Part I
"Building a Learning Organization for the 21st Century"
Presenter: CHARLOTTE ROBERTS, CO-AUTHOR of "THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE FIELDBOOK"
Thursday, December 10, 1998
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
Mahler Auditorium
A satellite conference produced by Epsilon Sigma Phi and The Georgia Center for Continuing Education
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia
About the Speaker
CHARLOTTE ROBERTS
Charlotte Roberts is an executive consultant, speaker and writer whose expertise focuses on organization sustainability and competitiveness. Ms. Roberts' work in systems thinking and sustainability helps clients to integrate the five disciplines in their organizations. She is co-author of The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization with Peter Senge and other colleagues. Ms. Roberts has hosted several national satellite broadcasts covering such topics as leadership, managing people and building and sustaining learning organizations.
She holds a B.A. in Education and a M.Ed. in Human Development from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro where she served on the faculty. She is a graduate from the Management Program at the Wharton School of Business and completed a one year program in Systems Dynamics and Policy Design taught by MIT faculty and the breakthrough program in Scenario Planning taught by the staff of Global Business Network in Berkeley.
She provides executive consultation, training and advising to numerous Fortune 100 and 500 companies around the world. She has served as the director of several non-profit educational and service Boards, currently serves on the Board of Trustees at Guilford College and is President of Blue Fire Partners, Inc.
Part III
Roberts' visuals from the December 10th Satellite Conference
Article 1
The Learning Organization
Making it Work
by
Charlotte M. Roberts
The Learning Circle, USA
A learning organization is a group of people who are committed to continuously improving their capacity to create their future. Their collective learning is vision driven. The concept of a learning organization grew from an observation of two types of organizations.
Making distinctions
One type of organization is reactive, always responding to what has just happened in their marketplace. The underlying belief in this type of organization is that life is made up of a series of events, some are good and some are bad. Mastery is learning how to deal with them gracefully and promptly without severely damaging important relationships.
When there is a mistake or crisis in the reactive organization, people quickly look to blame the person who committed the mistake or didn't act in time to prevent a crisis. It is easy to see how their experience of work and life in general is being acted upon, being a victim of circumstances. Therefore, vision is often a search to find out what "they" want us to do, to define what we don't want in our organizations and to copy what others in our industry or country are doing. Learning in this organization is adaptive, i.e. perceiving carefully what just happened and making the necessary changes.
The second type of organization is creative. The word "creative" has two meanings. First, the people in this organization are innovative and imaginative. More importantly, they are creating. The underlying belief in this organization is they can create their future. There will be false starts, mistakes, great results to celebrate, unexpected consequences and much learning along the way. When mistakes or unexpected events occur, these people do not try to place blame. Rather, they will ask themselves, "How did we cause this situation to occur?" Their contribution may be direct or indirect. If an organization can honestly pursue the answer to that question, they learn how to think differently about their work, the processes and their interactions. In addition, they add to their self-confidence. Learning is both adaptive and generative. Generative learning focuses on adding capacity which does not already exist in order to create the future. It is not adaptive learning to fix a current problem, though both types of learning are essential. In the creative organization, a vision answers four basic questions. First, what do we want to create for ourselves and people who have an interest in what we do? The answer comes out of pure aspiration, imagination and passion. Second, what do our customers envision for themselves in their market place? An organization exists in part to help their customers be successful in their endeavors. Third, what major forces are on the horizon which will influence our system? (Can we sense what wants to happen?) Fourth, what about our organization's character do we want to take with us into the future? Vision becomes an organizing force which guides the collective efforts of people and taps into each person's intrinsic motivation. They will be inspired to be a learner with their colleagues, customers, and other stakeholders.
Through observing and working with these types of organizations, we discovered a basic mental model which grounds organizational learning.
Creative Tension is the energy generated by reflective conversations about the desired future state for the organization and an earnest seeking of the truth of how things really work at this point in time. The energy from holding these two data points in our minds and hearts seeks resolution.
In a reactive organization, the resolution would probably be achieved by lowering the vision to be closer to current reality. People might say it's important to be practical and realistic.
In a creative organization, the resolution is in favor of the vision. There is a high tolerance for ambiguity, a practice of strategic planning as well as spontaneous innovation and a commitment to learning. The vision gives permission for people to seek and tell the truth about what really goes on. Reality is to be embraced, not covered over or reinterpreted. The vision also challenges people to continuously build their personal capacity and the capacity of the teams on which they work. Learning becomes a part of the philosophy and standard operating procedures of the organization.
