The idea of any organisation being a "learning organisation" is really an abstraction, a concept offered by management pundits. A contingency view of any business organisation holds that "the firm" must be responsive to forces and developments in its environment otherwise it will atrophy and die - rather like a political party which after 16 years of running a government runs out of steam (a thought for Polling Day, 1st May 1997).
With jargon like the "learning organisation", we face the problem of reification. We convert bricks, equipment and structural form - into something which, like a living entity, can learn. Well this of course is nonsense. People come and go in companies. They are obviously, in their own way, learners. In frantic, globally competitive market environments - people in business must do reconnaisance, evaluate, adapt , change, search out and take new opportunities.
"We have learned. We may be continuing to learn in fundamental ways (over and above mere repetition of past routines). I may learn solely for myself - this has nothing to do with my employer. Yet the employer may want me to learn things and behaviours that suit the firm's needs. To keep my job - I must do so."
It is those who direct the organisation and other members (employees) who, it is suggested, need to learn and adapt. To survive occupationally and have continuous and prosperous capacity to earn a living - they need new knowledge, behaviours and willingness to do things they do not currently do. The individual may either
The occupational (got to earn a living) world is harsh. The "crowd" that forms the firm - owners and servants - have to mobilise their stock of know-how and renew it. Learning here is performance and company related - it usually means knowledge and cometences which enhance the ability to succeed in various tasks. Many of the points at which adaption takes place occur along the different points on the supply chain - from conception and specification of the product or service to engagement with the customer, from puchasing to production and dispatch and on to staffing and the overall infrastructures of the firm.
This must take in other organisations in our supply chain who, if we are primary contractors, are ours partners. A client, such as British Airways, will want its suppliers to learn too.
If the business message is "be excellent, bright and successful" then a client will want all contributors in its supply chain to have the same concerns and characteristics.
The imperatives of learning organisation pundits are focused on how "management" of the firm can learn to be more adaptive and mobilise the capacity of others (employees) as individuals and in various groups to learn. The raison d'etre is two fold.
PBB reporting on a 1988 MSC research project (Ref) , modelled the characteristics of a "Learning Company" and suggested "how to" become one. Here is a recipe for organisational change effort which builds on ideas previously offered by e.g. Argyris, Revans (Action Learning) and Deming (quality management).
PBB stress that
The model is symbolic rather than concrete. The metaphor speaks of ecological flows, energies, life forces, and balances - abstracted language is evident e.g.
"vertical and horizontal loop energy flows providing linkages between individual and collective activity/change and dynamics between vision and action".
Is this hot air - recursive polemic? The eleven characteristics become
We can imagine learning company managers
Such an approach, it is argued, will - rather like Machiavelli's civic republic - energise an organisation from within and from without, mobilising the creative energies of members and contributors and providing goods and services which delight everyone.
PBB recommend effort to structure policy and strategy formation in ways that enable implementation and evaluation a conscious learning process. (See Mintzberg on strategy formulation processes in various types of organisations).
The policy formulation need not be radical. Formulation of plans can evolve with managers emphasising developmental experimentation rather than "radical, big bang" schemes. Building milestones and sub-projects into planning processes gives feedback. Yet the problem of quick action and conflicting pressures in fast moving business situations emphasises flexibility in policy formulation, decisions and business positioning.
Consciously encouraging contributions means managing in ways that resolve tensions, conflicting views and values, positions etc - rather than just taking unilateral management action. The "learnco" ethic idealises the scope for airing differences and securing consensus so that all "stakeholders" can support decisions.
The problem with the stakeholder view is in defining who the stakeholders are and eliciting what exactly are their claim rights. The practicalities of this are never properly understood. Instead an idealised collectivist view is taken. It is a consensus-oriented viewpoint which, as Mintzberg points out in relation to the ability of machine-bureaucracies to innovate quickly, has difficulties in capitalist, market economies.
"Stakeholders" are diverse groups of staff, customers, suppliers, owners and neighbours, the community and the environment. Sub-sets include women/men, black/white, nationalities, young/old, physical/mental ability, differing learning styles/needs, political/spiritual, educational and social classes, personal qualities etc.
PBB recognise that participative policy making involves
Working with diversity requires high awareness and sensitivity to resolving conflict. Special methods may be needed. In response to competitors, PBB suggest that the learning organisation will employ "boundary workers" and do environmental scanning.
New jargon!...which basically means informing and empowering (giving people the scope to get on with it) rather than, disempowering (applying the mushroom theory of management). How?
New information systems may be needed to make better data available and to disseminate it.
In line with the self-responsibility ethic, PBB note the importance of accounting, budgeting and reporting systems. Set these up so that they assist learning (a new meaning for the term formative accounting) and givg added value (delighting internal customers). How? By developing systems that encourage (but regulate for accountability) individuals and units to act as small businesses.
The learning organisation develops internal units and departments so that each see themselves in a client-server relationships.
