to critically analyze the data and draw conclusions.  Is taking a snapshot sufficiently capturing the learning in the class? Perhaps, but arguably, the student must take the picture and develop the skills to apply the learning gleaned through the process of thinking critically about the choices in the diagram.  A mere picture captured by technology fails to prepare the student or the worker for the true demands and balance required while living in a flattened world.   

Friedman, T. (2007).  The world is flat.  New York, NY:  Picador.

Madden, M. & Jones, S. (2008).  Networked workers.  Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.  Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org

 

Redefining Work in the Knowledge Era

As the knowledge, web-based economy replaced the industrial economy, new frameworks evolved to redefine work, business strategy, and market opportunity.  Where the industrial economy was dominated by hierarchical command and control organizational structures, competition for scare resources, and the acquisition of physical infrastructure, the emerging knowledge economy reshapes these traditional economic assumptions.  Rather than hierarchical organizational structures, the knowledge, web-based economy values collaboration, networks, teamwork and access to information.  Similarly, the knowledge economy transitioned from a reliance on scare resources such as land, labor and capital to a new boundless, open and renewable resource:  information.  The knowledge economy shifted the business model from physically defined locations to vast, evolving global networks.  Organizations became adaptive, intelligent and self-regulating.  The impact of this global economic shift changed the nature of our work and our responsibility as leaders (Friedman, 2007). 

In the industrial age, the assembly line shaped the nature of work.  People honed a specific skill and repeated the task in a routine manner each day.  In contrast, today our work is “de-routinized” (Gartner, 2010).  Analysts argue, “the core value that people add is not the processes that can be automated, but in non-routine processes, uniquely human, analytical, or interactive contributions that result in words such as discovery, innovation, teaming, leading selling and learning” (Gartner, 2010).  Ideally, the knowledge economy values risk-taking, creativity, and a worker’s ability to learn and develop new skill sets. Successful knowledge era workers embrace flexibility, continual learning, and high performance work teams. 

Today’s workforce is more aptly described as a global ecosystem of skills and talents prepared to seize opportunities for emerging companies.  Teams of people, rather than single individuals, grapple with different challenges and opportunities on a daily basis.  People build off the ideas and lessons learned by others.  Collaborative knowledge is leveraged to enhance learning and strengthen the organization’s effectiveness.  Social networks facilitate global connectivity.  Friedman suggests that “the best companies are the best collaborators” (2007, p. 457).  Therefore, organizational leaders prepared to embrace the new model of work in a flattened world may more readily reap the benefits of the knowledge economy by developing organizational cultures committed to continual learning, team work, collaborative technologies, and institutional agility (Husband, N.D.).

To develop cultures prepared to embrace these attributes, leaders must first model such behaviors themselves.  They must model continual learning and foster strategic conversations with leadership teams about emerging trends.  Leaders must act to facilitate the transfer of knowledge between all levels of the organization.  Embracing horizontal structures that reward collaboration strengthens organizational effectiveness.  Moreover, leaders must also examine the viability of strategic partnerships and outsourcing as strategies for enhancing the organization’s pool of available resources.  Friedman asserts that strategic partnerships are not mere cost-saving measures, rather they enhance innovation and strengthen organizational outcomes. 

Perhaps it is ironic that the traditional citadel of knowledge creation – the university – finds difficulty in understanding its evolving role in a knowledge economy.  Arguably, the traditional university environment remains relatively similar to the university environment of four-hundred years ago.  Agrarian-oriented semester systems supported by traditional lecture-oriented classes remain the hallmark of most undergraduate education.  However, the emergence of the web-based economy of the past decade forced many institutions to rethink the traditional framework for the delivery of education.  This class, for example, models new pedagogical approaches delivered without the constraint of time, distance, or location.  Students engage in facilitated dialogues, cross-pollinating their knowledge base through interactions with class members who possess distinct and different skill sets.  As a university leader, my goal remains focused on facilitating through professional development, mentorships, partnerships and new interdisciplinary taskforces a redefined framework for both the content and delivery of a university education.  Agility and adaptability must define our organizational structure and culture in order to seize emerging opportunities.  Requiring the adoption of new technologies for communication and collaboration enhances the effectiveness of new teaching pedagogies and improves the vitality of the strategic conversations shaping our institutional strategic plan.  Furthermore, our institution is close to signing an agreement to collaborate with an international university in the developing world to deliver targeted adult education in areas of healthcare, basic communication, and small business management to meet specific and emerging needs within their regional economies.  These partnerships strengthen our faculty and students global connection to people from around the world, while simultaneously improving the educational base and economic opportunities of people in the developing world.  A knowledge-oriented economy fueled by a participatory, open and evolving web has dramatically altered our traditional models of work. 

Friedman, T. (2007). The World is Flat (3rd ed.) New York: Picador.

