Diversity Management: A Palette of Colours

Globalization has changed many things for us in the 21^st century. One of the things it has changed that is relevant to this topic is the population of the workforce. Globalization has created a diverse workforce in terms of ethnicity, race, gender, geographic location, religious beliefs, personality type, physical characteristics, education, age, sexual orientation, income, physical ability, marital status and income. The challenge to operate effectively and efficiently in a global environment is becoming more real everyday. This is why more and more companies nowadays are looking into diversity management as an important tool to exploit opportunities and meet challenges.

What is diversity management? Diversity management is a tool for capturing the diversity dividend that focuses on managing the difference within a firm’s workforce, capitalising on the benefits of diversity and minimising workplace challenges (Flynn, Nicholas, Sammartino & Lau, 2001).  But how effective is diversity management really? What are the effects of diversity management on the workforce? These are some of the questions surrounding the debate about diversity management as a tool to improve team performance. In this essay, I will answer these questions and also discuss the effectiveness of diversity management from two different perspectives, the arguments behind the competitive advantage of diversity management and the various barriers of diversity management.

 Before going further into the subject of diversity management, it is first important to understand the changing society and workforce. During earlier times in the western world, organizational culture was largely patterned by the values of dominant western European white men. The organizational cultures that were built were mirrored by the values and experiences of these white men and supported their goals and priorities. Women and minorities had very limited opportunities in the workplace. In the 21^st century, the demographic composition of our society and workforce has changed dramatically and will continue to change at a faster rate. In the United States, it is predicted that by the year 2050, minority groups will make up almost half of the population. This means not only a more diverse workforce, but also a more diverse market. Hence with this realization of the significant role that diversity plays in the success of an organization, many organizations have started changing their cultures and beginning to apply more emphasis on valuing and managing diversity. Certain laws have also been passed to guarantee all people the right to apply and be evaluated for employment regardless of their race, sex, nationality, religion, age or disability. Organizations are also somewhat obliged to follow these laws.

According to Rossett and Bickham (1994), there are five reasons for organizations to initiate diversity programs: (1) compliance - want to do what is expected of them by taxpayers, shareholder, society, (2) harmony - want all employees to understand and appreciate each other), (3) inclusion - want underrepresented employees to succeed, (4) justice - want to correct past wrongs and (5) transformation – want to change the way the organization does business in order to take into account diverse employees, customers and markets.

Two Perspectives on the Effectiveness of Diversity Management

There are two schools of thought that can be used to argue for the effectiveness of diversity management as a tool to improve team performance. One perspective is based on the social identity theory and the other is based on information and decision making theories

Social identity theory suggests that people show favouritism to in-group members and behave in a hostile manner towards out-group members. Therefore, for example if a person identifies himself as being a white male, he will show favouritism to his in-group (white males) and may behave in a discriminatory way towards out-group members ( all others that are not white males). Based on social identity theory, it can be predicted that increased diversity will result in more conflict, less social integration, less cohesion in groups and diminished team performance. Furthermore, diversity programs may threaten the group identity of whites for an example as they have always held high positions in the workplace and with diversity initiatives; preference might be given to other groups. The conflict that arises can be essentially described as a power struggle.

However, more optimistic arguments based on information and decision making theories suggest that diversity management will provide a broad range of perspectives, insights and skills which can increase the group’s creativity, and problem-solving capabilities, thereby enhancing performance (Cox, 1991; Cox & Blake, 1991). Conflict, the optimists say, is not always a bad thing. Conflicting points of view can be beneficial as it avoids “groupthink” and brings additional points of view into the discussion.

Past research has found support for both of these schools of thought. The results however are paradoxical. In a study by Bantel and Jackson (1989), the diversity of 199 banks of top management teams were appraised, and it was found that the greater the diversity of the teams, the greater the number of administrative innovations. Another study among top management team members however, associated diversity with higher rates of turnover (Jackson, 1991). Hence, diversity management is more complex than the usual black and white picture that is painted of it. It is a palette of contrasting colours.  

As for research concerning the impact of diversity management on performance, findings were also mixed (Ely, 2001). One study investigated the impact of four diversity dimensions – tenure, age, sex and race on performance in 486 retail bank branches and assessed whether the participations of employees in diversity education programs influenced these relationships (Ely, 2004). The results of this study were consistent with past research that found no strong positive or negative impact of diversity on performance.

The Competitive Advantage of Diversity Management

According to research (Cox, 1991; Cox & Blake, 1991), diversity can result in a competitive advantage via (a) the resource-acquisition argument, (b) the marketing argument, (c) the system-flexibility argument, (d) the creativity argument, (e) the problem-solving argument, and (f) the cost-reduction argument.

The rationale for the resource-acquisition argument is that companies can develop favourable reputations as prospective employers for women and ethnic-racial minorities by managing diversity. A diverse workforce is becoming increasingly important in building and sustaining competitive advantage.

In our increasingly globalized world, markets are also becoming more diverse, therefore the marketing argument proposes that recruiting women and minorities will enable organizations to gain and sustain competitive advantage by tapping into additional markets.

It has also been argued that diversity management can help to decrease resistance to organizational change (system-flexibility argument). The rationale behind it is that if organizations are able to overcome resistance change in the area of accepting diversity, then it will be better equipped to handle other types of change in the future. This kind of flexibility provides a competitive advantage in an increasingly changing environment.

Another popular argument is the creativity argument which states that diversity in the workplace increases creative and innovative ideas as there are many different viewpoints to draw upon. Other than producing more creative and innovative ideas, the problem-solving argument states that with a wider range of perspectives, diverse work groups also produce better decisions. Organizations are often faced with complex problems and better decisions mean increased competitive advantage.

