Organizations
are bombarded by the rate of information, technique, and technology change.
Bombarded. Organizational consultant and author Doug Smith believes it
all comes down to learning people in learning organizations.
In
speaking with Smith, LiNE Zine learned more about how learning people
in learning organizations achieve success in the new economy. By taking
a fresh look at a never-ending challenge, Smith gave us a “how to”
outline for success.
Change Velocity Is Not
the Only Challenging Force at Work
For
organizations to succeed, they must become learning organizations.
The markets in which we compete operate at too great a velocity of change
for any other conclusion to make sense. However, there are other forces
at work—very tight labor markets, business infrastructure shifting
to the web, the grip of irrational financial markets on the world, rapid
paced mergers, acquisitions, alliances, and more. Each force can provide
a premium, competitive advantage to people and organizations that learn
to perform while bombarded by the challenges of the new economy.
Even
in the face of forces continually shifting the new economy’s marketplace,
organizations that do not learn how to learn will fail.
They will fail to sense and respond to customers’ needs. They will fail
to develop strategies that succeed. They will fail to compete and cooperate
with other organizations, take advantage of technology, and to engage,
develop and retain talent. Organizations failing at learning will not
fully move into the information age where the measurement of an organization’s
worth is based on knowledge assets. Competitive, successful
organizations’ sin qua non equals: people who can and do, learn.
To
succeed, your organization must be a learning organization. A learning
organization not only learns, it continually learns how to learn.
To create learning organizations, you must have learning people.
People, like companies, will realize; that those who do not learn, and
learn how to learn, will increasingly become unemployable.
Knowledge of these organizational and individual challenges should be
tremendous motivation for people to learn and companies to invest in people’s
learning.
Learning Is Not Enough, You Must Learn Well
A
crucial disparity exists between the motivation to learn and the woefully
small amount of spending dedicated to creating the learning organization.
Statistics show that far less than 1% of total corporate budgets in the
U.S. are spent on learning. Is it because there is nothing new under the
sun to learn? No, I don’t think so. It results from top management’s deep-seated
belief that return on investment is just too low when it comes to organizational
learning programs. And, by the way, I agree with that assessment. Why?
I’ll tell you through two recent headlines:
“Close
to Four- Fifths of All Major Change and Learning Efforts Fail” and
“98%
of Adults Who Attend Training and Education Efforts Forget All but One
or Two Things Within Two Days of Leaving the Course”
I
wouldn’t want these kinds of results, would you? How is this happening?
Three Failure Sources
There
are three sources for learning failure. 1. There must be a clear, specific performance context for learning but
there rarely is one. In fact, organizations have grown very sloppy in
even understanding performance. 2. Learning efforts must have rigorous structure. They must be evaluated
and accompanied by work both before and after the session. 3. People who attend management education and training sessions must bring
a disciplined readiness to learn. There is just no room for casual consideration.
There
are ways to turn these failure sources around.
Make Performance a Context
for Learning
I
stubbornly stick to a longstanding grievance; I don’t believe learning
is the primary objective for most people in any organization. The primary
objective is performance. Let me repeat this: the primary objective
of organizations is performance, not learning. It makes sense!
Most people in organizations are motivated to learn when it makes a difference
in their performance and the performance of their organization.
I
recognize that some people enjoy learning for the sake of learning. These
people typically make up no more than five to ten percent of an organization.
The vast majority of your people will not sustain learning efforts, primarily
about learning, for learning’s sake. For this reason, all programs must
be structured to a specific performance context that relates to the organization’s
current performance challenges. All participants must be committed to
the specific performance goals that relate to the performance challenges
of the organization and the program. Finally, all results from the education
program must be measured directly by the difference made to the underlying
goals and performance challenges.
By contrast, though, most
management education programs run (at the convenience of the trainer)
to promote theories or ideas for their own sake. The programs offer only
a notion of the application for skills being taught, rarely demand participants
bring real challenges and make real commitments, and hardly ever directly
measure the education by the resulting performance.
Given
how critical the performance context is for learning, this foggy, activity-driven
reality is disturbing. There are both financial and non-financial aspects
of performance at work. Constituencies, such as customers, the people
of the enterprise, and the alliance partners, in addition to shareholders,
don't matter. Only a scant minority of organizations or people within
organizations can confidently create and achieve SMART, outcome-based
goals.
SMART=Specific, Measurable,
Aggressive, Relevant, Time-bound
SMART
outcome-based goals give the learning program structure through a performance
context. They answer questions like: ‘What is success?’ and ‘What is performance?’
Rigorous Structure Makes
for Better Learning
Do
you remember going to school? I do. At school, the learning effort was
structured, we were assessed from time to time, we were advised of what
we had achieved and learned, and where we could fill the gaps—what
a contrast to the edutainment and one-time events of most management education.
Instead of assessing the impact of the program on the learners, we actually
ask for an assessment of the instructors. Why don’t we ask learners to
demonstrate what they have learned or to demonstrate the utility of the
learning in a specific performance challenge?
Disciplined Readiness
Is Key to Learning Well
Among
managers and executives in learning contexts, the dominant mindset includes
some very problematic beliefs that often carry over into the learning
program. They probably started as a result of childhood learning experiences.
We
equate learning with authority, either hierarchical (teacher, parent)
or scientific authority (indisputable truth). Somehow, culturally, we
emphasize personal creativity and ingenuity almost to the exclusion of
discipline and mastery. What do we get when we let that happen? Learners
who believe they understand what is best for them, learners who believe
management is a creative and individualistic art, and learners who, at
best, walk away with a few useful ideas to consider.
Where
does this carry over leave us? When authority and hierarchical learning
beliefs dominate the program, we have learning contexts that build awareness,
edutain participants, and often turn into debating sessions. Executives
who attend these types of sessions are like window shoppers looking for
interesting ideas but not inclined toward understanding or application.
In this situation, there is neither respect for the depth of the discipline
being shared, nor an understanding of the relevance of the discipline
to their work. They are in class to relax, have fun, and network with
each other. Not a great investment if you are looking for solid return
on investment (ROI).
If
we change the teacher to the CEO instead of a guru or consultant, we often
see a different result. In this context, learners often pay closer attention.
It’s like the old joke, ‘If the boss says up is down, then up is
down.’
Learning Well = Context, Structure, Discipline
What
does it all mean? The learning organization with learning people
means: 1. Learning demands a specific performance context which, in turn, demands
a better understanding of performance itself. 2.
Learning is a structured progression integrated with work and surrounded
by before and after sessions, not edutainment. 3.
Learners must bring a discipline of learning to their efforts, not casual
attitudes and expectations.
Douglas
K. Smith is a consultant and author specializing in organization performance,
innovation, and change. Named in
The
Guru Guide as one of the world's leading management thinkers, his
work has been featured in Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, the
Harvard Business Review, the New York Times, and the McKinsey Quarterly.
His most recent book is
Make Success Measurable (1999)
|