Gartner. (2010, August 4).  Gartner says the world of work will witness 10 changes during the next 10 years.  Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1416513

Husband, J. (N.D.) What is Wirearchy? Retrieved from http://wirearchy.com/what-is-wirearchy/

 

A Triple Convergence?: Converting Information to Useful Knowledge

In the World is Flat, Thomas Friedman highlights the impact of the “triple convergence” on how the world creates, collaborates, and performs work (2007).  Specifically, Friedman maintains the first principle of convergence emerged in the development of the World Wide Web (2007).  This technology created a level playing field in which anyone had access to a vast array of knowledge regardless of geographic location or language.  The second convergence occurred as companies embraced a new organizational structure that emerged when knowledge became globally accessible.  Companies were no longer bound to geographic barriers or physical structures.  Rather, technology enabled companies to become vast global networks of people connected across continents, designing products and services to meet new consumer demands.  The final convergence occurred as the first two convergences yielded opportunities for individuals to compete for business on a global scale.  Applying the benefits of a flat economic environment, individuals and organizations could seize new opportunities created by the flattening of the world marketplace.   Friedman discusses how nearly three billion individuals suddenly had access to the global economy.   People began creating, collaborating, and networking to capture new opportunities, innovate, and penetrate new markets.  The vertical infrastructure of organizations, communication flow, and knowledge delivery collapsed next to a new horizontal model which brought knowledge, networks and collaboration to a whole new population of individuals while simultaneously redefining community (Friedman, 2007). 

With the proliferation of knowledge, leaders were challenged to discern strategies for harnessing the knowledge for improved productivity.  Nancy Dixon highlights the evolution of knowledge management.  Initially, she asserts that leaders saw knowledge creation as the capturing of “specific analytical content” (2009, May 2).  Initially, theorists suggested that knowledge creation was confined to the highest level of the organization.  Researchers attempted to identify functional best practices to standardize across all industries, thereby creating economic efficiencies.  However, this model failed to appreciate the vast knowledge resources at all levels of the organization.  Overtime, reliance on vertical models of knowledge creation limited the potential for a multi-layer, horizontal recognition of the knowledge assets at different levels within the organization.

Furthermore, Dixon (2009) suggested that while technology enabled knowledge to be accessed, sorted, and analyzed, humans were required to discern what makes knowledge useful.  Effective leaders recognize that we are no longer simply “capturing knowledge” rather we are “leveraging knowledge” through collaborative and collective conversations spanning social networks both internal and external to the organization.  Dixon posits that organizational leaders must learn to listen and leverage the “knowledge that is derived from the confluence of diverse perspectives and data from across an organization…that is brought to bear on important organizational issues” (2009, July).  Leaders must create environments supportive of creative conversations, innovative adaptations, and cognitive diversity (Dixon, July, 2009).  In this context, all members of the organization become co-creators of the future of an organization.  Knowledge assets enable organizations to seize evolving opportunities as they emerge in a flattened marketplace. 

Over the past decade, the web and other social networks have transformed from being identified solely as a repository of information, to a platform of interactive collaboration designed to generate knowledge and capture new opportunities (Dixon, July 2009).  While many people still use technology and the web for the primary purpose of browsing, searching and monitoring information, others are beginning to see it as a platform for rich intellectual discussion and engagement of complex issues (Gruber, 2008).  Tom Gruber furthers this argument, “We will know we are crossing into the new learning paradigm when we see a qualitative change in the way people think of interacting on the web.  Today that interaction pattern treats the web as an information source…Tomorrow, the web will be understood as an active human-computer system, and we will learn by telling it what we are interested in, asking it what we collectively know, and using it to apply our collective knowledge to address our collective needs” (2008, p. 12). 

Web-based tools assist the leader in sorting, classifying, and collecting relevant data to inform decision-making within the organization.  Similarly, web-based technologies encourage social networking allowing individuals to connect with thought leaders across the globe.  However, technology itself does not yield the benefits of a flattened environment; rather, human interaction with the knowledge acquired through the technology generates creative responses to emerging opportunities.  Without human engagement of the data, the information remains information and fails to convert to useful, applied knowledge capable of transforming individuals and organizations. 

 

Dixon, N. (2009, May 2).  Conversation matters:  where knowledge management has been and where it is going.  Part one.  Retrieved from http://www.nancydixonblog.com/2009/05/where-knowledge-management-has-been-and-where-it-is-going-part-one.html

Dixon, N. (2009, May 10).  Conversation matters:  where knowledge management has been and where it is going.  Part two.  Retrieved from http://www.nancydixonblog.com/2009/05/where-knowledge-management-has-been-and-where-it-is-going-part-two.html

Dixon, N. (2009, July 30).  Conversation matters:  where knowledge management has been and where it is going.  Part three.  Retrieved from http://www.nancydixonblog.com/2009/07/where-knowledge-management-has-been-and-where-it-is-going-part-three.html

Friedman, T.  (2007). The world is flat.  New York, NY:  Picador.