Failure to integrate workers in an increasingly diverse work environment may result in increasing costs from turnover, absenteeism, and lack of productivity. Therefore, the cost-reduction argument states that managing diversity effectively can greatly reduce costs.

The Diversity Model

           

            The model presented above was developed by the members of the Diversity Research Network based on a large number of studies that were done on the effects of diversity on group performance. This model suggests that the positive or negative impact of diversity on performance may depend on several aspects of an organization’s strategy, culture and human resource practices (Kochan et al, 2002). The studies done revealed that racial and gender diversity does not have a positive or negative effect on performance. Therefore, it was concluded that the organizational context is crucial in determining the nature of diversity’s impact on performance.

Barriers to Diversity Management

Some of the common problems faced in diverse workforces are discrimination, harassment and prejudice. According to Sanchez and Brock (1996), perceived discrimination in the workplace may influence employee outcomes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction and work tension. Therefore, managing diversity is an important tool to keep problems such as these at bay and doing so in return can be said to improve organizational commitment, job satisfaction and work tension. However, remedial programs created to eliminate discrimination also cause diversity conflict. Resentment is created when it is believed that people from distinct demographic groups are unjustly given organizational benefits. Hence, it is important to understand the possible conflicts that can occur when diversity initiatives are introduced in the workplace in order to manage diversity effectively.

            Backlash has been identified as one of the most common negative reactions towards diversity initiatives. Backlash is a negative response to a decision or policy that occurs when a person thinks that others have received undeserved benefits (Crosby & GonzalezIntal, 1984).

 It was found that white men in diverse work groups felt less attachment to the organization as measured by absenteeism, intentions to remain with the firm, and psychological commitment (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992). Diversity management also may have negative outcomes for the beneficiaries because employees often suffer negative self-perceptions of competence if they perceive their employment as attributable to their demographic status rather than to their qualifications.

Actually much of the debate about diversity management in the workplace is actually concerning the justification or rationale for the procedures and the outcomes produced by programs perceived to be unfair. Perceptions of fairness are very important to the success or failure of diversity management (Kirby & Richard, 2000). Majority perceive it is fair when policies or decisions work to their advantage or purpose though it might be detrimental to the needs of others. So fairness can sometimes be perceived as being unfair to a minority group.

When diversity initiatives are justified in a clear and worthwhile way, resentment and perception of unfairness decrease. Findings indicated that both men and women preferred the resource-acquisition argument that organizations with the best reputations for managing diversity win the competition for the best personnel. However, second choice for women was the system-flexibility argument (diversity management can help to decrease resistance to organizational change) and men on the other hand found the marketing argument (recruiting women and minorities will enable organizations to gain and sustain competitive advantage by tapping into additional markets) equally valid as the resource-acquisition argument.

Conclusion

            Diversity, if managed effectively can be used as an important tool to exploit opportunities and meet challenges. There are many advantages and disadvantages of a diverse workforce, but it is in our hands to make the best of the situation at hand. As discussed earlier, the effectiveness of diversity management on team performance may depend on the organizational context in which the work takes place. In organizations in which varied ideas and opinions are valuable to formulating innovative and creative ideas or for problem-solving and decision making tasks, diversity management may be effective. However, when quick decisions have to be made or quick solutions have to be revised, diverse workforces may not be as effective as it would take a longer time for heterogeneous groups to come to a consensus compared to the time taken for homogeneous groups to come to a consensus.

            Being aware of the importance of the role of group identity to individuals is also crucial in managing diversity effectively. Other than that, the justifications and rationale behind diversity initiatives is an important factor determining the success of diversity management programs. In general, framing diversity programs in terms of a business necessity may help to alleviate negative conflict associated with identity groups in organizations. When individuals feel that they have more to gain than to lose, organizational change can take place more smoothly.

            In conclusion, the way we perceive diversity may also determine whether it is managed effectively. So remember that the uniqueness of all individuals; includes everyone. Diversity is a palette of colours, and it is up to the artist to mix and match to find the colour that is most suitable.

References

Bantel, K. A., and Jackson, S. E. (1989) Top management and innovations in banking:

Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal,

10. 107-124.

Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5. 34-47.

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5. 45-56.

Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25. 755-780.

Flynn, J., Nicholas, S., Sammartino, A. & Lau, K. (2001). Diversity management: the big picture. The Program for the Practice of Diversity Management.

Jackson, C. (1991). Preparing an organization to adopt and implement the concept of managing and valuing diversity. In M.A. Smith & S, J. Johnson (Eds.), Valuing Differences in the Workplace. 89-102. Alexandria, VA: ASTD, Press.

Kirby, S. L. & Richard, O.C. (2000). Impact of marketing work-place diversity on employee job involvement and organizational commitment. Journal of Social Psychology, 140.

Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D. & Thomas, D. (2002). The effects of diversity on business performance: report of the Diversity Research Network. Source unknown.

Rossette, A. & Bickhan, T. (1994). Diversity training: hope, faith and cynicism. Training, 31. 41-46.

Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37. 549-579.

Understanding Varieties of Capitalism

         Hall and Soskice’s (2001) The Varieties of Capitalism is one of the more influential frameworks created to explain national differences in economic performance and policy. It basically offers a functionalist or inductive view by observing the existing array of capitalist outcomes, mainly Germany and the United States, and then hypothesizes an explanation of why they look the way they do. According to Hall and Soskice (2001), existing capitalist outcomes depend on nations’ specific historical and cultural circumstances. For an example, during the 19^th century, the change from an agricultural based economy to industrialization created a new form of capitalism. Major historical events such as World War 1 and 2 also changed the existing capitalists systems by disrupting the structure of some countries’ political and economic institutions.

