BOBIP — Bringing Out the Best in People
The importance of a relational cognition-based method to accelerate individual and collective learning.
BOBIP — Bringing Out the Best in People
Evelien Verschroeven
1. Introduction
1.2. Purpose, mission and scope of BOBIP
2. What makes BOBIP different?
3. Concept
3.1. Relationship
3.2. Relational Models
3.3. Co-determination
4. Distinctive rationale of BOBIP in General
4.1 What is really (really!) new regarding human behavior science?
4.2. The danger of models: the make things look simple…
4.2.1. How we think organizations work versus how they work in reality: Relating by transactional systems
4.2.2. How we think organizations work: Relating by transactional systems
4.2.3 What happens in reality? Trans — acting by relational systems or organism
4.3 Relation and trust
4.4. What makes a group more than the result of individual initiative, and the source of individual initiative? And how can we “build this collective” in each individual?
4.4.1. What is wrong with the existing learning communities?
4.4.2. Conclusion
4.5. “Too good to be true”.
5. Core of the application:
5.1. Four core questions
5.2. How is it mapped?
5.3. From an anthropological viewpoint:
5.4. Conclusion: What is being mapped, discussed, and stimulated?
5.4.1 What do we mean by “relating” in BOBIP
5.4.2 What is mapped?
5.4.3 Technology
6. Action in steps:
6.1. Measurement
6.2. Gathering & Analyzing Data
6.3. Survey
6.4. Analog semi-structured relational conversation protocol
1. Introduction
“Keeping learners in their power and light during and after a learning track, is not the same as getting them through the next step in the track a live.”
Why do people think that organizations are inhuman, not because they are not empathetic or authentic or trustworthy? It is because people feel they are not logically organized.
The critical fail factor: “The average quality of the connection between any socio-transactional environment and the people in it is rated at 6.7. The consequence is that the environment cannot ask for the exceptional and sustained favors, efforts, or commitments that define personal success, collective success, and success for the environment in the marketplace.”
What is lacking in educational programs and communities is an overview and collective management of the continually changing inside and outside commitments of participating members, which jeopardizes their quality, outcomes, and sustainability. (Gert Biesta)
The BOBIP application helps learners to choose their usual and especially extraordinary commitments as best as possible and to continuously calibrate them regarding:
• practical learning challenges (e.g. prioritization, effort, persistence, openness…),
• relationships inside and outside the learning environment (e.g. distance from coach and fellow students, openness to sources outside the environment, willingness to compromise with technology, identification with the program, attitude to subgroups of others…)
• A correct definition of individual and collective learning success (e.g. obtaining a diploma, personal growth, networking, learning together with others…)
It is about exceptional behavior.
We create pathways for learners to commit to more than they are and can. We connect the thought processes of multiple individuals (“mass-relating”) to create synergies and collective and durable progress, cohesion and identity formation. The legitimacy to do so, is built by connecting people to their own highest source of authority and ownership in the learning environment, whatever that may be.
1.2. Purpose, mission, and scope of BOBIP
The purpose of BOBIP is to get the best out of people in a challenging environment in which they have or have to/want to take a role, but sometimes risk getting lost, and to let them start with themselves, every day and after every situation again.
We focus on strengthening the domain of “learning and knowledge”, and the importance of better inbound and outbound creation and sharing across time, people, and silos. Our Scope is on learning environments, project environments, education, or in ongoing operational environments (knowledge hoarding or -knowledge management).
The aim is to give people the feeling or to have them maintain that they are at their best or best possible in terms of knowledge and skills, alone and together with others, on their own or within a specific development process.
The focus is thus initially on individual self-reflection where the community- or group-wide application seeks added value and synergy for each individual in similar reflections by a larger number of individuals collaborating directly or indirectly with each other, or even in other environments in which BOBIP is used.
The strength of the application is the logical scoping, structure, and scalability of the guiding reflection and suggestion protocols.
Although BOBIP can develop two-way data and action links, it is a priori not active in
• measuring passive employee satisfaction/intentions within the environment (so what? now what? then what?), but only in real active employee involvement and ownership, especially with regard to information and knowledge sharing, and working method innovation
• the objective movements of the individual in the environment itself but only in the reported and managed subjective perception of self-return around movements that the individual wants to report, and possibly share with peers
• Motivational and forced change management towards the known and accepted better but also difficult or uncertain behavioral options, but only in creating the natural relational and self-relational conditions in a given situation or personal position, which always(!) leads to a greater natural commitment, involvement, and ownership.
Figure 1 — Scope and contribution of BOBIP to effective empowered self-management and balancing in professional learning/knowledge environments
It is important here that a justified positive perception leads to more knowledge sharing/growth and performance responsibility, and a negative perception to individual or social regulation in order not to delay or even jeopardize the knowledge sharing/learning process[1].
Result for people and organization: the feeling and tangible proof of “bringing out the best in people”
2. What makes BOBIP different?
The main difference with other methods is that the BOBIP method is not only based on the individual or on a relationship between 2 individuals but focuses on the relationship between the individual and the group (R).
Often people are limited to their role/tasks /responsibilities within the context. People in a context are reduced to the roles/tasks they do in that context.
With the meta-process, we take the individuals out of the context. From that new outside vision, we start a conversation with them about the context/ environment. When you get information about the answers of others, you start to think more thoughtfully about yourself. So instead of focusing on inside-out processes, we focus on outside-in processes.
