The implementation of the Management of Change (MOC) can substantially change when one uses the Knowledge to Action framework. Needs-based action learning can be easier achieved when knowledge is transformed into action through the implementation of a strategic plan that discovers system changes to citizens and other stakeholders. This paper analyzed needs-based action learning from a knowledge-to-action framework approach, noticing similarities and differences under this framework as well as modifications necessary for my Management of Change plan.
Action learning bears a requirement that talk be converted to meaningful action that will address needs of the stakeholders in the problem-solving affair. Therefore, there are some similarities that are present with or without knowledge-to-action frameworks being applied. The presence of a complex problem requiring solution, diversity in the problem-solving team to empower diversity in solution-making, a commitment to learning as reflection on problem solving is an intricate part of the process as well as the creation of an environment that fosters curiosity, reflection and deep inquiry (Freedman & Leonard, 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Nonetheless, a critical difference with the application of the knowledge-to-action framework is the requirement to convert talk into action. This embodies the entire process of applying discussion items and resolutions to real-life situation (Leonard & Freedman, 2013). Needless to say, it is necessary then that the application of the knowledge-to-action requires practical solutions that could implemented with adequate consideration of challenges and impediments. One should be aware that the impact of knowledge-to-action framework actions is likely to be felt by the beneficiaries and stakeholders of the proposed change (Kozubska & MacKenzie, 2012).
Applying the KTA framework realizes that the implementation of any proposed change will be riddled with challenges. Application of KTA frameworks in the implementation of evidence-based practice in healthcare is an example of a MOC plan that experienced numerous complex and multi-faceted challenges. As a result, it is necessary that the KTA framework makes use of identification and articulation of problems within the MOC plan that address the heart of issues in needs-based action learning.
Equity theory and expectancy theory explain a motivation system in which expectancy theory shows the expectation of the employee to consciously receive reward for effort, while equity theory shows their expectation to receive rewards equitably through the quality of work put in (Renko, Kroeck, & Bullough, 2012). As such, the organization in advancing action-based learning can take knowledge in this area, specifically cognitive indicators to provide employees with rewards, thereby motivating them. On the other hand, equitable methods of reward need to be developed as under-rewarding or over-rewarding could cause employee distress. As a result, a state of equilibrium needs to be established so that employees remain productive even after rewards are applied.
Applying the KTA framework approach, it is necessary that an evaluation of the current practices in action learning be evaluated. Is the action learning needs-based, and to what extent is needs-consideration implemented within action learning? The answer to this question aids with the collection of adequate knowledge and data towards achieving the first phase of the framework requirement. Moreover, it would be extremely beneficial in finding an existing place of application for needs-based learning to identify unique situational circumstances that influence effective action learning based on individual needs (Leonard & Marquardt, 2010). Thereafter, the second phase of the framework can be applied, that is replicating the knowledge collected from successful action learning programs into a wider scale considering different demographic factors including culture sensitivity (Marquardt, Leonard, Freedman, & Hill, 2009).
As a result, the project may experience changes in terms of cultural constitution of the problem-solving team, the inclusion of a wider team of consultants to reduce the required time for research-based activities as well as a fixed timeline of three months to conclude the knowledge acquisition process. Moreover, employees will be rewarded based on both equitable principles and the reasonable expectation that they had on taking the job. After this, the knowledge to action conversion can begin so that collected information from the ground can be turned to meaningful policy application for the benefit of stakeholders.
References
Freedman, A., & Leonard, H. (2013). Leading organizational change using action learning: What leadersh should know before committing to a consulting contract. Reston, VA: Learning Thru Action Press.
Kozubska, J., & MacKenzie, B. (2012). Differences and impacts through action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2) , 145-164.
Leonard, H. S., & Marquardt, M. J. (2010). The evidence for the effectiveness of action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7(2) , 121-136.
Leonard, H., & Freedman, A. (2013). Great solutions through action learning: success every time. Reston, VA: Learning Thru Action Press.
Marquardt, M. J., Leonard, H. S., Freedman, A. M., & Hill, C. C. (2009). The evidence for the effectiveness of action learning. In M. J. Marquardt, H. S. Leonard, A. M. Freedman, & C. C. Hill, Action learning for developing leaders and organizations: Principles, strategies, and cases (pp. 205-240). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Renko, M., Kroeck, K. G., & Bullough, A. (2012). Expectancy theory and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(3) , 667-684.