Gruber, T.  (2008).  Collective knowledge systems:  where the social web meets the semantic web.  Journal of Web Semantics, 6, 4-13. 

 

 

TED TALKS: Stretching the Imagination of Leaders

In this week’s Time magazine, Harvard professor, medical doctor, and chronic disease specialist Dr. Paul Farmer discusses efforts to relieve poverty and chronic disease in Haiti.  Farmer declares that our efforts to eradicate poverty, hunger, and chronic disease have not failed because of lack of knowledge or technology; rather he asserts, the failure is due to a lack of imagination (2013, p. 60).  In the Smithsonian Museum of American History, an entire exhibit is devoted to the American spirit of creativity and innovation.  Commenting on the importance of these attributes to the development of America, the exhibit notes, “From science and technology to the arts, a dynamic interaction of ideas, traditions, and talents has fueled new achievements and influenced the national experience.”

More recently, however, significant criticism has been leveled against the American education system for its overemphasis on standardized testing and a general apathy toward encouraging creativity and innovation (Robinson, 2011).  From this lens, in 1984 the first TED TALK emerged as an effort to cultivate creative thinking about our future in a variety of disciplines.  An annual conference began in 1990 and since then each year the TED Talk conference provides about thought leaders from across the globe a twenty-minute forum to share compelling ideas about improving humanity.  A non-profit organization, TED (technology, entertainment and design) provides free web access to these twenty-minute conversations as a “clearinghouse [of] free knowledge and inspiration from the world’s most inspired thinkers” (TED mission statement, n.d.).  The effort yielded a strong community of followers that began gathering annually to exchange ideas.  These ideas were recorded and placed on the internet for use by people around the world.  In November of 2012, TED Talks reached their billionth view validating the importance of using the internet as a medium for addressing and solving major global problems (TED reaches billionth viewer, 2012).  Arguably, accessing creative thinking through the internet confirms Friedman’s notion that technology enhances opportunity and access to the world’s thought leaders (2007).  Just this week, TED talks conducted its first television broadcast further introducing to the world its provocative, challenging, and compelling ideas for global consumption. 

In the university setting, faculty members rely on TED talks to promote classroom discussion of innovation, risk-taking, and change. TED Talks can be embedded within power points, videos, online learning modules, or other presentations.  Further, the brevity of the TED talks contributes to their effectiveness.  Students stay engaged in the discussion and the potential for blogging with millions of other viewers fosters collaborative interchange as well as potential networking connections. 

Leaders may use TED Talks to stay abreast of emerging trends related to their particular industry or discipline.  For example, during our university strategic planning discussions, we used several TED talks to facilitate small group conversations on such diverse issues as healthcare developments or new teaching/learning strategies (TED, 2013). 

Moreover, one important attribute of a leader is staying attune of emerging trends.  TED Talks provide a mechanism for leaders in all industries to continually stretch their thinking and connect with more diverse, global perspectives.  The following link provides access to several of the most popular TED talks. http://www.ted.com/playlists/77/new_to_ted.html

 

The TED Talks have diversified to include various focus areas:  women (TED WOMEN); global issues (TEDx); and local issues (TED).  Perhaps, a drawback of TED Talks is that they do not go into significant detail.  Typically, the talks provide a brief introduction to an emerging trend without specifying the details.  Some may argue that this limits the effectiveness of the tool.  Further, many of the ideas presented are philosophical constructs and fail to provide guidance on actual implementation strategies for the concepts. 

Other Technology Explorations and Their Impact in Higher Education

Higher education benefits from the inclusion of numerous digital technologies.  The online teaching faculty at our institution rely on Google docs and other cloud hosting technologies to exchange material and to collaborate on the development of lesson plans, learning projects and service learning efforts.  Furthermore, given my personal struggle with bookmarking content on the web, I investigated the Diigo web tool (www.diigo.com).  This tool enables the user to add virtual highlights, sticky notes, and bookmarks of important web content as well as save pictures of websites, take screen shots and cut and paste graphs and other important content for future use.  The user can then categorize and classify it for organizational purposes.  It is a relatively easy and free tool; however, some of the functions are not compatible with the IPAD. 

Overall, technology tools enable leaders to better leverage important knowledge on the web and use such knowledge in productive and efficient ways to improve the workplace and more importantly to stimulate the imagination to become creative problem solvers. 

 

Friedman, T.L.   The world is flat.  New York, NY:  Picador

Robinson, K. (2011).  Out of our minds.  Westford, MA:  Capstone.

TED:  Inspiring Ideas.  Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/

TED reaches its billionth video view. Ted Blog.  Retrieved from http://blog.ted.com/2012/11/13/ted-reaches-its-billionth-video-view/

 Ten Questions. Time Magazine, May 13, 2013, 60. 

Treasures of American History. National Museum of American History.  Retrieved from http://americanhistory.si.edu/treasures/creativity-and-innovation

www.diigo.com