We will “humanize” the learning platforms with a level of engagement. This is done by introducing a meta-process, which elevates the connections into relationships. This can frighten some people because we use humanize and digital platforms together in one phrase and on top of this we speak about metaprocess.
• Steps are self-reflection, through ongoing conversations with a neutral authority
• Matching of commitments (positioning)
We embrace ambiguity because the local context influences it.
During the ongoing conversations, we talk about the intentional behavior of the individual. These are not factual behaviors. To convert an intention into factual behavior depends on the context and on the others.
When the relational strength grows the intentions will transform more into real behavior and the cohesion will be better.
A major advantage is that little or no basic information (data) is required to get started. This is due to the extensive self-consistent and fluid navigation built-in cognitive logic and symbolism and to the app’s ability to reconstruct the relevant reality with users.
The authority towards the user lies in the sense of control over the path of the self-empowering conversation, and in the targeted provision of information from other users (anonymous or not). The impact of change in behavior on the part of the individual and the environment can thus be estimated realistically and discussed in a structured non-manipulative manner.
The organization should not purchase new technology. We work within the interaction interfaces of existing functions and modules (independent of but integrated into e.g. the chat function, the onboarding, the user profiling, the project spaces, and the evaluation forms…)
The latter has the advantage that:
• Easy extension and links to other self-/people-empowerment and self-/people-management solutions and automated functions
• No pressure from real-time operational data, but benefit from overtime (“ongoing”) self-collected relational data, position history, and forward-looking commitments
• Personal spin-off/spill-over effects. People also go through mediation
· less adherence to their assigned or expected roles
· Maintain better contact with each other after termination and in other projects.
3. Concept
3.1. Relationship
An individual constructs the world in personally distinguishable units or chunks of meaning (Kelly 1995; Duck 1994). The relationship with another self is not a natural element, but something that takes on meaning and existence through storytellers, observers and modes of action, including discourse. (Duck, 1994)
That outsiders notice, construct, describe and formalize a relationship between two persons by labeling their perceptions is the human tendency to create and build a personal order from their environment. These are formalized into social order or culture that are practiced or pursued by large groups of people.
The study of personal relationships is therefore only partly psychological (discovering the means by which individuals construct their relationships in their own minds). The study is also sociological (how are social orders constructed and how are they constructed from the personal order.). It is also a communicative effort, which focuses on understanding the means of expressiveness and how personal and conventional symbols are used to improvise yet create the relationship.
A person who violates an important relationship experiences emotions that motivate him to restore that relationship. Emotions are essential to maintaining social relationships. Optimistic and misleading cognitive biases and heuristics, hyperbolic discounting, and the covert nature of many social sanctions would make it virtually impossible for people to learn reliably, or make consistently reflective decisions to act in accordance with their long-term relational interests (Fiske, 2002).
3.2. Relational Models[2]
We observe 4 innate relational structures, which are deployed in different ways in different cultures (context, grade,…). By this we mean that they are open-ended and complemented by congruent socially transmitted complements. They are cognitively modular but modifiable modes of interacting. These 4 elementary structures structure most social actions, thoughts, and motivations.
4 elementary Relational Structures:
1. The Communal Sharing (CS)
This elemental structure can take the form of an interaction of a dyad, a group, or an ‘imagined community’ (Anderson, 1983) that never all come together and do not know the identity of everyone else. This is called “R”. Motivation is partly determined by what people have in common.
Everyone
• shares partial relationships with many primary or reference groups.
• has relationships (based on what they have in common) that are less intense and more limited in meaning.
Some of these “equivalence sets” are fully contained subsets of broader CS groups; others just cross each other
2. The Authority Ranking (AR)
The Authority Ranking (AR) structure bases sociality on asymmetric differences. It is typically transitive and linearly ordered.
3. The Equality Matching (EM)
The Equality Matching (EM) structure builds relationships according to additive interval differences. An even balance is used as the reference point. These reference points are advanced by socially transmitted prototypes, precedents, and principles. In order to act or interpret the actions of others, people need these “references”. In this way, it is structured, and completed, and it is specified how and when and with regard to whom the EM applies. The EM and the references complement and fit together to provide a clear model for coordinating, generating, interpreting, evaluating, and motivating concerted action.
4. Market pricing (MP)
The last basic structure is Market Pricing (MP). It organizes interaction, by referring to ratios or rates. It provides cultural coordination tools such as prices, wages, taxes, efficiency calculations, and cost-benefit analyses. Money is a common medium for MP. ( transactional)
From a meta-level, these 4 elementary structures are equivalent and operate in a modus operandi. We can see them as in parallel and between them there are fast iterations. These iterations can be observed during the interviews especially when the neutral external authority starts with sharing information about “R”, the (imaginary)group as a whole).
3.3. Co-determination[3]
Motivation and achievement influence each other in a reciprocal manner over time (Huang, 2011; Marsh &Craven, 2006; Marsh & Martin, 2011; Mölleretal., 2009). Further insights into the nature of the relationship are currently lacking; features such as the direction of causality, behavioral mediating pathways, possible effect of the time scale, and generalizations to different motivation constructs and population groups are currently not well understood.
This figure is more of a descriptive meta-theory of framework than a predictive theory. Considers entire learn/activity system (including classes, schools, etc.) beyond just one actor or user. Accounts for environment, history of the person, culture, role of the artifact, motivations, complexity of real life action, etc….
