In my framework of Modern Workplace Learning (see diagram on right) I use the term social collaboration to label an important new element of work of the modern-day L&D department. I deliberately chose not to label it social learning. So what is the difference – or rather connection – between these two terms?
Social learning, is of course, not a new concept or a new term; we’ve always learned socially – from our parents, siblings, friends and from our colleagues at work. Bandura’s social learning theory is also well known. But a new definition of social learning has emerged in the last few years; one that implies the use of social technology to underpin learning.
Although many purists are uncomfortable with this new definition, since it is clear that you don’t actually need social tools for social learning to take place, the problem for me is more that the “learning” part of this new definition of social learning is too often deemed to be achieved primarily through an organised educational or training experience that involves people brought together EXPLICITLY to learn from one another, and where the outcomes are defined in learning terms and usually measured by social activity.
For me, this new definition is missing the bigger picture, since it takes no account of where and how most social learning takes place – well outside of formal learning interventions – and in the workplace, in particular, when teams and other groups of people, learn IMPLICITLY from one another as a consequence of working together. I therefore use the term social collaboration (which already exists in the business world) to describe the sub-set of social learning that is focused around the learning that takes place from working together, and where the emphasis is on achieving business objectives, and measuring its success in business or performance terms.
Here is a chart that shows the extent, as well as some of the features of different types of social learning in an organisation – with the red bordered area showing the work that can be described as social collaboration.
So why is there a need to focus on social collaboration? Because the benefits of social collaboration for a team – and an organisation – are wide ranging and significant, and include many that are key to organisational survival, e.g.
- continuous learning and performance improvement
- improved communication through faster access to information
- improved employee engagement
- improved insights into work status, problems and issues
- easier capture and retention of organizational knowledge
Although external Social Business consultants might have helped an organisation with its strategic direction around the adoption of social technology, it’ll be up to internal Social Collaboration Consultants (SCCs) to help teams and groups take it forward. And even in an organisation where there is not yet a social strategy, there is a role for SCCs to help teams build one from the ground up.
Internal Social Collaboration Consultancy might well be an activity that a modern-day L&D department would like to become involved with – in order to expand its operations more broadly in the business (as my framework of Modern Workplace Learning suggests). In fact in the new world of L&D where there is pressure to align learning more closely with business, it is the area of social collaboration where the value work lies.
But – and it is a BIG but – the role of a SCC is not about organising (by designing and managing) the learning that takes place here, or even creating some sort of blended learning. Rather it involves working closely with the manager and supporting his/her team or group, by showing them how to become a social team, and modelling new behaviours. It’s not about training them to use new social tools, but supporting them to develop new ways of working and learning together in order to achieve defined business outcomes as well as drive innovation and growth.
So if you are interested in the work of an internal SCC, you might find my upcoming workshop of interest: SOCIAL COLLABORATION 101: HOW TO HELP A TEAM WORK AND LEARN TOGETHER which introduces some of the ways that you can enable and support the continuous learning and performance improvement of a team.
Latest posts by Jane Hart (see all)
- What does L&D “transformation” really mean? - 6 March 2016
- The best of February 2016 - 1 March 2016
- How many hours do you spend learning a week? - 19 February 2016
Pingback: Education News / The difference between social learning and social collaboration
Pingback: The difference between social learning and soci...
Jane, I really appreciate your insights and thoughts, however I’m concerned. For instance, about a month ago Josh Bersin at Deloitte asked for input around a concept he’d been contemplating. This being moving from talent development to people management because the marketplace had changed. In that discussion, several raised a yellow flag stating that changing the vernacular simply confused the topic and overall goal. I see social learning, group learning, peer learning, collaborative learning interchangeably used in the marketplace. And from my perspective, at the end of the day, not having a common definition simply weakens the message in the marketplace. While introducing “social collaboration” may make sense on paper, I have to wonder if it will weaken they overall message we’re trying to promote. Just my thoughts.
Rod, I am not adding to the vernacular. The term social collaboration already exists – just Google it! I am just trying to explain that the (natural) continuous social learning that happens as part of daily working might better be expressed in this way – to ensure that it is not confused with the formalised (contrived) social learning that happens in learning/training events organised by L&D/education etc.
Good point Jane. By determine the diferrence between social learning and social collaboration and emphasise the need to business goals and targets to make effective learning possible. By doing so you can abstract your business metrics (ROI).
Spot on Jane and a really nice picture of what my team is doing here at Xerox Services. Thanks!
Pingback: An Overview of Modern Workplace Learning | Learning in the Social Workplace
Pingback: ROADMENDER Recommends | ROADMENDER
Pingback: Synesthesia
Pingback: The difference between social learning and social collaboration | Learning in the Social Workplace | Learning Curve
Pingback: Modern Workplace Learning: The Workshops | Learning in the Social Workplace
I really like this Jane, I think it’s pulling together some threads we can all relate too.
My only pushback is on the ‘success based on learning metrics’ over on the bottom left of the more structured stuff. That is where most people are at, right now, yes. But we should be pushing for more. We should strive for performance related measures. The best of these programmes will blend exploration with integration; getting participants to apply new thinking in their role, and reporting back the results. We can quantify this too – take data from something like Salesforce.com back into the measure of a social sales programme for example.
People shouldn’t settle for measuring the success of a social e-learning programme in the volume of comments or contributions.
Ben, I agree that it should be more than learning metrics, but this seems to be a big problem, getting L&D to think in terms of business objectives. My view is that all the while they use a “learning platform” to host an activity separate from the real work, it only perpetuates the thinking that they need to measure/manage learning in terms of learning metrics or worse still social metrics. I believe the change will only come once L&D see their role as supporting the business, in the workflow not keeping their own little empire going as a separate function.