Peeragogy: An Introduction (draft)

Peeragogy: What Is It?

Peeragogy was coined as a comparison to pedagogy. Pedagogy is a term that is often referred to in the context of educational environments and classrooms. Within the US, pedagogy often carries a hierarchical connotation where there is a teacher who disperses work and information to students who do what they are told. If we step back, we can see these hierarchical constructs occur outside the classrooms. They occur in business, volunteer organizations, families, churches, etc.

Peeragogy was coined to contrast the hierarchical approach. At its core is the idea of peer to peer learning. This too can occur in classrooms as well as businesses, volunteer organizations, families, churches, etc.

The key is that at their core both describe how individuals orient themselves to work together in groups to accomplish designated tasks. They just do so in very different ways.

Peeragogy: Why Is It Important

It is important to distinguish these different environments and approaches because the same words take on different meanings depending upon the context.

For example, think of the word teacher in a pedagogical context. How would the teacher act? What sorts of things would the teacher be doing? What are the behavioral expectations of students?

Now consider the word teacher in a peer to peer learning environment? How would the teacher act? What sorts of things would the teacher be doing? What are the behavioral expectations of students?

Within a pedagogical environment, we would expect there to be a designated teacher who provides information to students. The students should be working to understand what is being told to them by the teacher. Students would be expected to keep pace with the instructor and not move ahead or fall behind — regardless though the teacher will continue to move forward.

Within a peeragogical environment, we would expect the teacher to act more as a facilitator to make sure that the students are free to exchange information and ideas. Students may ask questions of the teacher and students. Students would move more or less at their own pace as they master topics.

If the significance of this still has not hit home, consider what would happen if a teacher with a pedagogical approach tries to teach students who are expecting a peeragogical method (and vice versa). The likelihood of confusion, anger and frustration is high because each person will think that they are acting as they are supposed to, they may even sense that the others also seem dedicated to progress, but in the end, together, they will find it difficult to work effectively together. They may communicate and seemingly agree on next steps only to find that their efforts are wasted. And that is because the environments are so different the words (and not just the word teacher) have different connotations.

Understanding and being conscious of these different environments is important and having a vocabulary that allows us to distinguish between them is the first critical step — hence the introduction of the term peeragogy as a comparison to pedagogy.

As mentioned earlier, these models influence other ways in which we interact. Businesses, volunteer organizations, families, churches and even sports teams can be approached in each of these ways. Because they involve different people, with different backgrounds and different expectations, commonly used terms like leader, team, teamwork can look very different. When the discrepancies are great and not understood, the result can be frustration.

The possibility of confusion is enhanced because consistent approaches may not be used within the same organizations or even by the same people with in that organization. Often people assume they are on the same page until it is too late. Things have gone badly, and people are confused as to why and are struggling to fix it. Making matters worse, they don’t even know what they are trying to fix and what broke.

I have experienced this first hand. Fortunately, two experiences happened less than 24 hours apart and I was quickly able to identify the issue.

The first experience was when I found out that Chivas USA won the MLS (Major League Soccer) Public Relations Department Award for the year. Chivas USA was only three years old at the time. I was involved in building their day of game PR staff. We started from scratch — from recruitment to training. It was a long process because we had to train and achieve baseline competencies in all positions and then we cross trained people so that we had depth at different positions and each person would have a better understanding of other things happening. As we grew, so did confidence. I worked hard to empower them. While I set up team assignments and coordinated things, they were empowered to be proactive, make recommendations, and fix things that seemed to be going wrong. Over time, we got to the point where the group would do other bigger games at different venues without me and not miss a beat. We had achieved a high level of trust even among the most skittish of venue officers. That the Chivas Public Relations Department won the award was a validation of the work we had done and how effective our team was.