        However, one of the weaknesses of Hall and Soskice’s (2001) Varieties of Capitalism in my opinion is that one cannot make accurate and specific predictions about other countries because by merely observing a few countries, it is difficult to make specific predictions about other countries in the future.

Varieties of Capitalism

      Hall and Soskice (2001) identify several key attributes that distinguish capitalist systems. Asset specificity was pointed out as one of the key attributes that distinguish Coordinated Market Economies (CMEs) from Liberal Market Economies (LMEs). They posit that relationships are more likely to govern the manner in which actors organize their economic activity, when assets are specific to the goods and services that are produced (like in CMEs). On the other hand, when assets are more general – meaning when they can more easily be switched from producing one kind of good or service to another, arms length interactions govern (like in LMEs). However, not all the countries neatly fit into this CME – LME continuum. The countries that do not fit into this continuum such as Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey are placed into a third category called Mediterranean or Mixed Capitalism. They are distinguished by their recent histories of extensive state intervention and large agrarian societies. Hence, the three main key identifications that distinguish capitalist systems from one another are identified by Hall and Soskice (2001) as asset specificity, the level of government intervention and the importance of the agrarian sector. Hall and Thelen (2005) further emphasize the distinction between LMEs, where firms rely heavily on competitive markets to coordinate their endeavours, and CMEs, where more endeavours are coordinated strategically. According to Schmidt (2004), there are four varieties of capitalism: the liberal capitalism of the United States and the United Kingdom, the coordinated capitalism of countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark; the state enhanced capitalism of Italy, France and Spain, and the hybrid capitalisms of Central and Eastern Europe. Schmidt (2004) suggests that these differences are related to variations in firms’ levels of exposure to the financial markets, the bases of firm ownership and control, the nature of inter-firm relations, the organization of labour-management relations, the patterns of production and innovation, and the role of the state in the economy.

Identifying the Key Actors

        Actors are very important to the structure of any nation’s economy. Therefore identifying which actors matter the most will allow us to then observe how these actors influence the type of capitalist system in a particular country. According to Carney (2007), actors representing an economy’s main factors of production – land, labour and capital, are clear candidates. The importance of labour and capital to capitalism is hardly questioned by many people; however, some may view the relevance of farmers with scepticism. Carney argues that farmers have played an important role in determining the structure of the contemporary American financial system, the world’s largest economy (2007). Other than that, farmers are also an important player in China’s economy, which is likely to become the world’s largest economy in the next few decades. Also in view of their historical importance to OECD economies and their contemporary relevance to China’s economy and to other developing countries, to ignore farmers would be like ignoring the elephant in the room.     

        Therefore, farmers can be viewed as the main actors representing land. Actors representing capital on the other hand can be viewed as owners of firms both small and large. So to put the equation together, it can then be concluded that the critical actor for the development of the financial system and the structure of capitalism are the owners of large firms, since it is this actor more than any other that favours the development of equities markets.

        Labour, farmers and owners of small firms all prefer an economy organized around specific assets (e.g. long-term relationships, as with lending from the bank). Owners of large firms on the other hand are more likely to push the economy in the direction of general assets (e.g. arms-length interactions, as with equities markets).

            When owners of large firms control politics, they are likely to try and reduce transaction costs of external financing, and may seek to try and control it in order to have it for themselves. Hence, government intervention will be minimal, and agrarian financing will be low. However, when farmers and labour form coalitions, government intervention will be maximal and agrarian financing will be high. Yet another scenario is when labour wields exclusive political power. When this happens, a centralized, government- controlled banking system emerges. Labour seeks to control the financial system through nationalized, government run-banks in order to direct lending to specific firms and industries in exchange for high and stable employment.

            Therefore, financial and capitalist system outcomes depend primarily upon the coalitions formed between farmers, labour, and owners of large firms. Carney further reminds us that these actors do not necessarily form coalitions to achieve specific financial system outcomes; rather, they form political power-sharing coalitions from which financial and capitalist structures emerge (2007).

Varieties of Capitalism – An outdated approach?            

      

         Some question whether in this era of globalization, innovation and change, it still makes sense to speak of distinctive varieties of capitalism. “Are changes in the international economy enforcing institutional convergence on the developed economies?” (Hall & Thelen, 2005). Some analysts also believe that most political economies are becoming hybrids. Is the varieties of capitalism approach then outdated? In The Evolution of Varieties of Capitalism in Europe, Hall argues that the framework of varieties of capitalism is still functional in this era of globalization as there does not necessarily have to be rigid categories of which type of capitalism a nation falls into, rather the varieties of capitalism can help us to understand the dynamics of political and economical structures and how they create capitalist structures (2007). 

           According to Schmidt (2004), capitalist systems are becoming increasingly similar to resembling each other in their diversity. As all countries move toward greater market orientation, it seems like as if they are all coming together. However, Thatcher (2004) argues that nations maintain different varieties of capitalism in the face of economic globalization because of diverse domestic settings. I agree with this point of view because there are many other factors other than economic pressure that influence the varieties of capitalism in different countries. Schmidt posits that this convergence is related to a number of pressures: economic, institutional and ideational (2004). Increasing international competition in capital and product markets and the move from manufacturing goods to providing services is an example of the economic pressures faced in this era of globalization. All these bring change to national capitalist systems. Even China now is slowly being forced into a capitalistic system because of all the economic pressure upon it. In a comparative analysis done on national identity and varieties of capitalism, it was found that political and economic institutions that adapt to the challenges and changes of globalization are by far the most successful capitalists systems (Campbell, Hall & Pedersen, 2006). For example, Denmark has been identified as the most advanced capitalist country since the mid 1980s. “The Danish political and economic institutions facilitate bargaining and consensus building in ways that have enabled the state, businesses, and labour unions to adapt to the challenges of globalization” (Campbell, Hall & Pedersen, 2006). Denmark’s small population size, homogenous population and strong national identity is also part of the reason that it has such an adaptable and flourishing national political economy.  