As a group of people are able to achieve their vision, they most often widen their circle of consideration to include other members of the system and other systems. An organization might include their industry or the entire supply chair. As they learn more about their key success factors the members will expand their learning to include education, government, health care and citizens in the communities where they are located.
This expanded orientation is called Interdependent. The old Reactive or Creative orientation becomes irrelevant, as people begin to understand the nature of complex systems. In Reactive and Creative, an assumption is that people can be independent actors separate from their reality. Once they cross the line into Interdependence, they realize the connections, some loose and some tight, between themselves and other systems. This shift in thinking is a significant milestone in sustaining organizational learning.
The foundation
What are the key elements which must be present to get started building a learning culture? There are four planks in the foundation which help in diagnosing the organization's readiness, guide the beginning steps and must be present to sustain the culture. These four planks are of equal importance and have a reinforcing effect on each other.
The first is Aspiration. Does the organization believe and act as if they can create their future? Do they have hope? Are they self-confident? Have they experienced the vision creating process? Learning requires changes in behavior and a loss of entitlements and privileges. Without a compelling vision, people will not have the intrinsic motivation to make the changes and coach others.
The second plank is Conversation. What is the quality of conversation in meeting? What can be discussed and what is considered undiscussable? Are people able to articulate what they mean and the reasoning behind their ideas? High quality conversation is the pivot point for collective learning. To transfer an idea from one person to another in order to test and refine it or create something new, the idea must be shared. This conversation may be face to face, in a telephone conversation, in electronic mail or a written memo. The only avenue for transferring thought is conversation, in one form or another. How skilled are members in the art of conversation?
The third plank is Conceptualization. The ability to think together. This is a difficult task considering the diversity of nationalities, education, gender bias, and preferences. How skilled are the people in the organization in exploring different perception? How open-minded is the organization? Have members had any formal education in the art of thinking? If so, how do they employ those skills at work?
Collective conceptualization has two other strikes against its practice. Time. Meetings dedicated to thinking (not just deciding and acting) are not valued in some organizational cultures and yet, all of us have had the experience of wasting time late in re-work because the quality of thinking up front was inadequate.
The other strike is politics. Bill O'Brien, retired CEO of Hanover Insurance and a mentor, defines politics as the art of making an impression. If a group begins testing and refining their collective thinking, this will mean each person's thinking will be exposed. In some managerial culture, it is career suicide to point out the flaws in another's thinking. The group isn't able to improve the overall intelligence because of the need to protect the impression of a key manger. The roots of skilled incompetence are planted. Can people challenge each other's thinking in a respectful manner? Are people able to act in the best interest of the organization or forced into political gamesmanship?
The fourth plank is Relationships. This may be the new frontier: building and sustaining relationships. Organizations are not buildings or contracts. Organizations are a group of people who agree to coordinate actions to provide a product or service in exchange for income for themselves and others. Coordinated action requires skill in collaboration and trust in others. What is the quality of relationship between management and members? What is the quality of relationship between the organization and their customers? What has happened recently to alter those relationships?
Recent altering events may include a reduction in force. Though some times necessary, a RIF has a high expense in Relationships, even with those who are remaining to do the work. Both trust and the ability to coordinate action must be rebuilt. Other altering events in this era of consolidation may-be an acquisition or merger or a strategic alliance.
Where does the organization draw the boundaries? As an organization practices the disciplines of systems thinking and shared vision, they will naturally consider other relationships. A process flow diagram or a system dynamics model draws others into consideration. A vision must ask for whom are we creating.
As the capacity for building and sustaining relationships increases, the willingness to engage in Aspiration, Conversation and Conceptualization also increases.
Sustainability
The practice of organizational learning should come with a warning label: "Don't start an organizational learning effort unless you intend to sustain it." It engages the human spirit in a remarkable way. Perhaps this is because organizational learning is vision driven, asks people to contribute their best thinking, listens to people's inputs and values the individual as a whole person. To state this practice is dangerous if there is no intention or infrastructure to support the continued practice of collective learning. If the practice is ended, a deep cynicism is embedded in the relationships throughout the system.
There are a few companies who have practiced learning for a decade. Most organizations are beginners. What do we know about sustaining effort?
First, the concept of organizational learning must be understood as more than a set of tools, skills and techniques. It is important to learn and use the skills and tools but the effort cannot be sustained on this superficial base. To move the concept forward, add context. Why is it important that we learn how to learn together? What will we need to do differently? How can we support one another in the process? What organizational barriers to collective learning exist?