After receiving this surprising news (I did not even know there was an award for this), I walked into my other job at a Japanese automaker the following day and soon found myself sitting in a conference room with my boss going through my yearly performance appraisal. Her major comment was that I was not a “team player”. I struggled to understand how she came to this conclusion. If anything, I had been told that I was too much of a team player in the past so hearing the complete opposite was disorientating. I asked to her to give examples and explain. Examples were few. An explanation was not forth coming.

But it hit me a little bit later when I was driving home. We were working from two different definitions of team. The Chivas definition was one in which all members were actively engage and empowered. We were all expected to be proactive problem solvers (and we had worked to give them the tools to be good problem solvers). We succeeded not just in building the team but our vision worked even relative to other teams around the league.

Her definition of team was a top down definition of team. While, within the organization, participation was encouraged, for her and others immediately around her, this was not their working definition. To test this, I took a big step back and I just followed orders. I sat quietly (not in a pouty way) but I did not offer suggestions, ideas or comments. If I did make any comments, I would just respond positively to what they said. Even though I understood the environment in which we were working and the expectations of our customers (they were all new to the area), I refrained from engaging too much. In some respects though it was easy because I had already learned that my thoughts were not welcomed — I had gotten to the point where my input largely consisted of (1) trying to summarize the best of their different proposals into another proposal so we could move forward and everyone would have some ownership of the final proposal and (2) indicating where they might run into an problem because, even though they did not want to hear it, I felt I had a moral obligation to raise the issue if things were going to run off the cliff. I would raise the issue and let it go knowing that I had done what I could. They would not listen (which was ok and their choice). I did not argue with them. I just pointed it out. Anyway, I stopped even doing this.

And here is the amazing thing. I was right. Incredibly right. Within a short period of time, I was praised for how much better I was doing, and they seemed almost surprised at how quickly I changed. (Understanding the issue was key to this.)

That these two things happened within 24 hours led me to the answer quickly, but I also need to note that people are not consistent with their use of terms like team. For example, the same people mentioned above, who wanted me to sit quietly, were furious when executives or upper management did not take their suggestions. They seemed to expect their suggestions to be “blessed” pointing to a peeragogical way of thinking. And the organization was peeragogical. If they understood how the organization worked, their ideas could have been implemented without executive approval in many cases if they talked to the affected groups. The affected groups would then have explained to those same executives what they were doing and why. In one way they seemed to have a peeragogical approach (they wanted their voices to be heard by those above them) but they were really still working with a hierarchical mindset (because they were looking for executive approval to force their ideas on others).

All of this can be confusing but understanding it is out there and trying to understand it is much better than being unaware and getting blindsided.


Peeragogy: Business and Peeragogy

I am going to turn to my experiences in business.

Frankly, if you are in business, you cannot afford to not understand peeragogy and how it works because it is the way that you can tap into and reap the benefits from your greatest asset — your employees.

And, your employees (for most if not all owners) is your competitive advantage.

You may be selling product comparable to your competitors. Your costs may be comparable. Your transportation costs — comparable. While you can make incremental improvements, there is one thing that will always make you different than your competitors and that is your workforce. Your employees. How well you utilize their talents. To what extent are they empowered. They can teach you. And they can teach others.

There can be a tendency in businesses to think of each person as an atom — a singular unit that contributes to the larger whole. In manufacturing environments (on a manufacturing line), each person/atom may have their output registered to make sure that they are “keeping up”.

That said, this is the type of thinking can really affect negatively the efficiencies and potential of the organization because people, like atoms, can be transformed into something else when around different atoms. Think of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Separate they are combustible gases. Together, as a molecule, they form water which is used to put out fires.

Still not clear? Take two people and a couch. Individually they cannot move the couch on their own. Only when they work together can they move the couch. If they work together well, they will be able to move the couch effectively and efficiently. So, when you have two people who work well together, you have the benefit of both of their talents separately AND you have the benefit (plus alpha) of things that they can do together that they could never do on their own. In a very real sense, 1 + 1 = 3 or = 4 or = 5.