       In my opinion, it is unfair to conclude that the varieties of capitalism is outdated and cannot be used to understand contemporary capitalist systems because the varieties of capitalism gives us a framework and structure which can be built upon in order to accommodate to the changes that globalization has made on political and economic institutions.

Conclusion

        

       In order to make a conclusion as to whether there are fundamental differences in national political economies conditioning economic performance and social well-being, one has to observe a nation’s specific historical and cultural circumstances. Variations in firms’ levels of exposure to the financial markets, the bases of firm ownership and control, the nature of inter-firm relations, the organization of labour-management relations, the patterns of production and innovation, and the role of the state in the economy are also important factors that should be taken note of. Identifying the key actors is also of utmost importance. Globalization has also brought many challenges and changes that have affected capitalists structures. Globalization also has added pressures: economic, institutional and ideational to political and economic structures which in turn influences the type of capitalist system.

References

Campbell, J. L., Hall, J. A. & Pedersen, O. K. (2006). National identity and the varieties of capitalism: the Danish experience. Studies in Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, 3.

Carney, R. (2007). Deducing varieties of capitalism. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 5145.

Hall, P.A. (2007). The evolution of varieties of capitalism in Europe. Source unknown.

Hall, P. A. & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of    comparative advantage. Oxford University Press.

Hall, P. A. & Thelen, K. (2005). Institutional change in varieties of capitalism. International Sociological Association.

Schmidt, V. (2004). Capitalism and society. Transatlantic tensions from conflicts of interests to conflict of values colloquium.

Acquisition of Knowledge : What should be acquired?

Learning is a subject that has been studied for centuries now. Freud said learning is controlled by our psyche (ego, id, and superego). Socrates said that “the soul is immortal and possesses all knowledge.” It has been a topic of great interest to educators, psychologists, philosophers and students. The ideas and concepts behind learning have evolved and changed like all ideas do. Learning was first defined in terms of remembering and memory by Ebbinghaus (1885). He is most remembered for his experiment with memorizing the nonsense syllables and relearning them later and the logarithmic forgetting curve he discovered (refer to Appendix a). Through this experiment, he found that we remember the first and last items better than the middle ones.Ebbinghaus’ idea of rote learning was based on the notion of learning through the process of memorizing by repetition. Other than Ebbinghaus, there have also been other people who defined learning as remembering such as Bartlett. He investigated learning and memory by using strange and incomprehensible stories and found that when people use schemas, it is much easier to remember the stories. Hence, the schema theory was developed. There have been many theories of learning since. Later on learning came to be thought of as information processing. George Miller (1956) who is knows for his experiment with the magical number 7 found that we cannot retain more than seven items in short-term memory.

 Behaviourism is a straight-forward theory initiated by Skinner that focuses on observable behaviour. It says that leaning is controlled by our environment. There are two ways that we can learn - involuntarily through classical conditioning or voluntarily through operant conditioning. The most well known example of classical conditioning is Pavlov’s dogs. Through classical conditioning, Pavlov’s dogs learned that whenever they heard a bell, it was time for food (stimulus) and they would start to salivate (response). Operant conditioning on the other hand is learning based on the notion of consequences such as reinforcement (positive or negative) and punishment. For example, a dog learns through positive reinforcement to bring back the ball to its master when it is rewarded with food and negative reinforcement – that it doesn’t get any food if it does not bring back the ball. There are however criticisms of behaviourism as a learning theory because it does not account for all kinds of learning since it only focuses on observable behaviours and discounts mental activities. Behaviourism also fails to explain some kinds of learning such as new language patterns that are recognized by a child which is not learned by classical conditioning or operant conditioning. It also tends to support a more passive learning environment, where the teacher is the centre of attention and knowledge is given and absolute.

Bandura (1925) said that we learn through models. Social learning theory, a branch of behaviourism also focuses on observational learning. Observational learning can be seen most clearly in young children. A child learns many things through observing his or her surroundings. For example, a child observes an adult opening the door, and through these observations learns how to open the door himself. Social learning theory says that individuals are more likely to adopt a modelled behaviour if it results in valued outcomes and when it is displayed by someone we admire. This explains why children so often imitate their parents. Cognitivism grew in response to Behaviorism in an effort to better understand the mental processes behind learning. According to Cognitivism, knowledge is stored cognitively as symbols. Learning is defined as the “process of connecting symbols in a meaningful and memorable way” (Funderstanding). Piaget was one of the main pioneers of this study and focused mainly on child development and learning through cognitive structures. Piaget said that young children develop a sort of mental map in order to understand and respond to his or her physical environment. They continue to learn through integrating new information into the existing symbol system or adjusting their symbols system to make space for new information. Some of the criticisms of Cognitivism are that it does not account enough for individuality and differences in staged development and it places little emphasis on other important aspects such as motivation.

Currently, information and knowledge are growing at faster pace than ever before in the history of mankind. According to Simon, ‘knowing’ has changed from being able to remember information and repeat information to being able to find it and use it (cited in Bransford, 2004). Contemporary learning theories focus on differences between expert and novice learners. They found that experts notice meaningful patters that are not noticed by novices and that experts are more flexible when it comes to retrieving important information that has been learned and of course experts also have accumulated a vast amount of knowledge in their field. Understanding how experts learn can help us to improve our learning techniques.

