Wenger and Snyder define COPs in their book, Cultivating Communities Of Practice, as groups of people who “share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis”.

This sounds like what happens around the water cooler and coffee machines, doesn’t it? People in COPs typically share information, insight, and advice. They help each other solve problems and discuss their own situations and aspirations.

I realize that I have been involved with many COPs, both in a very informal way and in a structured way. I have seen, for example, where some organizations have used COPs to become more intentional and systematic in managing the information and knowledge of those who are leaving the organization and therefore use COPs as a way to “codify” knowledge.

But have you considered using COPs as a fluid way to encourage an organization to become skilled as a learning organization? There are, of course, challenges to creating the mindset required to utilize COPs effectively. First, managers must be willing to see the inherent “chatting” that informal COPs utilize as valuable. Secondly, a COP must determine the depth of formality and structure that it wishes to engage in. Thirdly, trust must be developed between participants to allow them to be vulnerable – in sharing both their ideas (without fear of theft) and their problems (without fear of censure or ridicule).

As a leader, are you taking advantage of the informal COPs in your team? Or do you see these informal teams as a waste of time – and everyone should  just get back to work?

What about your own growth? Do you look for opportunities to learn from others?

For more on Wenger and Snyder, see Cultivating Communities of Practice; Harvard Business School Press, Chapter One, pages 1-21.

Is this even possible – collaborative relationships between unions and management?

Pfeffer believes that managers are reluctant to work with unions because they fundamentally believe that union effects on productivity are “presumed to be deleterious”. In other words, unions create impediments to management control in the workplace and hindrances to achieving competitive levels of costs, quality and productivity.

Unions are not without sin, themselves. Pfeffer found that unions traditionally have not pursued input in workplace governance and have been focused on simply bargaining issues, primarily over wages. Another reason for union resistance to joint union-management cooperation was a fear that their members might see them becoming too friendly with the ‘enemy’. 

Can the problems experienced by management and their organizations with organized labour be due to the failure to achieve a mutually beneficial relationship and accommodative working arrangements? Is the state of an organization’s labour relations rather than unionism and collective bargaining per se the element that determines productivity?

In his book, Pfeffer makes a clear argument that organizations with unions succeed more than organizations without unions – but – hear that big BUT – only when there is considerable willingness on both sides of the bargaining table to work collaboratively and cooperatively.

Does your management see unions as a good or bad?

J. Pfeffer, Can You Manage With Unions? A chapter in his 1998 book called The Human Equation: Building Profits By Putting People First (Harvard Business Press)

 I wonder about the diversity and leadership lessons I will be able to take away from the rich history and current challenges of the countries we will visit. Do you reflect on diversity when you travel? Do you compare your behaviour and norms to theirs and think they should be like you? Or do see different as only different?

Some sociologists believe that women consistently underestimate their ability and minimize their risk of failure. In her book, “Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide”, Linda Babcock studied students graduating from Carnegie Mellon University with a Masters degree in a business related field. She found that the starting salaries of the men were about 8% on average higher than those of the women. The men were paid about $4,000 more.

Babcock looked to see who asked for more money during the job finding process. About 7% of the female students had asked, compared with 57% of the male students. Students that asked for more money received a starting salary that was $4,053 higher on average than those who did not ask. The male students were more inclined to take the risk of offending the hiring human resource officer for the sake of a higher starting salary!

Have you seen this play out in your life or workplace?

Read more on our site www.martrain.org!

As children, boys enjoy taking risks. Most boys are also impressed by other boys who take risks. Especially if the risk-taker succeeds.  

Girls are less likely to enjoy risk taking for its own sake and are much less likely to be impressed by risk taking behaviour in others. Girls may be willing to take risks but they are less likely to seek out risky situations just for the sake of living dangerously.

Part of this difference is that risky and dangerous activities trigger a ‘flight or flight’ response that gives a tingly charge, an excitement that many boys find irresistible. Men physiologically respond to risky situations with an increased heart rate, dilated pupils, and a surge of adrenaline in the blood to prepare them to fight or run away.

Females, however, respond to threat and confrontation with the ‘puke and pee’ response – they feel dizzy, nauseous and need to go to the bathroom frequently. This idea might not align with your understanding of threat response. But remember that little study has actually been done on women’s specific response to threat and stressful situations. Most scientific data is based on male studies and extrapolated to include women.

The assertive male risk-taking strategy sometimes works for men and sometimes leads them to over-estimate their ability. In a 1996 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, Jonathan Howland wrote that nearly all drowning victims are male and that men consistently overestimate their ability to swim in threatening situations.

The study found that women consistently underestimate their ability to minimize their risk of failure.

Does this impact how men and women take risks in the workplace?

Tune into the next blog and find out some bizarre facts. Find out more

about Jeanne’ s ideas at www.martrain.org.

Tune in for the next blog to find out how our hormones and brains make men want to ‘fight or flee’ and women ‘puke and pee’ in risky situations!

See our website at www.martrain.org for free book chapter downloads and other diversity articles.

Jeanne Martinson, Diversity Strategist