By understanding peeragogy, you can increase your “alpha” without having to pay for additional headcount. You may also find your employees are happier and empowered which reduces sick time and turn over.

You can also think about this in terms of departments (and not just people). Working to develop feedback between departments can also reap huge benefits. When departments need to interact but have a silo/individual approach, misunderstandings can often develop, and frustration can build over time. One group may not understand that they are doing something that is making things more difficult for another group. In fact, it sometimes happens that the one group may be doing something thinking that it is HELPING the other group only to be shocked and puzzled when the other group responds to them, not with thankfulness, but with anger and frustration. Having departments talk to each other about the challenges they face and encouraging collective problem solving (not finger pointing) can have huge benefits. Even if the problems can’t be solved that that time, the departments will understand the larger issues and be more sympathetic (instead of frustrated). Additionally, there will be organizational alliances looking for solutions which can result in quicker identification and implementation.

And the craziest part? You can make these changes without spending a cent. You just need to change your thinking and language.


Peeragogy: Its Power Is Unlimited

You still may be wondering if it is really a big deal.

Before I go further though, I need to define “it” a bit better. “It” is the alpha that you tap into using a peeragogical approach.

“It” is the extra you get when you bring people together, that extra that you could not get if you had them working separately. It is the conversion of hydrogen and oxygen into water or the ability to move a couch. It is the alpha. And you get it without having to invest. It is what people will do naturally when you let them, and they have the platform.

Don’t believe me?

Well, today, examples are endless. Encarta, an on-line encyclopedia developed by Microsoft, was essentially done in by Wiki. Wiki relies on volunteer and contributors to write new entries, check entries for accuracy and make corrections. Wiki provides the platform and the “rules”, but others did the rest — at no pay.

There are other examples of the power of people working collectively in groups. More and more software is being developed by volunteers on their own time (open source). Examples of open sourced programs include Linux (operating system) and Handbrake (to convert video formats). People have collectively developed programs in which you can edit photos, edit video, and create animated videos. While it takes time to develop, many of these programs are becoming as good as their much more expensive counter parts and the open sourced programs are continuously updated by thousands of people and are free to others.

Just like Microsoft discovered with Encarta, regular software manufacturers are going to find it harder and harder to change enough to cover their development costs and to keep up with these communities.

That is not the point though. The point is that people will work together (even for free) to accomplish big things and they do. People are driven by the need to feel like they are valued and contributing. If you can tap into this, you will be doing well. This is your alpha. This is when your employees are coming in motivated and looking to make a difference.

Peeragogy: If It Is So Great, Why Have I Not Heard About This?

You may have heard elements of peeragogy picked up without the larger context or word to describe it. You may have heard of “servant leader” or “flat organizations”. These point to systems which may have peeragogical elements — the number of elements and success in implementation can vary widely.

Another example is kaizen. In true peeragogical fashion, a person in our peeragogy group mention kaizen which is the idea of “continuous improvement”. It was first introduced in a big way to the US from Japan in the 80’s in the auto industry. At the time the assembly lines of American auto makers would keep moving regardless. If there was a problem, the workers had to just keep going and the problems would be fixed at the end or at the dealership (or discovered by the customer later). The Japanese kaizen system allowed for the assembly line workers to stop the line so that problems could be fixed and addressed right away. This shifted the paradigm from a hierarchical model where the line kept moving and workers did their best to keep up without much of a voice or control as to the quality to a paradigm where the workers had a voice, input and were involved in problem solving right away. This is one of the ways in which Japanese were able to produce much higher quality cars at the time.

And, while you may see things that may point to peeragogy, it can sometimes be hard to implement in some organizations and with some people. There are several reasons for this.

Peeragogy: And Why Isn’t Everyone Doing This?

There are cultural and psychological reasons why peeragogy is not tapped into the extent to which it could be. (Yes, I understand cultural influences could be considered psychological but I will separate them for the purposes of this document.)