When we have accumulated knowledge, the next step is to use this knowledge to perform tasks. This is what we call skill. There are many kinds of skills from basic skills such as counting to more complex skills such as playing football at a professional level. There is a big difference in the amount of time it takes to acquire a skill such as playing football at a professional level compared to acquiring a skill such as counting. How are these complex skills acquired? Like any skill, for example driving, a practiced skill becomes more and more automated until it no longer requires any cognitive involvement. And this gives space for our cognitive system to focus on more problematic aspects of the skill and improve the skill further. According to the power law learning, a skill can continue to improve and speed up right up until the point where the “equipment” reaches its limit. For example, the “equipment” could be the physical structure of a person. Therefore, using this example, a person could only type as fast as his physical limitations will allow him to; the time it takes for the brain to register the nerve impulses sent from receptors (Anderson, 2000). Skills go through three different developmental stages according to Fitts (1964) and Anderson (1982), being the cognitive stage, the associative stage and the associative stage. In the cognitive stage, the learner learns through examples and instructions and usually verbalizes the instructions to himself or herself and practices the skill with awkwardness. However, the most important thing that the learner must do in this first stage is to come up with a solution to the problem that is faced in the new task as performing a new task is closely linked to problem solving. In solving a problem, certain steps must be taken to ensure that the current state of the problem transforms into the goal that we have in mind to achieve. These steps are called operators by Anderson. There are two main operators that we usually use. The more commonly used is difference reduction. This is when we try to eliminate differences between the current state of the problem and the goal state little by little. Sometimes this somewhat natural way of solving problems by difference reduction can hinder us from solving problems that require us to increase the difference between the current state and the goal state in order to solve the problem.The second is called operator subgoaling and is when we set subgoals in order to reach the main goal. Therefore, “skill acquisition involves executing a complex sequence of many operators” (Anderson, 2000). The next stage is the associative stage where the learner slowly learns how to perform the task without error and more smoothly. Basically it is the process of converting “declarative knowledge of the domain into procedural knowledge” (Anderson, 2000). Declarative knowledge is basically a description of the information received. Whereas, procedural knowledge is using the information to perform a task. Dramatic changes in problem solving also take place in this stage. Something called as production rules where procedural learning is a matter of pattern-recognition rather than a structured thought process. The learner need not verbalize instructions to himself anymore or think about what to do next. “Production rules are condition-action pairs that are postulated to represent procedural knowledge” (Anderson, 2000). For example, if I want to turn on the television, then I have to press the red button. New production rules are sometimes learned when people become more expert in a domain. It was also found that memory is one of the key factors that differentiates experts from novices and strengthens production rules because it enables them to remember information about problems specific in their domain. Finally, in the autonomous stage, the skill becomes more automatic and faster and cognitive involvement eventually disappears. Skills are an outcome of motor programs rather than of our cognitive system. There are two different kinds of motor programs. Open-loop performance is a sequence of actions that are performed without checking later or feedback. Close-loop performance on the other hand is when one waits for feedback or checks before moving on to the next step. How are these motor programs acquired? According to Schmidt in his schema theory, a learner develops recall memory – “a prepackaged sequence of actions” and recognition memory – a representation of the desired outcome (Anderson, 2000). The learner adjusts the motor program or the recall memory accordingly to the desired outcome or recognition memory. Feedback is an important element of learning and through motor programs; learners develop a kind of internal feedback through which they can detect their own errors without being told. However, research indicates that too much external feedback can be harmful towards learning because learners begin to depend too much on it and then cannot perform without feedback. The time taken to process the feedback may also disrupt learning. Transfer among skills becomes less and less as a consequence of the specialization of skills and as the skills become more advanced (Henry, 1968, cited in Anderson, 2000).

It is not enough to be able to learn something but more importantly is whether we are able to transfer this information. Transfer is defined as “the ability to extend what has been learned in one context to new contexts” (Bradshaw, 1998). For example, transferring what we have learned in school to everyday life. Measures of how much that has been learned is being transferred is usually used to test the quality of people’s learning experiences. Researchers have found that some kinds of learning lead to transfer and others not. For example, learning that is merely based on remembering certain facts hardly leads to transfer. In order for transfer to take place, the student has to understand the facts. Early research on learning and transfer were conducted by Thorndike and his colleagues and were “guided by theories that emphasized the similarity between conditions of learning and conditions of transfer” (Bradshaw, 1998). For example, if teachers want that students are able to transfer the knowledge they gain in classrooms to their everyday lives, they should try to include elements of the transfer context in their lessons. They could perhaps include examples and problem-solving questions from everyday life. Practice that takes learner characteristics such as existing knowledge and strategies into account are emphasized in modern theories of learning and transfer (Bradshaw, 1998). It was found that initial learning is important for transfer because a major factor that influences successful transfer is the degree of mastery of the original subject, hence when students have not learned enough about a subject, successful transfer is unlikely. Rushing the learning process and trying to compress too much information in a short period of time also hinders the transfer process. Even talented people need a great deal of time and practice in order to become experts. Students need to be given enough time to learn, process information and to make connections between relevant facts and organize these facts accordingly. According to Ericsson (1993), learning is most effective “when people engage in "deliberate practice" that includes active monitoring of one's learning experiences” (Bradshaw, 1998). Monitoring here means always seeking feedback about one’s progress. Feedback about how much of what the student has learned is really understood is very important for successful transfer to occur. Motivation is also a very important factor contributing to successful transfer because “motivation affects the amount of time that people are willing to devote to learning” (Bradshaw, 1998). Motivation affects different people differently. People who are learning oriented are excited and motivated by new challenges, whereas people who are performance oriented are motivated when they perform well and try to avoid learning challenges that might cause them to perform badly. However, generally tasks should be at an optimum level of difficulty in order to keep students motivated and avoid boredom. McCombs, Pintrich and Schunk (1996) found that learners are motivated when they feel that they can use what they have learned to contribute to others (cited in Bradshaw, 1998). The context of original learning also affects the transfer of learning. For example, street children who used mathematics when making sales in the streets could not answer similar mathematical problems in school (Bradshaw, 1998). The degree of connection between learning and its contexts depends on how the knowledge is acquired (Eich, 1985 cited in Bradshaw 1998). Research shows that when a subject is taught in many contexts rather than in just one context, transfer takes place easier (Bjork and Richardson-Klavhen, 1989 cited in Bradshaw, 1998).