BOBIP takes a large part of this framework into consideration, look at the different influences or factors on achievement and motivation. Like this model, BOBIP does not refer to self-determination but to co-determination.
Bandura’s social-cognitive theory also emphasizes the reciprocity of the interactions between behavioral, environmental and personal factors (Bandura, 1997). External factors are important for a full causal understanding of the interactions between motivation and performance. Moreover, they offer a starting point for interventions that improve motivation, performance or both.
4. Distinctive rationale of BOBIP in General
4.1 What is really (really!) new regarding human behavior science?
It seems difficult to imagine that more success factors can play a role in successful knowledge/learning performance than:
1. the right community of people with the right initial mindset and motivation, and a normal capacity for self-reflection;
2. the right knowledge/learning material/sources;
3. the right well-designed transactional and interactional, functional, and social platform.
In the last 20 years, by promoting more and more one-way (vs. bi-directional) and step-by-step (vs. boundary tension) progress with digital tech, people themselves have caused things to slow down because “everything can and will change every moment: intentions, goals, teams, effort, success, relationships”
The fundamental mistake of thinking and acting is to believe that Relationship and Sustainable Success is the same as, or the outcome of, the process of putting people together and working in an open and motivated team.
Science shows that relationship, enhancing the effort, output, and sustainability of collaboration and relationships across collaboration is a separate process for which busy people today do not have the time, the eye, nor the information and scalable individual communication protocols.
Exceptional efforts, and lasting commitments apart from and across acute situations, relationships, and environments are not forthcoming… with the result that we perceive chaos.
The article[5] outlines such a very limited model, which is even dangerous because it incorrectly assigns achievement effects to motivation, and vice versa. As a result, we overstimulate the wrong factors, to no avail.
This model misses two big interdependent factors: relational distances and ownership (defined e.g. as “responsibility-driven exceptional efforts”). All four factors are interdependent but not automatically related.
E.g. there can be a change in ownership based on decreasing relational distances, which without a change in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, can explain large portions of variance in achievement. In the last 20 years, we have given way too much credit to motivational theories and motivation in explaining performance. Most motivational studies are theoretically and empirically insufficiently founded and structurally flawed. Our behaviors and successes do not all, and not even largely stem from a pink-colored pool of happy, coached, belief and really-want based, and cheered motivation. That is a naive view of achievement which most of the time is a serious and planned affair together with others, often in the absence of motivation or with motivation in a subordinate or consequential role, rather than a leading role.
If motivation was the key factor of success we would all formally be Olympians. Most motivation does not arrive anywhere and lasts as long as a new inspiring social media post. There is a big gap between a “motivational mindset” and a “mind that is set to perform”
In short, there is the motivation to do something well or to achieve a very good result, in the context of:
• the portfolio of motivations (~ distances) one has towards, and positions one takes towards other activities and goals;
• Sustainability/commitment of motivation to take and maintain a responsible relational position under changes by third parties in task, project, environment, or in the portfolio environment;
• Motivation towards and responsible position in stable relationships despite changing motivation towards and positions in tasks, projects, and teams.
That success consists of those three factors is a natural but wrong assumption, even an assumption that does not make the marketing of BOBIP easy unless through compelling and tangible use and business cases (see the section below: “too good to be true”).
4.2. The danger of models: They make things look simple…
To make complex situations understandable, we try as humans, to put processes, knowledge, and systems into visuals, models, frameworks, matrices etc… At best, these models are simplifications of reality and a stepping stone to a deeper understanding of the whole. But sometimes they are just too simple and too one-sided and they go awry. Yet they remain the common good.
4.2.1. How we think organizations work versus how they work in reality: Relating by transactional systems
One of these widely used models is that of an organization system.
Indeed, working together and learning together does not mean that there is a strong group, but neither does it mean that it is clear what the best next action is together, what commitment each party is really willing to take at any time OUTSIDE the expected role and group environment, and can also take despite the best intention to take it.
This is the case when people see each other little, but was also true before that time, when people knew their familiar environment but did not have a complete overview of the mental position and real involvement of all people in close proximity, let alone they a little further around it.
Apart from the fact that all 3 elements mentioned are often a big “assumption” in reality, but already rightly and well the subject of many ongoing innovations, BOPIP plays on what is fundamentally lacking in the foregoing reasoning.
What is really needed to get a better grip on an exceptionally good outcome, a certain distinctive future for each individual and the group together, and therefore on the commitment that everyone is prepared to give NOW to the learning/knowledge development/exchange trajectory?
What is the missing 4th element? What have we missed in behavioral and motivational science, performance, economics, and value so far? And isn’t this missing 4th element why the other 3 have such a hard time maintaining, perfecting, and stabilizing themselves with a view to the future with a diverse, individualized, and polarized audience?
The answer to the question of why an innovation in those 3 domains is only an innovation for 6 months or 6 days…
From a relational perspective, “being lost and walking”, with the necessary negative consequences for quality, speed, and result, is not caused by the smart technology and education/coaching methods used in the environment, and thus not necessarily solved by both. evaluate and improve from within.
The focus is mainly on positioning the students/coaches differently and more responsibly with regard to all other actors and elements in the environment and outside it, and to make the problems and improvements disappear inside-in from the outside-out (through a more conscious co-use with internal and external) or to be solved (through co-operations and innovations with internal and external).
What is lacking until now?