The key part is that much of what is happening, regardless of cultural or psychological origins, is happening at a subconscious level. We are not actively making choices and decisions. We are running on auto pilot with how we read situations and respond. This auto pilot works most of the time but, when it doesn’t, we are slow to recognize it and adjust effectively. Awareness of this autopilot processing is a huge first step. Instead of continuing on and getting more frustrated or angry, knowing that things may be going on under the surface and taking a step back (like I did in the example above with my manager) can get you to an understanding and constructive adjustment more quickly.

At the highest level, culture can be an obstacle. In the US, we tend to focus on the “the big one” — the one who stands out and that person is often the one who seems to have power. This was demonstrated in the Michigan Fish Test. The participants were shown an aquarium with 3 big fish, a couple smaller fish, some plants, snail and pebbles. US participants tended to notice the big fish in the aquarium, describe them in more detail while not noticing or paying less attention to the smaller fish or the environment. Japanese participants noticed the details of the environment and were less focused on the big fish. This cultural predisposition can influence how you read and respond to situations in groups. Some of this makes establishing a healthy peeragogical environment slightly more difficult. People who stand out (often the “take charge” type of people) are the ones who are considered more valuable. They are credited for their leadership. This more aggressive way of defining leadership often fits in better with a hierarchical approach. In peeragogical systems, there is a bit more equality with distributed power and influence. These are qualities that, by default, are more easily overlooked in US culture. (That said readers from other cultures may be confused or wondering why I have made some statements that I have. Things that they may understand implicitly may not be understood or observed here in the US.)

There is another issue with US culture and that is that we do not have a metaphor that jumps out when we explain peeragogy. Just saying “hierarchy”, for example, triggers several mental constructs which clarify what we are talking about and how things will be organized. Some examples include org charts and pyramids. At this point, similar constructs do not come to mind when using words to describe peeragogy. These metaphors or mental constructs can act as a guide to help us understand and assimilate additional information quickly and easily. So, if we understand that we are working within a hierarchy, we can use that to determine how to respond to new information or situations. Since there is no similar construct with peeragogy, finding common understanding and common ground can be more difficult to achieve and sustain. Additionally, since the hierarchical approach is so commonly and easily understood, people may also defer to it at times just out of convenience.

There are also personality differences. Some people embrace the hierarchy because they want to be at the top. In the DISC personality assessment, they are the D — that is how embedded it is. These people will do reasonably well in the hierarchical environment but struggle in a peeragogy environment. If you are thinking about integrating peeragogy into your company or organization, it is very likely that you will have a person or two who will struggle and may not be able to make the transition. They may be long term employees, but you need to be ready to move them or fire them. If they are not willing to change, you are probably losing talent who would thrive in the new environment, so it is not like you are just losing on one side of the equation. You may lose either way. The question is “which people do you want to retain?” and then making a commitment to make the changes you want and need to.

One other point, when someone is unwilling or unable to adapt, get them out of the situation and away from people who are working together as soon as possible. If you don’t, you may very well lose the people you need and end up with the person you don’t. They are like a poison and come in two types — one worse than the other, but both will get you if ignored. The first and worst are the people who need to dictate and direct people. They do not have the answers but act like they do. They are often unwilling to listen to others. The second poison is the person who just wants to do what they are told. They will wear away at a group over time, so you need to be aware of them. The key is that you need to know who may be resisting the efforts.

All that said, it is important to remember that I am not saying the person is a bad person. Yes, I understand I called them poison and they are in that situation. It does not make them bad. They are a mismatch for the environment and company. If your organization has been hierarchical, you have been losing people who prefer a peeragogical approach. Now you are shifting priorities. They will find another environment, a better fit, and be much happier in the long run. (One thing to note too is that, in peeragogy and business, there will be disagreements and these disagreements can be good. You don’t want to communicate that disagreeing is an issue. You don’t want to establish a group think situation. There are ways in which you can determine whether this is healthy disagreement and unhealthy. This is outside the scope of this specific document at this time.)