Out of this choice to belong is born sustainability. From a group of people who understand they are an organization of interdependent people who need to continuously improve their ability to think, interact and act in order to create the desired future for the systems in which they reside, inspired performance is possible.
Other elements of sustainability include the distribution of power and authority, the dissolution of privileges, the ability to give voice to the previously disenfranchised, and adaptive organizational design, a recognition of and willingness to participate in other webs of systems, and a blend of commitment, patience and bias for change.
Organizations must be consistent with the human nature of learning.
There are examples of learning organizations in this century which have many of the elements of sustainability. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, one of the grandfathers of systems thinking, just prior to his death was studying the world-wide postal delivery system as an example. More recently, Dee Hock, founder and CEO Emeritus, in his description of the evolution of VISA USA and VISA International, offers another example. Royal Dutch Shell is another example of an organization committed to collective learning.
At MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, there is a focus of five elements for sustainability: building capacity, research, practice, communication and governance.
Drawn into webs of systems
Organizational learning naturally draws the members into other webs of systems. People at work will be compelled to think about and interact with the education system. It's important this relationship not be driven by domination but by collaboration.
Gordon Brown, former dean of the MIT Sloan School of Engineering, said, "To be a great teacher is to be a prophet - for answering these questions allows learning to progress along a continuum to become a methodology for understanding and responding to our environment. Systems thinking can bridge the focus to the organization in its environment. The practice moves from individual teams to cross-team learning. Customers and suppliers are included.
The limitation in thinking about learning as a methodology for understanding is the concept of reality as something separate from the observer. People still separate themselves from their environment, the organization, and other people - an unnatural separation which as been encouraged by the formal education and management processes. The science of physics has shown that there is a relationship between the expectations of the observer and the environment's response, even beyond the saying, "You must believe it to see it." The observer is part of the environment being observed. The team member has influence on the behavior of others and the performance of the team.
Progress to the next way of thinking about learning is a paradox.
Organizational learning becomes the philosophy of how work is conducted. It becomes a part of the organization's genetic code - it is pervasive and natural. The paradox is how this systemic change occurs. It occurs on a personal level with each person in the organization recognizing that they belong to the larger system. They are not separate. And they make the choice to belong and to be connected.
In these times of economic fragility, unemployment, social and political unrest and changing paradigms, to make the choice to belong to an organization and its members is not a small or inconsequential choice. Much reflection goes into this choice.
You need to prepare young people not for today, but for 30 years into the future. Hopefully they can self-sustain their learning in adulthood. Educators form the workers of tomorrow.
When in the web of education, people will be drawn into the web of health care. Children need to be healthy to learn and their health care begins before birth. The pregnant woman's behavior influences the child's future ability to learn. Health care also includes adults accepting responsibility for their health, not depending on the medical system fixing their mistakes and carelessness.
Entering the web of health care will draw people into the web of social services and government. Workers who are displaced need support and re-training until they can get another job. Workers need to understand the systems which can help them support their extended families so their attention can easily be on the work at hand.
Entering the web of government draws people into learning societies, geographic economic areas, and perhaps world-wide sustainability.
Summary
The choice to develop organizational learning as part of the genetic code is a life-long journey. The journey is introspective and interpersonal. It requires people to willingly accept the frustrating, exciting, fulfilling, arduous task of making a difference in the systems in which they live. Being guided by and evolving vision of the future and as complete understanding of reality as possible, people set about doing great things.
The principles of organizational learning speak to the human spirit, encourage people to choose to belong rather than stand outside and complain, and help people to join others in making this a better world. Our children and grandchildren and beyond are calling us to engage in learning in their best interest. How can we turn a deaf ear?
THE END
Article 2
Charlotte Roberts shows that talk isn't cheap when it's aim at creating team results.
In fact, it's priceless.
Can We Talk? by Charlotte Roberts
Managers in Western corporations have received a lifetime of training in being forceful, articulate "advocates" and "problem solvers" - they know how to present and argue strongly for their views. But as people rise in the organization, they are forced to deal with more complex and interdependent issues, where no one individual knows the answer, and where the only viable option is for groups o informed and committed individuals-teams-to think together to arrive at new insights and purpose.
It's not enough, however, for a team to have a statement of purpose and values. Defining the work and its processes is critical, and yet can't stand alone. Even a clear strategy with tactics and responsibilities won't carry the day. And as a system, these elements are not enough.
No team effort to improve-let alone innovate-can succeed without the tools of productive conversation. The first tool to place in the hands of a team is the Ladder of Inference (see next page), which facilitates the team's collaboration and makes way for a diversity of opinions. It can also support individuals uncovering the logic and data behind their recommendations, strong opinions, or biases.