It lacks the real-time monitored, managed, and orchestrated “portfolio of actual, desired, and transformed relational contracts around and towards special and mutual behavioral and result commitments
between
• any individual in the learning/knowledge environment, especially those in that environment who, at a given moment, do not seem to have an active role in a specifically planned or organized process
• and any form and personification of ownership to subjects, objects (including mental ones such as goals, dreams, operations…), and events within the environment”
4.2.2. How we think organizations work: Relating by transactional systems
We start with the organization and keep looking from its viewpoint and forget the viewpoint of other participants and affected. The organization offers personalized learning paths but in a kind of standard way. We push this “menu” towards the learners.
The learner and his/ her learning environments are “conditioned” to facilitate the core. Transactional relating or conditioning is widely used on learning platforms. We use conditioning through gaming (conditioning of the environment). Or they can earn badges, an example of a frequently used form of conditioning of the person. When we use conditioning to engage learners, we use a push strategy. Too much enabling makes the learner less active, in worse cases inactive and he/she risks being disengaged.
Does conditioning enable engagement? Yes it is. We create a certain value but what is the perceived value? Important to understand is that it is a push strategy. We are missing the learners’ experiences! they ask themself: “what is in for me?”
4.2.3 What happens in reality? Trans — acting by relational systems or organism
The visual above is more realistic. There is no clear division between organization and environment. The learner is very involved at times and sometimes much less or not at all. This creates a distance between the learner and the rest of the group.
Massification occurs, which causes alienation. The size of the learner is his/ her level of involvement. Eg. During an online workshop, you can be distracted by something, someone… That evening when you are in bed looking for sleep, you reflect. Which insights do you have? You can’t share it with others? Which information do you miss?
Because there is a relationship between the individual — the rest and the collective — the masses, massification occurs, which causes alienation. This always takes place in groups it is impossible to have a 1 on 1 relationship with everyone all the time.
In the visualization, you observe that the learner is outside & inside the organism. The learner gets more than a personalized menu. The personalized learning paths have different flavors and are made by the collective, through commitments.
This creates the real experienced value.
Let’s take a look at the above visual. On the right side, we see professional organizing. As people we try to make everything organized, we make structures and protocols. All the emphasis is on transactional relating within/ inside the system: conditioning.
But don’t forget, that too much organization will lead to less qualitative relations.
On the other side, we see the human organization, in other words, unstructured or chaotic.
eg in learning communities, everything is aligned with the goal. Communities strive for equality. To manage a community there are rules, a goal, … and of course, we see “the likes” ( conditioning!).
Through alignment and the focus on equality, you feed the alienation between people. Chaos reigns. The result: there are fewer outcomes, actions…
Contrary if you focus on equivalence and action, you will get outcomes. To do that we need to find a balance between structure and chaos. Through building structure in the unstructured, we can evolve into a human organizing system. The best of both…
4.3 Relation and trust
Most environments know trust but still don’t move forward…
Work with people versus work for people
The difference in the view of trust between transaction-focused people looks (and will always look!) at trust, relationship, and loyalty than relationship-focused people. Why behavioral loyalty beyond the temporary repetition of purchase/visit only stems from interactive relationships (work with people), not from exchange relationships (work for people).
In the transactional view — trust drives loyalty defined as repeat transaction and promotion (science proved that it only drives the intention of both, not the actual behavior!), — the effect being both direct and indirect through the relationship as an affective bond/commitment/personal relevance. For transactional people, — a relationship (defined as behavioral transaction repetition) follows after transactional loyalty intention is established — even though the temporary(!) repetition really stems from mere satisfaction with delivered value, not from loyalty intention. In the relational view — trust drives loyalty defined as volitional personal contribution behavior (!) to the other’s success
Trust is a symbolic and a posterior reported quality yet not an active ingredient of people working with and for each other, and moving forward:
“Enlightened egoists’’ are the people who can help others best. Those people who are able to solve other people’s problems by “largely ignoring” what these people themselves say about their problems and the way they themselves see/suggest out of them… This is also why you (with your problems) don’t need to trust me because I (the solution) don’t really need (much of) your information anyway to help you … and I don’t ask for any effort from you before I have proven that I can help you. So trust is of little or no importance to move forward. Moreover, I liked doing this for you so I don’t need to trust you that you will reciprocate this to me ( I think you can’t do anything useful for me but if you think you can… be my guest). Trust and reciprocity are NOWHERE in this entire equation, yet take my word: we are all moving forward here.
Where does this knowledge come from?
Psychologically, it has been established that people, including motivated people, are not constantly ‘present’ in an environment: they mentally withdraw from it for a moment or longer and then have to ‘recover their way’, and find the right moments and people and activities. to pick up on, renew the image of those people, and find the energy to tackle the next thing that presents itself with the right selection of people, often different from the previous selection, depending on but also regardless of the good quality of the relationship with those ‘previous’. While this may seem like a coping or regulation process, it is not.
Also in a world where we go from one beautiful experience or encounter to another, we quickly begin to understand that we cannot always hold onto a beautiful thing or someone for long…because we move on, have to, and are simply driven even if we don’t want to. Orientation and reorientation and choosing a position is therefore a continuous process, even in an environment where everything is going well and is well organized.
This constant mental migration process of navigating and recombining is never a fixed or habitual given, and a person simply does not have enough lasting intrinsic motivation, but also not enough information to do all of this optimally alone:
• “What am I doing and what are we doing it all for”;
• “What a lack of information”;
• “Glass ceiling: my behavior won’t make a difference”.