There are also very real psychological reasons why a peeragogical approach can be difficult for some people. First, it is often different and different is often considered uncomfortable. Most of us were conditioned with hierarchy in school. We grew up in schools that had the traditional teachers who imparted information to us. We also have different familial models (reference Lakoff) where there is the strict father model (hierarchical) and the nurturant parent model(peeragogical). Lakoff shows that these two models inform how people approach and discuss politics. That is how deeply embedded these models are and how much of the impact they have on us.

Moving from one model to the other will feel uncomfortable which often triggers the need to feel in control. This need for control, if moving from a peeragogical approach to a hierarchical approach, may help the transition. However, when moving from a hierarchical approach to the peeragogical approach, the need to control may cause some problems. A hierarchical approach gives someone a sense of control. Not only does this impose a structure on the situation, with the structure often comes a reporting procedure so work is divided. The divided work is then often divided more as a plan and timeline is established.

There are some well-known limitations to all this: the plans are never close to accurate and the business becomes silo driven as employees become focused on their particular area and become less concerned about the actual results. As they become disconnected with the end result, they lose appreciation for the impact they are having and morale declines (and so does productivity over time). Additionally, and significantly, the plan and timelines are also often constructed without the input of the key people — the people on the front lines who do the work. Management or those higher up think that they understand how things work so they focus, not just on what to do, but also how to do it without understanding key elements in the process. This can be a huge mistake. I have seen this first hand a several of times.

That said, it takes patience to work in a peeragogical environment. Some people feel more comfortable moving — even if they have not done the planning needed to be successful. Movement to them has its own value. In a peeragogical environment, sometimes we would spend 30 to 40% of the time we had planning. It is easy to get nervous, but the key is that when we started going (implementing the plan), we needed far less time to execute. There may have been glitches, but things often did not run off the tracks completely. There were frankly very few times where everything needed to stop for a massive cleanup because the planning time was also a time to educate all people involved in the process so they were aware of the issues. These things were discussed up front and understood so, not only was the plan more solid, there was a much better understanding of the issues at play when adjustments needed to be made.

Additionally, a peeragogical approach can feel a bit chaotic relative to a hierarchical approach. Org charts don’t mean as much because people in different parts of the company may have critical roles in moving things through. The most appropriate person is involved in decisions and discussions — their role is determined by what they can contribute to the project at that time and not so much their title. This can be a bit disorientating when people are trying to understand what is happening using a hierarchical mindset. They instinctively are looking for the leader of the group as designated on the org chart. Org charts in a peeragogy environment are often a bit more difficult to even find because they do not have as much significance as they do in other environments.

These are just some of the issues and challenges. If you will notice, however, none of these things involved significant investment in machinery. It does not involve intensive training. It can start simply with the words you use and how you use them.

And all that said, there are strong psychological reasons why peeragogy is so powerful. While there are challenges, when people feel empowered, they are productive and engaged. People also thrive in connecting. Remember the power of groups, even loosely organized volunteers, can compete with large well organized companies. Remember Wiki and Linux.

Peeragogy: What is next?

This was a super high-level overview and my take on the subject. The study of peeragogy can be very useful because it provides a framework for understanding. It may also provide tools such as patterns that may help people navigate through transition until they become more accustomed to it.

As time permits, I will add examples to demonstrate some of the things that I mentioned above.

I have been part of a peeragogy group that includes people from many different backgrounds from all over the world. There is a key group of people who have been involved (in no particular order): Joe Corneli, Charlotte Pierce, Charie Danoff and Paola Ricaurte Quijano. The group was brought together by Howard Rheingold. They may or may not agree with what I have written. My background and interest is pretty different from theirs. That said we all understand the power of peeragogy and hope that others will too.

Together, and with others, we completed a Peeragogy Handbook that is available here:
http://peeragogy.github.io/