             It is generally assumed that there are two different kinds of knowledge; declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. More elaborate distinctions of knowledge do exist and have been widely researched. De Jong and Ferguson- Hessler developed a knowledge matrix based on four different types of knowledge and five different qualities of knowledge (1996). The first type of knowledge is situational knowledge and it is defined as knowledge of problem situations. It is essential to be aware of the problem at hand before attempting to solve the problem. Next, the learner has to acquire conceptual knowledge or declarative knowledge, which is “static knowledge about facts, concepts and principles that apply within a certain domain” (De Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996). It is basically extra information that learners can use to solve the problem. According to Bransford, one of the factors that separate experts from novices is the expert’s detailed and organized comprehension of important facts and information in their specific domain (2004). Transfer from one problem state to another is made easier with procedural knowledge that functions to carry out the actions or tasks needed to solve the problem. Lastly, strategic knowledge is used to organize and structure the problem solving process by coming up with a general plan of action. One example of a quality of knowledge is the level of knowledge. Deep-level of knowledge is associated with understanding abstract principles and using critical judgment and evaluation. Surface-level of knowledge is associated with learning through trial and error and a lack of critical judgment. Further examples of qualities of knowledge are such as structure of knowledge (isolated or structured), automated or non-automated knowledge and modality of knowledge.

            The focus of education has also changed because of our evolving views of learning. Educators are developing new curriculum to ensure that the learning process is more holistic, effective and able to meet the demands of our current situation. According to Zhou Nan-Zhao, education in this information intensive age has to meet two demands – it has to transmit an increasing amount of evolving knowledge and it has to enable learners not to be overwhelmed by all the information (Zhou Nan-Zhao, 2000). Zhou Nan-Zhao proposes a new curriculum based on ‘The Four Pillars of Learning’ which are ‘learning to know’, ‘learning to do’, ‘learning to live together’ and ‘learning to be’. ‘Learning to know’ is more than just knowing the facts and information related to a domain, rather it is learning to think critically, learning problem-solving skills, and to reason. It is described as a discovery process that requires time and patience. ‘Learning to do’ focuses on communication and interpersonal skills, learning to adapt to new situations, the ability to transform knowledge into new ideas and innovation, and to be able to resolve and manage conflicts effectively. In our ever increasingly globalized world, it is important that we learn to appreciate cultural differences and understand ourselves and others. ‘Learning to live together’ focuses on this and also other cooperative social behaviors such as empathy, caring, sharing and working together towards a common objective. Finally, ‘learning to be’ is basically learning to be human through acquiring knowledge, skills and values advantageous to personality development and also cultivating imagination and creativity. This aspect of learning grew out of the fear that people would be dehumanized as an outcome of technical change in the world today.

            So what is the answer to the question of what should be acquired? In order for us to learn we need to acquire certain skills and certain types and qualities of knowledge. When we have acquired a general learning structure or strategy that contains previous, existing knowledge, problem-solving skills, initial information, facts and knowledge about the domain and skills such as pattern-recognition, we can use this knowledge database to solve future problems. Deliberate practice is also important to maintain and improve a skill. The question of what should be acquired should also focus on changing times and society and should be adjusted to be beneficial to ever-changing circumstances. Because of the information overload we face today, we need to find the most optimal way of learning. It would be impossible to memorize everything we need to know because there is just too much. Therefore one possibility could be to learn from expert learners and mimic their learning strategies and also adjust these strategies to custom-fit us as individuals because we are all unique and have our different ways of learning. Personally, I think ‘The Four Pillars of Learning’ would be very beneficial to our current times. There are of course many more new curriculums that could be beneficial and we should not limit our options, but keep our minds open to new ideas of learning.

References

            Anderson, J.R. (2000). Learning and Memory. Chap 9: Skill Acquisition (pp.304-337).New York:Wiley.

            Bransford, J.D. et al. (Eds.) (2004, expanded edition). How People Learn. Washington: National Academy Press.

            De Jong, T. & Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M. (1996). Types and Qualities of Knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31,(pp. 105-113). Rumelhart.

                  Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve. Retrieved 10, March 2006 from: www2.psych.purdue.edu/.../5-forgettingcurve.htm

Funderstanding. Retrieved 10, March, 2006 from: http://www.funderstanding.com/

            Learning Theories. Retrieved 11, March, 2006 from:http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/

Zhou Nan- Zhao. (2000). Four ‘Pillars of Learning’ for the Reorientation and Reorganization of Curriculum: Reflection and Discussions. Retrieved 10, March, 2006 from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/cops/Competencies/PillarsLearningZhou.pdf

Appendix (a)

                 

Are Extraverted or Introverted Leaders Better?