…and that regardless of how clear and benevolent the purpose, organization, people, and tools of an environment may be. At any given time, and at regular intervals, an individual’s “position” in such an environment may require cognitive affirmation, a re-establishment, or a meaningful change of direction. A conversation that he mainly needs to have with himself, but also needs authority and information. Without that honest self-talk a person will be content in an environment, nodding yes, really wanting…and yet not getting the best out of themselves and others in the next moment. Will a “Great, YES” 24 hours later be an “Okay, DON’T KNOW”…
The science of low personal distance from ownership, responsible position, and relational perspective taking has shown the logic why sincere, correct, and open functional and social relationships, and a positive attitude, are largely insufficient for optimal return and guaranteed continuity of the commitments of the individual in an environment. Nor do they provide a complete picture of the real “back of mind” dynamics that consciously but in the background play within and between individuals, causing individuals to hide behind an apparently positive and smooth-running behavior.
Positional psychology also explains most of our so-called cognitive biases: why we don’t do what they say, and why we don’t put in more effort for what certainly claims/says/appears to bring us more benefit. What does not empower us, we don’t trust, irrespective of the functional or economic utility it appears to bring.
First, before higher opt-in and committed cooperation, the one-to-ownership and ownership-to-one relational conditions need to be addressed and fulfilled.
In traditional people management environments based on needs and personal and social motivation, this lack of relational and positional insight into what is really going on everywhere leads to (too) many inexplicable factors why people do not give a really high priority to a trajectory or collaboration, sometimes suddenly drop out, trusting others but not working with them openly, isolating themselves from the group, starting to focus very narrowly, opening umbrellas when it comes to their responsibility, and the like.
According to science, almost all of these effects now appear to have a logical explanation and can be absorbed almost entirely by an additional individual approach. Given the great cost of failed knowledge and learning processes, the cost of an approach that tackles these issues is always profitable.
4.4. What makes a group more than the result of individual initiative, and the source of individual initiative? And how can we “build this collective” in each individual?[6]
“The transformation of existing knowledge can only come about by changing the differences and dependencies in existing social relations.”
Identity plays a key role in socio-cultural theories of learning (COP — Etienne Wigner). We learn facts about the world, but we also develop the ability to act in socially recognizable ways within that world.
“Knowing” turns into complex social processes involving, among other things, the acquisition of identities and reflecting both how a person sees the world and how the world sees the subject. In everyday life, it is therefore difficult and often unnecessary to determine where the sphere of the individual ends and where the sphere of the collective begins. Knowing and learning reflect the social contexts in which the person learns and uses his knowledge. Activities, tasks, functions, and insights are part of a broader system of relationships where a person joins a group of interdependent participants.
There is a tension between the differences and dependencies of the learner in the group. These learners are in the same group and practice more or less the same but have different backgrounds/experiences. It is not a homogeneous group. It is precisely these differences that make it possible to further complement each other’s tasks, resulting in a creation/improvisation. The dependence on each other develops because the participants/learners give each other premises that support knowledge creation in practice. This results in an expansion of the distributed knowledge, a production of new activities (implicit knowledge), and the common or shared perspective (shared knowledge) is continuously adapted.
“the learning processes (epistemology) take place in everyday practices. Knowledge is not an abstracted and detached mental calculation, but arises in the shared daily activities”
There is a mutual influence of context and action. Context refers to both the virtual context and the physical context. Moreover, the context consists of the relationships that the learner enters into.
Observations are focused on subjective and goal-directed actions. If one then starts to dissect knowledge tradition (collective construction of knowledge ), we see three parts that are strongly intertwined:
1. Collecting the content, substantive claims, and ideas. But also the metacognitive level, i.e. what is the history of the accumulated knowledge, what are the sources and how were they accumulated? (cognitive dimension)
2. how these ideas are communicated, which channels are used/ what technology is used (contextual/structural dimension)
3. How does the transfer of these ideas take place through social relations (relational dimension)
This is an actor-oriented and process-oriented perspective.
If we look at the digital world(s) from an anthropology point of view, it is actually about positioning the meanings they attach to the use of technology in a broader context of interconnected and overlapping social worlds.
In other words, how do you deal with technology (as an artifact)?
Man will introduce these new socio-technological artifacts, whether forced or chosen, and this affects several aspects:
• self-esteem
• The texture of human commitment (engagement)
• In everyday life
• Power in the community
The group does not exist without the individuals and the interactions between these individuals, which in turn influence the individuals and the formation of a group identity. The latter can be very variable. Unlike before, it is now possible to have a non-binary relationship with a group/community. People are members of different groups and the role (positioning?) also changes within the group.
The negative effects of overstructured learning platforms
Platforms are growing and will continue to grow, but you also see a lot of dropouts there. Perhaps because it is difficult to build relationships there, even if they ask to do peer reviews. (if you don’t do this you won’t get a certificate …. and then they just write something).
If you don’t offer the possibility for students to relate they ( the students) will organize this ( community) but probably only on their short-term goals (copying exams, clever plagiarism “collaboration”)
An imperfect platform that does not seem to be able to realize the original ambition is also the excuse for participants not to perform and still demand a positive end result (graduation): “By going digital they can’t beat me”.