The dialogue emphasises co-operation rather than competitiveness, lack of trust, stereoptyping, blame and recrimination. Servers seek to delight clients with everyone in tune with the company's overall needs. Such harmony and generousity of spirit. Discussion and contracting processes benefit from a "you-win, we-win" to optimise performance.
This ethic confronts the prisoners dilemma and the importance of self-interest as a human characteristic.
This characteristic involves changing how rewards (and power?) are distributed. Several other characteristics also imply power redistribution. Is such redistribution merely at the margin and not a fundamental power shift?
Together participation, learning companies are recommended to explore values and assumptions underpinning rewards and the pay-performance relationships. Many things over and above wages/salaries are "rewarding". Examine these to guide policies, procedures and alternatives for salary levels, systems & etc. Participation in pay-determination may open up alternatives. Declare and recognised....people will be happier.
In the learning organisation, job roles are more loosely structured creating opportunities for individual and business development. Roles are more team and matrix oriented to match client, stakeholder needs (multi-function contract delivery). Job roles need to provide scope for personal growth and experimentation.
Members of the organisation need to understand that departmental and job boundaries are temporary structures - solutions to past performance requirements. Such structures need to be flexible and adaptable to accommodate current needs and future responses.
New forms of structure will be needed to fit the organisation's evolution. We need to know how these have evolved and need to experiment with new ones.
Bob Garrett in his work on Action Learning noted Stafford Beer's concern about the "brain of the firm". Senior management need to scan the external environment and not just become bogged down with internal affairs.
See BOLA: Systems view of the business in its environment
This characteristic of the learning company goes farther. As for (3) above (Informating), the learning organisation needs to get ?everyone? involved in its intelligence gathering operations. All staff - top managers, middle managers, technicals, sales people, clerks, vand dirvers - collect external data. Thus - the learnco model - holds that scanning is the responsibility of everyone in contact with external clients and stakeholders.
Where an organisational member operates at the boundary between the organisation and others that it serves - then the role is elaborated to include scope to act as a boundary worker. Those who implement operations and deliver goods and services need to bring in information for collation and dissemination. Sales staff, technicians, van drivers are sources of information about what clients and others want/feel.
If we seek to delight our clients, we will join in mutually helpful learning activities. Joint training, sharing in project investment, in R&D, job exchanges, linking of computer systems etc. We can also join with others to share bench-marking information. PBB note that Rank Xerox set out to learn from Caterpillar as a "benchmark" firm for delivering heavy equipment.
Bench-marking can be done as an covert intelligence operation i.e. using public-domain or "surveyed" data to evaluate a rival's performance against one's own. Bench-making may also be a cooperative venture between partners who trust each other enough (or the information is not a trade secret to be withheld) - we are not rivals and so can be somewhat altruistic in our relationship.
Friendship and rivalry illustrate the dilemma for company-to-company learning. PBB recognise the "come and steal shamelessly from us" slogan.
The suggestion is that in pursuit of learning and betterment, competitors may collaborate for mutual learning. Rather than fight - we go for win-win - perhaps in coalition against a mutal rival. The assumption is that win/lose in the long run sub-optimises with lose/lose. Via shared learning mutual interests may be served by increasing joint shares of the overall market, capitalising on technological advances, establishing joint industry standards etc.
We do see this with companies such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple etc but for the more vulnerable participants - the felt danger of being ripped of or that the "partners" are not being entirely honest is a powerful force. IN October 1997 - the US government began to take steps to regulate the monopoly power position of Microsoft in relation to the distribution and design of its Explorer products. It will be interesting to see how state intervention evolves and affects any colloborative ventures between big fish and little fish.
Climates can be wet, cold, dry, too hot, tempestuous, calm, unpredictable, dangerous for health, bracing and invigorating. Too often we use the term climate without realising the metaphor in use.
The learning company notion is that managers should encourage
The recommendation is for senior managers
Trying new ideas and methods may not always work but if tried as a conscious experiment (shared, controlled) - there are learning benefits. In a company facing considerable business pressure where radical action may be needed - then unilaterally decided management action is likely to be the dominant approach. In such circumstances there may be fear and reticence to try something new without the boss's authority. The human relations ethic of the "learnco" model tends to gloss over stark realities.
The learning company and quality management go hand in hand. Continuous improvement is emphasised always learning and doing better. delighting goes beyond "good enough". The persuasion and urging of business conversations is evident in this language. Thus human "learning is linked to business performance" - a key hypothesis in the managerial manifesto.
The learning company gives its people access to resources and facilities for self-development. External stakeholders have access too as an ingredient in the partner, client-server relationship. A culture of self-development offers support, guidance and feedback (two-way). People are encouraged to manage their own learning and development.
What kind of resources are available?
Being an active, conscious learner is demanding. it is a theatrical role in its own right and the bouncing "I am an active learner person" is in danger of being eaten up by their own cliche or by those they bore. Individuals need be able to take time out from the demands of always pushing learning forward. Other important aspects of their life may rightfully consume attention. The learning company (here is the managerial, performance rub) however may not be able to let them fall asleep. Thus the PBB proviso is that those working on specific developmental issues will be known. Support and guidance is needed.