Early research on leadership often has asked questions such as what are the characteristics or behaviours of a good leader. I would like to address these questions again here in relation to two personality types, extraversion and introversion. My question is- Do extraverted or introverted people make better leaders? Before we can answer this question, we first have to ask – What does the word good refer to? When we say a leader is good, we usually mean that he or she is an effective leader. Hitler and Stalin were effective leaders, but were they good leaders? I would say no. A good leader has to be both effective and ethical as well. Through out this essay I will be referring to a good leader as being both effective and ethical in order to compare whether extraverted or introverted people make better leaders.

  Trait leadership theory is based on the assumptions that some traits are particularly suited to leadership and that good leaders have the right combination of traits. Some of the traits that were found to be higher in leaders compared to non-leaders in some early work (reviewed by Stogdill, 1974; House and Baetz, 1979) are such as intelligence, dominance/need for power, self-confidence, energy/ persistence and knowledge of the task. Extraversion is also one of the personality characteristics that have been found in some studies to be more characteristic of leaders compared to non-leaders (Arnold, 2005, p. 484). Numerous studies have identified a connection between extraversion and leadership. A model that predicted an association between leadership with extraversion showed a significant positive linear effect, (ß = 0.30), t (209) = 4.57, p < .01 (Ames & Flynn, 2007, p. 319). It is also popular belief that leaders should be extraverted. To many people, sitting back while others talk is not behavior for a leader. To them a leader should be in the middle of the conversation asking questions and giving directions. Another common conception exists that the leader should be the center of attention. Due to preconceptions and internal schemas of how leaders should act, many believe that a leader must be extroverted in order to be effective. But is this true? If it is, then does this mean that introverts cannot be effective leaders or that introverts should be trained to act like extroverts in leadership positions? However, taking into consideration the fact that extraverts make up an estimated seventy percent of the population and the point that the definition of effective leaders is a social construct formed by the majority, maybe we should reconsider the idea that extraverts make better leaders. Also based on the notion that we tend to prefer people who are similar to us may be also a possible reason as to why extraverts are preferred leaders. According to Felfe and Schyns, followers’ extraversion seems to influence the perception of leadership. Felfe and Schyns warn that feedback of followers high in extraversion tend to be biased positively, in contrast to feedback from introverts because of the positive correlation of extraversion with acceptance (2006, p. 728). 

            According to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (a measurement instrument of human behaviour based on the studies of Carl Jung), the classification of extraversion and introversion is a reflection of an individual’s preference for interacting with the world. Extraverts are energized by the outer world of people, places and things. Whereas, introverts are energized by their inner world of ideas, thoughts and concepts (Waddell, 2006). Another definition of extraversion, “refers to the extent to which individuals are sociable, loquacious, energetic, adventurous and assertive” (Goldberg, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987 cited in Moss & Ngu, 2006). 

            As leaders, extraverts are open verbal communicators who share more than they hold back. Extraverts also prefer to talk rather than to listen and reflect. Their tendency to think out loud and to speak what is on their mind without reflecting on their thoughts and ideas may sometimes lead to information being leaked out or being taken as decisions or policies. According to Cooper, Agocha and Sheldon (2000), “extraversion has been demonstrated to promote the incidence of risky activities” (Moss & Ngu, 2006).  This risk-taking behaviour of extraverts may be very useful in some fields such as the business field where taking risks is an essential part of everyday decision- making. An introvert may lack the capacity to make risky decisions because of their tendency to reflect on their ideas and ponder over them again and again. Of course risk-taking is not always the best behaviour in all situations and may lead to disastrous outcomes sometimes. They are also quick decision makers and action takers.  Again depending on the situation, this could be an advantage or disadvantage. For example, in a military setting sometimes quick decisions and actions have to be made and taken or it might have a negative effect on the situation. Situational leadership theory which is based on the assumption that the best action of the leader depends on a range of situational factors supports this idea.

            Introverted leaders may usually share only small pieces of information even though they may have a lot of ideas brewing under the surface. Due to the introvert’s preference to filter and process his or her thoughts and ideas before sharing them and sometimes later revising his or her decisions after further reflection, they have sometimes been labelled as indecisive ( Kroeger and Thuesen, 2002 cited in Waddell, 2006). Similar to the extravert, an introvert’s slow speed of making decisions and acting may be an advantage in some situations, but a disadvantage in others. Therefore, an extrovert should be allowed the opportunity to think out loud and realize on his own that a lot of what was said was of little value and an introvert should be allowed more time to think before pressuring them for a final answer (Waddell, 2006).

            “Myers and Myers (1995) point out that extraverts tend to broaden the sphere of their work, to present their products early and often to the world, to make themselves known within a wide circle, and to multiply relationships and activities” (Waddell, 2006). This is important for them as they get their energy from other people and outer influences. Encouragement and support of others also have a big effect on them. Introverts, on the other hand tend to go more deeply into their work and seldom publish it. They do not need the encouragement and support of others because they are energized from an inner source. Waddell (2006) is of the opinion that the extravert takes for himself or herself much of the encouragement and affirmation that actually could be passed on to the followers instead to empower them.

            Individual responsibility should be one of the characteristics of a good leader because the leader should take responsibility for all those followers who may be affected by the outcomes of his or her words and actions. Waddell posits that individual responsibility presents a greater challenge for extroverts compared to introverts because an extravert tends to think out loud and to speak what’s on his mind, whereas, an introvert tends to filter and process information thoroughly before sharing his thoughts. “Greanleaf explains that the requirements of responsibility necessitate an individual asking searching questions reflectively, which requires that one be alone with their thoughts and accept the presence of a deeper self” (Greanleaf cited in Waddell, 2006). It is more natural for an introvert to spend reflective time alone because it is part of an introvert’s recharging process, while it is unnatural and draining to an extravert.