4.4.1. What is wrong with the existing learning communities?
Especially if we look at the centralized learning communities, those that were implemented within an organization (institute or company), the first intention was to collect, distribute, and create knowledge, and this under supervision (control).
One thus restricts oneself to the logic of the organization in contradiction to the logic of “appropriating the community”, i.e. there is no group identity
. This 1-dimensional interpretation of community takes away all empirical richness and has the opposite effect on group bonding. And has the following effects:
• In function of efficiency, knowledge is standardized and distributed in a standardized manner. Knowledge is codified and thus made abstract. Contrary to what is desired (personalized learning paths), the “personal” and the possibility of attaching a personal and communal meaning to it are cut out. The learner is seen as a passive source.
• The technology as used today has a flaw that it cannot reflect the variety of verbal and non-verbal natural languages and personal focus.
• The Paradox of the Value of Centralized Communities.
• Certainly in bureaucratic organizations, administration and policy will ensure that an anti-learning attitude is established:
• Less knowledge is shared
• Knowledge is shared in underground communities, i.e. communities that the organization has no knowledge of.
Taking over the superficial features of a community, such as shared common values and identity construction, where the richness and complexity are lost. The interpretative flexibility of meaning-making is not taken into account. What remains is an abstraction detached from practice — an idealization.
4.4.2. Conclusion
The ideal of modern information and communication technology clashes with the reality of daily work practice because of the lack of social signals in the virtual space, the mandatory codification of knowledge, and the decentralized politics of the organization.
It is recognized that knowledge sharing is a complex matter that extends beyond the transfer of abstract knowledge. Relational thinking is the basis and we distinguish three relational properties:
• What differences do we see in the knowledge-sharing relationships
• What are the associated dependencies with the knowledge-sharing relationship?
• Once knowledge sharing has taken place, what changes do we find in these differences and dependencies?
4.5. “Too good to be true”.
Can this really be done digitally and without start data?
The purpose of BOBIP is not anthropomorphism, trying to give a soul to a chatbot. But to share the movements of others to reflect the individual. The less BOBIP presents itself as a “smart” or “similar” human but more as a connection logic, the higher the credibility.
“BOBIP will not wish to become your best friend, just be it…. for what it does for you”
…
5. Core of the application
5.1. Four core questions
The “Return-on-Me” core questions, their overlaps, and the conversational way into them
1) Do you feel that your learning capacity is being used 100% well?
2) Do you feel that your knowledge is used 100% in the organization?
3) How much of your time are you devoted to the organization that yields little or nothing? (attendance at certain meetings)
4) How clear do you have a view of your path within the company/learning/knowledge-sharing environment?
Under each question is a structure of relevant in-depth topics through which different fields of HR, self-coaching, supervision, leadership, and strategy are navigated, and we can therefore speak of a multidisciplinary self-/joint responsibility that is stimulated and activated.
By questioning individuals about their own objective (= subjective) experienced realities, we get different images of the undocumented reality. It is important that we do not link ourselves to documented processes but to the reality(s) of the people involved in these processes. (human-centered).
By means of conversation during a period, for example, 2 weekly interventions are held. The periodicity depends on the topics. This is to keep the conversation going and to be seen as a trusted conversation partner.
The output is a mapping of overtime and topic and is therefore dynamic. (This is in contrast to a survey asking all at once).
The questioning builds up knowledge about the group, the problem is discovered, the “why” of the problem is unraveled and a solution can be built.
The conversation happens with the individual and is tested/ checked with peers ( = R)
5.2. How is it mapped?
Through the questions, one gets an experienced reality, which one can then compare with the other experienced realities, and in this way, one gets a multiperspective view of the undocumented reality with consistent checks. Through these checks, the person learns to position himself in relation to peers and through which he/she is triggered to adjust his/her behavior.
Provided the questions must use easy words so that the meaning of the words is clear how they are conceptually interpreted can differ.
5.3. From an anthropological viewpoint:
The core is that we will ask employees 4 key questions. We will have these conversations regularly so that we build trust. We keep asking questions so that we can get a picture of each employee’s experienced reality. Some questions are asked again at a certain periodicity.
By building consistency in the checks and through diplomacy, a multi-perspective or emic image of the group is formed. This is the output, which can be seen as a cocktail of the different realities experienced.
This seems to me to be a real participatory observation/intervention.
5.4. Conclusion: What is being mapped discussed and stimulated?
5.4.1 What do we mean by “relating” in BOBIP
In BOBIP/M “relating” is
• NOT so much about a structural alignment approach of insiders: adopting a systemic network view to understand, manage, and synchronically align anticipated relations, expectations, roles, and interdependencies, in circles of connected relationships
• but about a peripheral circumventing goodwill approach of outsiders: adopting a systemic approach to relational communication that potentially reduces the distance to ownership of potentially any, even unconnected, actor inside or outside the environment, and changes people’s commitment position in an environment (rather than network) to an exceptional and exceptionally responsible one, even if only for the time needed until structural changes in the entire set of existing inter-relationships naturally start to take effect.
5.4.2 What is mapped?
• How someone stands in the whole: the mental distance between people and other people or objects e.g. assignment, meetings, test…. This translates into bias (+ or -) towards those subjects and objects and influences better adoption, acceptance, fairness, commitment, cooperation, promotion
• The relational positioning on 4 levels: the extent of the image someone has and the goodwill or responsibility someone takes or can be asked to take towards situations, people, environment, AND themselves. This translates into extra exceptional behavior on and off the collaboration platform
• The chance that a change will take place or can be requested in distance or relational position. That probability consists of relationship success positivity between actors, relationship change motivation, and the energy to act together vs. as individuals.
