Monday, January 26, 2015
I taught a course called Leadership Journey for a few years in a college in London. This was part of their post-graduate programme for practising managers. It was a great little course embedded in an MBA type programme, the difference being the emphasis on practice. The participants were to plan for their own development of leadership capabilities and compile a portfolio of reflections backed by evidence, which made it very different from most MBAs.
This was part of a management course, and the rest of the programme dealt with the usual HR, Marketing, Finance, Strategy stuff. However, this one constituent course stood out, because this was more about the learners and less about any one subject, and everyone could choose their own paths to write their portfolio. I did indeed try to encourage a diversity of approaches, though not many of the learners eventually tried to be creative. Indeed, they saw this course without any fixed content as an invitation to do whatever, which means essentially getting away without doing much. The idea, however, stayed with me to eventually construct a course like this on leadership.
When I get to do it - and this is something I want to do when my project of creating a global e-school becomes a reality - I want to keep it separate from learning things like strategy etc. My plan is to build upon the key idea - a learning journey of knowing about, doing and being a leader - and construct it around an interdisciplinary structure, based on humanities, social and behavioural sciences. In my construct, the Leadership Journey itself becomes a programme itself, and divorced from the technical aspects of management. Indeed, I have nothing against management, but I reject the assumption that knowing about strategy or finance makes one capable of leadership. Leadership capabilities, in their broad behavioral meaning as opposed to their conventional, technical, meaning, are much needed in all spheres of the society, not just in business, and the institution I am designing is to serve that broader social goal.
One objection to this approach is that I am trying out the old tired approach that humanities courses are inherently better in developing leadership abilities than others. But my approach, I shall claim, is slightly different. I have seen the limitations of professional education first hand, and would claim that a narrow professional education limits the ability to reflect on the human and moral aspects of work. This does not only mean significant moral failure, which we all bear witness of, but also a declining professional standard and gradual debasement of social commitment of a profession, like the one management is now facing. What I am trying to create is an alternative way of learning about leadership, through exploring history, following biographical pathways, understanding psychology, ethics and culture and connecting back to moral and social aspects of work.
But there is also another reason why I think the old, tired approach is better. Anyone reading history will notice that this is a point when history is making a comeback. The euphoria days of the 90s, when we reached the end of history, are well and truly over. The break with the past, just like successful children wanting to break away from the way of their parents, was fashionable when we felt confident about the future. But, right now, confronted with globalisation, decline of democracy, unrestrained powers of the few on the rest of us, we are seeking to understand, again, the ways of the past. From this point on, there are two ways to choose. Some of us are choosing to hate, reject our surroundings and wanting to go back to the past. Others, a few, are still choosing to hope, and trying to find ways to reconcile the future learning the lessons from the past. My idea is to be able to promote the latter message.
While I want to develop this course as a part of the overall E-school proposition, this is a standalone project in itself. I evangelize the essential idea of developing an applied humanities approach to leadership development (as I have come to call it) whenever I am talking to someone who cares to listen. This, development of a full scheme of Leadership Journey based on this model, is my project for 2015, and I hope to find a friendly institution to test run this with by the end of the year.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
The label - 21st Century Skills - is popular, but the definition behind it are questionable (see the previous post). However, this is not to deny that the skills we need - to live and to be successful - are evolving. One interesting and oft-used thought experiment to figure out what we may need is to compare the experiences of a time traveller traversing through the last century. Say, we could get someone from 1900 to come to the world of 1950, and another person from 1950 to come to year 2000 - who do we think would experience greater changes? It is perhaps the person from 1900, who would see automobiles, aeroplanes, widespread use of electric lighting, airconditioners and tall buildings, who might experience greater changes in the material environment. But it is the person from the later half of the twentieth century, traveling to the threshold of the twenty-first, comfortable at first seeing only incremental changes (faster automobiles, bigger planes, taller buildings and more appliances), would soon discover deeply unsettling new social norms, of living, of parenting, of schooling, of marriages, of dressing, so on and so forth. Overall, she would see greater stability of personal lives - people living longer and more healthily - but a great turmoil in the families and communities, contrasting greatly with the first half of the century, when war and diseases afflicted personal well-being but people lived in stable communities and within the bounds of defined family norms.