Individuals can "walk down" the ladder to clarify their assumptions, the origin of those assumptions, the origin of those assumptions, and the data or evidence, there is to back up their opinion. Data means anything that can be observed, read, or heard by another: a test result without interpretation, an accounting of an inventory, the numbers of responses to a question on a survey. By surfacing and testing their thinking prior to the team's meeting, individuals are more prepared to skillfully explain their ideas and reasoning on a chronic problem or on strategic choices. Individuals can begin creating a personal safety net by knowing what they think and the data behind it, especially when the culture has been intolerant of questions or disagreement.
To sharpen their thinking and possibly see a path for innovation, individuals can also start at the bottom of the ladder and "walk up" with the same data and discipline to come to conclusions that are different than what seems "obvious."
Dredging up the past
Most of us are blinded into seeing only certain data. We often interpret data in consistent patterns we have "learned" over time-"This data always means that."
The most difficult rung on the ladder is where assumptions are added. The good news is these assumptions come from past experience and help individuals quickly make sense of a situation: "Oh, I get it. This situation is like that situation, so I can assume these forces are at play. Now I know what's going on, and I know what to do." The bad news is these assumptions are mostly unconscious (they are so obvious) and become a formidable structure that must be checked for strength and validity.
These unconscious assumptions make the conclusions a given. For example, the amount of reported scrap in packaging has been going up with a dramatic increase in the last week. The cause is either the people or the process. The conclusion is to have the team leaders work more closely with the teams to get the department back on track. The action is to call a meeting of the team leaders and stress the urgency of the scrap problem. After all, the efficiency bonus points are at stake.
In this hypothetical situation, however, the problem turned out to be a change in accounting procedures that came from corporate headquarters. Scrap was now being reported by skew rather than product line, so the number of reports increased, not the amount of waste. (Just recall the last time your bank or credit card company reformatted their bill and the instructions that came with it to prevent such misunderstandings.)
The Ladder of Inference is also practiced by teams with the two skills of advocacy and inquiry in mind.
When balancing advocacy and inquiry, we lay out our reasoning and thinking, and then encourage others to challenge us. This is sometimes hard on our cherished opinions, which is one reason why it is so difficult to master. But the payoff comes in the more creative and insightful realizations that occur when people combine multiple perspectives.
I don't recommend inquiry alone. People almost always have a viewpoint to express, and it is important to express it in a context that allows you to learn more about others' views, while they learn more about yours. Nor do I recommend that you switch in rote fashion from an adamant assertion ("Here's what I say") to a question ("Now what do you say?") and back again. Balancing inquiry and advocacy means developing a variety of skills.
There are dysfunctional forms of advocacy and inquiry. For example, in many organizations, adroit people can skew the inquiry process by relentless "interrogating" without caring at all for the person being questioned. In the same vein, advocacy can feel like an inquisition if the advocate simply "dictates" his or her point of view, while refusing to make his or her reasoning process visible. People who are unwilling to expose their thinking may also withdraw into silence instead of taking the opportunity to learn through observation.
One of the most destructive conversational forms is "politicking," where there is no overt argument, just a relentless refusal to learn while giving the impression of balancing advocacy and inquiry.
It is said that each of us has a natural predilection toward either advocacy or inquiry. Debate and law teach advocacy; journalism and social work teach inquiry. Men are rewarded more for advocacy; women more for inquiry.
The balancing act
In team meetings, it's important to balance advocacy and inquiry. Too much of one can turn off the willingness to participate. When people are only advocating, no one is listening. When people are only inquiring, no knowledge is being shared. Since advocacy seems to come easier, a useful technique in the team's practice is to acknowledge inquiries, even keeping a count of the number of times someone inquires out of genuine curiosity, not competition.
There's one more tool that is essential to high-quality advocacy and inquiry: blinking words. Blinking words are words or phrases that have many possible interpretations, and a misunderstanding can lead to variation in action.
For example, if the team leader says to "move aggressively" on the problem, there are many possible interpretations. Someone may think to take independent action immediately. Another team member may think to do what he or she has always done with significantly more force. And another team member may think this is a veiled instruction to "do whatever is necessary" to get the problem solved, even if it means "slightly" breaking the rules or values. Organizations have thousands of blinking words: quality, empowerment, learning, prudent risk-taking, sense of urgency, respect and dignity, valuing differences, and so on. These words are only jargon until a shared understanding is reached.
1. Protocols for Improved Advocacy
Making your thinking process visible (walk up the Ladder of Inference slowly)