Diplomacy is taking place around committed behavioral change. This should then be about self-persuasion for more knowledge sharing or knowledge creation within the company. Problems arise in the surveys (current and future).
5.4.3 Technology
Technology is not just here to automate primary tasks and let humans do the fun and important part. People are bad at following up relationally on their engagement and seeing who and how to mix the right people at the right moment in the right capacity around concrete (sub)subjects, objects, and steps that optimally serve individual and collective purposes…
If anything is missed from edtech it is the adaptation of the course organization to the changed/-ing relational dynamics between students and students, coaches, university, future, dreams, family, success, course topic relevance…
Moreover, many ed-tech enthusiasts [7]believe that:
• CONTENT = MEANING … a truly false assumption
• AI can objectively grade reports/content
• AI is not intelligent and the language model just mirrors the training set, it doesn’t understand the words. We need to keep this in mind. There is no link (yet) to the logic engine. It can give us hallucinations
About AI and Large language models, I like to refer to Markus Bernhardt PhD[8]. He breaks down how large language models are built and explains why hallucinations in AI tools like Chat GPT will continue to occur.
There is no link (yet) to the logic engine. But it is good in programming? Yes, but programming is just another language.
The reality has limitations and this bug we can’t solve. It doesn’t do logic.
He also reveals how learning/ training professionals can leverage a deeper understanding of generative AI’s limitations to drive more meaningful conversations with AI suppliers and vendors that go beyond the hype. I think that BOBIP can be one of the tools to help those professionals.
A promising avenue, in research, is pairing a language engine with a logic engine. Merging statistical, pattern-driven reasoning with symbolic, rule-based logic demands meticulous planning. Moreover, preserving the transparency and user-friendliness of the resultant system is of utmost importance.
6. Action in steps
6.1. Measurement
How to measure motivation
Fulmer and Frijters (2009,p. 228) in their critique of how motivation is measured in educational psychology also made the point that “self-report measures confound the measurement of motivation with other variables, such as ability and attention.”
It is most fruitful to measure subjective and objective measures of quantity and quality of learning (and use triangulation of methods, as strongly suggested by Scheiter et al., 2020) and compare their effects on academic achievement.
6.2. Gathering & Analyzing Data
Gathering of the data
• Group presentation for the students: introduction of the researcher and the research
• Quantitative data obtained from the learning platform to measure behavior. (beginning and the end)
• Quantitative survey with Likert scale ( beginning and the end)
• Qualitative semi-structured interviews *3 during 15 weeks via google meet recorded
• Analyzing the data
• The obtained data from all the quantitative surveys will be used as input for the interviews.
• The quantitative end measurement will be compared with the quantitative zero meeting (
• The recorded interviews, are analyzed and broken down in snippets ( small qualitative parts of data)
• This data is used to optimize the code
Quantitative behavior
We measure exceptional behavior. The nature of the data is discussed with the teacher/trainer and also requested via the teacher/trainer. Normally these are data they can get out of the learning platform. They relate to the following data:
Exceptional Behavior zero meeting
• How often to log in during the weekend
• Grade
• Participation activities
• Hand in on time
• Attendance in classes
• Time spent on the learning platform
6.3. Survey
The survey consists of 40 Likert scale questions, which are filled in individually.
First of all, we have some that can be reduced to the 4 basic questions:
1. Me as my coach: good use of my time alone and with others (Do what I like)
2. Me as my manager: good use of my expertise alone and with others (Do what I am good at)
3. Me as my leader: good use of my curiosity alone and with others ( learning desire and abilities)
4. Me as my Human Resource: good use of my future alone and with others ( contribution and potential)
The other questions can be divided into 5 categories. Each category measures one of the following concepts:
1. Overall satisfaction
2. Involvement
3. Loyalty
4. Positional orientation: clarity or lack of clarity of your role/expectations decisions.
5. Positional motivation: willingness to think from the whole/take responsibility for the whole. Are you in the right place to give to the group?
6.4. Analog semi-structured relational conversation protocol
We plan for 3 or 4 interviews per student/learner and per involved teacher, coach, or support staff.
• Interviews are booked by students in an online calendar system during which they can share their concerns, expectations, and limitations surrounding the interview
• Interviews are taken by the researcher trained in R’s methods
• Each interview takes a maximum of 30 minutes
• Interviews are taken in Google Meet and are video and voice recorded for internal meta-processing, analysis, and expert peer-reviewing purposes only
• Interview content is strictly confidential
Each interview takes a semi-structured approach: navigating and stimulating student thoughts and meta-thoughts about themselves and the group moving forward along 5 key topical areas of conversation
1. Introduction: Who are you and what do you see versus who is R and what does R see?
2. Consideration: Your relationship with the institute/organization and how to improve it?
3. Implication: The consequences of your thoughts and intended actions for yourself and all others
4. Population: How unique are you and your thoughts and behavior within the entire group?
5. Justification: What behaviors, discussions and engagements can and will make all of us move forward together, individually and as a collective?
Each of these topics has structured sub-themes.
The interviewer uses trigger questions to facilitate students to formulate their thoughts:
• What is remarkable?
• What can be improved?
• What should not be done?