Skills, particularly as policy makers got involved in it, have assumed a very specific, technical, meaning in the recent years. This is also partly because of the Human Capital theorists, who have seen skills as an external thing, which people can be equipped with, rather than attributes that people may have in themselves. What skills we need, therefore, is a discussion informed by what skills that the employers may need to carry out the business activities, which further reinforces the external nature of skills. Because we define the skills in this very particular way, the context of changing social norms may not sound relevant to the discussion about 21st Century skills. Instead, the discussion about skills has tended to depend on the largely fictional existence about a global labour market, and on the mistaken assumption that employer skill requirements tend to operate independently of the broader social requirements. In summary, skills have become disconnected from lives that we live.
Indeed, the narrowing down the definition of skills is a mistake, because instead of business skill requirements driving the society, it is the changing social norms that define what skills may the businesses need. Going the other way round, as we are trying to do today, create a vast number of people narrowly skilled in tasks that may soon be redundant, clueless about how to live and disengaged from others around them. Skilling, as it stands today, is designed to perpetuate a low-skilled society, rather than creating social engagement and trust that create what may be called a high-skill, productive society. And, instead of answering these fundamental questions about the nature and purpose of skills, the discussion about 21st century skills has increasingly concerned itself with technicalities.
So, the talk about 21st Century skills, being superficial and insufficiently informed by social context, reinforces the schism between life and work, accentuating the social dislocation that underlie modern living. No wonder that most people concerned with skilling complain about lack of motivation on part of the intended beneficiaries. And, besides, despite all the efforts going into skills training, even employers still report a relative decline in workplace skills, and talk about an impending global workforce crisis. And, the failure of the skills practice, instead of prompting inquiry into the nature and purpose of skills, has consolidated the skills orthodoxy to extend its reach to the previously untouched areas - soft skills, as we started to call it - which concern itself with the behavioral aspects of a person rather than his/her technical abilities.
However, the discussion about soft skills is not an attempt to move away from technicalities, but rather usurping the discussion about motivation and engagement with the technocratic terms. For example, communication has become one of the key soft skills to be covered within this new skills agenda, but the term has been endowed a new, technocratic, specific, meaning. Communication now is no longer being able to communicate in the normal sense, which would invariably require some efforts at understanding the other person and even empathy, but rather the very specific activities such as being able to present, to sell (ideas and commodities) and to speak in some very specific language. Critical Awareness (which has come to mean being anything but critical), Problem Solving (which has become divorced from problem identification), Collaboration (which now has to operate within the context of privatized knowledge) have all become labels without their common sense meanings.
So, in conclusion, it is not that we do not need new skills and abilities to live successfully in the twenty-first century, but the skills and abilities that we need may be broader than those which are being promoted as 21st Century skills. Starting to ask the questions about what we may require to live successfully may be a good starting point, even if this does not fit the narrow technical boundaries of skills discussion as it happens today. In that sense, the discussion about twenty-first century skills may have to be re-imagined, and we should start from the society we live in rather than the job descriptions handed down by the employers.
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the...
We have come to accept that there are certain things called 21st Century Skills. That these are distinct from what used to be 20th century...
Some time back, on the eve of the 2014 General Elections in India, I wrote about the Indian Republic (see Resurrecting The Republic ) as p...
Global E-School is Global and Entrepreneurial, but this is not an entrepreneur's school. It is for all those who need to be creative a...
I wrote earlier about Skills Training in India and how the bureaucratic intervention may have changed the shape of an entire industry. ...
The label - 21st Century Skills - is popular, but the definition behind it are questionable ( see the previous post ). However, this is no...
India has spent millions of dollars and half a decade now on Skills Training, but got very little to show for it. Apart from endemic corru...
The hottest discussion in education is the development of Open Competency Frameworks. Gone are those days when a list of courses is the la...
I taught a course called Leadership Journey for a few years in a college in London. This was part of their post-graduate programme for pra...
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are ...
How To Live
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the grey twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
- Theodore Roosevelt
- Theodore Roosevelt
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
- T S Eliot
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.