               In Patterson’s model of servant leadership, seven different constructs were used to describe a servant leader. Out of the seven, four of the constructs appear to be in opposition to the source of energy for extroverts. The four constructs are humility, altruism, service and perhaps trust. Therefore, it is proposed that the proportion of individuals expressing a preference for introversion are more likely to be identified as servant leaders by their followers.

            According to Myers and Myers, extraverts have more worldly wisdom and a better sense of expediency than introverts. Introverts, on the other hand have an advantage in unworldly wisdom and the ability to grasp and accept moral principles in its abstract form without having to experience it first unlike the extravert. Hence, Waddell proposes that the introvert’s unworldly wisdom and ability to grasp moral principles in their abstract form makes them better servant leaders compared to extraverts (Waddell, 2006). Extraversion also seems to be connected to dominance and the need for power more than introversion. Introverts tend to lack the trait of dominance and are not so much motivated by external sources of energy. A high level of dominance and need for personal power may prevent a leader from maintaining good relationships with his or her followers and team members (Arnold, 2005, p. 484). Other than that, the need for power can be a dangerous quality when it becomes the main motivation of the leader because as we all know power has proven to corrupt many leaders throughout history. Leaders motivated by power also tend to have decreased individual responsibility. Therefore, could it be said that introverted leaders are more likely than extraverted leaders to be ethical? 

Moss and Ngu (2006) posit that in specific instances, extraversion should affect the association between personality traits and leadership preferences. Extraverts, they say are more likely than introverts to prefer transformational leadership because of their own individual fundamental drives. The regression analyses in the study revealed that extraversion is positively correlated to preferences towards transformational leadership. Another study done by Judge and Bono (2000) also found that extroversion positively predicted transformational leadership (cited in Hetland & Sandal, 2003, p. 147). Findings suggest that transformational leadership is more likely to promote desirable work attitudes in employees such as promoting more cohesion and interaction among team members. In short, transformational leadership seems to be the preferred type of leadership style compared to transactional or laissez-faire leadership.  Moss and Ngu also propose that when extraversion is elevated, agreeable individuals (referring to the trait of agreeableness in the five-factor model of personality) will be more likely to emphasize and support the potential benefits of laissez-faire leadership. Whereas, when extraversion is limited, agreeable individuals are more likely to have a negatively related preference towards laissez-faire leadership.

Young suggests that there may be two types of leaders just as there are two types of personalities (extraversion and introversion). “One type of leader controls men and practical situations, in business, politics, military activities, and the ritualistic and organized phases of religion” (Young, 1930, p. 12). The second type of leader controls material objects or non-material phenomena. The leader may be involved in invention or scientific research, or over non-material phenomena such as in the arts or philosophy. The first kind of leader is more likely to be an extravert because of the requirement of the position to have good interpersonal communication skills. In contrast, the second leader type is more likely to be an introvert as the position demands a large percentage of the time to be devoted to reflection and thinking in isolation (Young, 1930, p. 13).

I would conclude that both extraverts and introverts can make good leaders because they both have valuable traits that can contribute to being effective and ethical leaders. Although introverts are found to make better servant leaders than extroverts, extroverts have been found to make better transformational leaders than introverts. Being aware of the strengths and weaknesses of extraverts and introverts can help in positioning them in the most appropriate leadership positions in order for their full potentials as leaders to be realized. Therefore, the traits of extraversion should not be forced on to an introvert in hope of developing a better leader as this will only decrease the ability of the potential leader.  Myers and Myers (1995) say that the ablest introverts do not try to be extroverts, rather they have learned to deal with the outer world without changing their (less preferred) way of interacting with the world (cited in Waddell, 2006). Followers should also take into account their personal biases when choosing the right leader as these biases may prevent introverts from being chosen as leaders.

References

Ames, D.R. & Flynn, F.J. (2007). What Breaks a Leader: The Curvilinear Relation between Assertiveness and Leadership. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 92, No.2, pp. 315-319). Retrieved February 10, 2006 from www.bsb-muenchen.de/

Arnold, J. (2005). Work Psychology. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited (Chapter 13, Leadership, pp. 482-484, 487-488).

Ciulla, J.B. What is Good Leadership? Retrieved February 10, 2006 from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/Pdf/CiullaWorkingPaper.pdf

 Felfe, J. & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the Perception of Transformational Leadership: The Impact of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Personal Need for Structure, and Occupational Self- Efficacy. In Journal of Applied Social Psychology (Vol.36, No. 3, pp. 715-720). Retrieved February, 12 from www.bsb-muenchen.de/

 Hetland, H. & Sandal, G.M. (2003). Transformational Leadership in Norway: Outcomes and Personality Correlates. In European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (Vol.12, No.2, pp. 147-148). Retrieved February 10, 2006 from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/1359432X.html

Moss, S.A. & Ngu, S. (2006). The Relationship between Personality and Leadership Preferences. In Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 11, No. 6). Retrieved February 12, 2006 from http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.html

Personality Type in Leaders: What Works? Retrieved February 10, 2006 from

http://www.leadershipadvantage.com/personalityTypesInLeaders.shtml

Waddell, J.T. (2006). Servant Leadership. Retrieved February 10, 2006 from http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2006/pdf/waddell.pdf

Young, K. (1930). Leadership, Authority, and Prestige. In Social Psychology: An Analysis of Social Behaviour (Chap. 13, pp. 361-395). Retrieved February 12, 2006 from

http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Young/1930/1930_15.html