• What else could be done?
• Do people work across walls?
• Does everyone stand firm?
• Is the group moving forward well?
• What is (getting) out of control?
The interviewer uses anonymized information from other interviews to make students validate, correct, or enhance that information. This is the key motivation why students participate: to know what others think and meta-think about where the collective stands and should go.
From the conversations we build insight on the actions (e.g. searches, content sharing…), involvements (e.g. opt-ins, role taking…), engagements (e.g. conversations, thought elaborations…), and commitments (e.g. promises, invested resources…) students have brought additionally to the environment beyond the usual efforts for the course program to which R is added.
This tool is built by us and is a self-learning technology not based on big data but on the feedback of the users.
Footnotes
[1] Connection with article/ study https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jonathan-boymal-448b5870_activelearning-activity-6890848022813646848-ObLL/References
[2] (Relational Models Theory: A Contemporary Overview, edited by Nick Haslam, Taylor & Francis Group, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central,)
[3] Vu, T., Magis-Weinberg, L., Jansen, B.R.J. et al. Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda. Educ Psychol Rev (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09616-7
[4] a summary model of motivation-achievement interactions, capturing some of the commonalities within prominent theories of academic motivation. Blue boxes denote motivation constructs, green (dotted) arrows behavioral intermediaries (quality of learning and quantity of learning), and yellow boxes and arrows denote achievement-related constructs (flow and perceived performance). Gray arrows denote outside influences that are themselves not part of motivation-achievement interactions (e.g., cultural and social influences that affect both expectancies and values)
[5] bv https://www.kbs-frb.be/nl/Newsroom/Press-releases/2021/20210602AJVeranderwijs of https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2021/05/06/new-review-discusses-the-complex-reciprocal-relation-between-learning-and-motivation/
[6] “Building collectively”, as “building up as a collective”: all at the same time and along structured and orchestrated lines “building a collective”: collectively, socially, individually, privately loading the idea of what “collective” means Anthropology of knowledge/ ( Barth 2002 ) “points to people’s engagement with the world, through action” -> learning = empowerment
[7] …an extremely dangerous hypothesis
[8] https://www.td.org/atd-blog/beyond-the-hype-understanding-language-model-hallucinations
References
Baert, P., Morgan, M., & Ushiyama, R. (2021). Existence theory: Outline for a theory of social behaviour — Patrick Baert, Marcus Morgan, Rin Ushiyama, 2021. SAGE Journals. Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468795X21998247.
Blake, C. (2021). Motivation, feedback and mindsets in learning with EdTech. Eetn.eu. Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://eetn.eu/knowledge/detail/Motivation--feedback-and-mindsets-in-learning-with-EdTech.
Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation. (2021). 5 Steps for Building & Strengthening Students’ Networks [Ebook] (1st ed.). Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/5-steps-for-building-and-strengthening-students-networks/.
de Bruyckere, P. (2021). New review discusses the complex reciprocal relation between learning and motivation. From experience to meaning… Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2021/05/06/new-review-discusses-the-complex-reciprocal-relation-between-learning-and-motivation/.
Facer, K., & Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital technology and the futures of education — towards ‘non-stupid’ optimism. Unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377071.
Felstead, A., Gallie, D., Green, F., & Zhou, Y. (2010). Employee involvement, the quality of training and the learning environment: an individual level analysis. The International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 21(10), 1667–1688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.500489
Hardman, P. (2021). The surprising impact of the pandemic on university teachers & students …. Medium. Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://blog.aula.education/the-surprising-impact-of-the-pandemic-on-university-teachers-students-and-what-will-happen-next-6ba01b4efd9a.
Nick Haslam, Taylor & Francis Group, (2004) Relational Models Theory: A Contemporary Overview, edited by , 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central,
Hermans, O. (2019). Exploring the role of grounded relationship quality and loyal customer contribution in the satisfaction-loyalty chain in ongoing service relationships. Etda.libraries.psu.edu. Retrieved 20 June 2021, from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/18907.
Hermans, O., Brand Flu, M., & Van Hoof, H. (2021). R-Insights. R-intervention.com. Retrieved 20 June 2021, from https://r-intervention.com/r-insights/.
Hutchinson, C. (2021). How universities can make their e-learning courses better. Claned. Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://claned.com/problems-unis-face-with-online-learning/.
Teugels, J. (2021). Customer Satisfaction suffers a 41% decrease because the staff is one meager mood unit happier. | MarketCulture Academy. MarketCulture Academy. Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://marketculture.academy/blog/customer-satisfaction-suffers/.
Verschroeven, E. & Teugels, J. (2021). Bringing Out the Best In People/in Me (BOBI-P/-M). In T. Bastiaens (Ed.), Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning (pp. 566–571). United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 8, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/219710/.
Verschroeven, E. ( 2018–2023). Different blogs on the website about BOBIP & learntech Blog — Evelien Verschroeven
Webinar: Recovery through relationships — Christensen Institute. Christensen Institute. (2021). Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://www.christenseninstitute.org/multimedia/webinar-recovery-through-relationships/?.
Williamson, B. (2021). Google’s plans to bring AI to education make its dominance in classrooms more alarming. Fast Company. Retrieved 19 June 2021, from https://www.fastcompany.com/90641049/google-education-classroom-ai.
Acknowledgements
I collaborate and I am supported by the knowledge and insights of Olaf Hermans, Phd in relational cognition and positional psychology.
