Replying to LO25555 --
Peggy Stuart <pstuart@ctt.bc.ca> wrote:
> I am researching what my organization has to do to become a learning
> organization and have just realized I have been working under an
> assumption.
>
> I am assuming that to effectively create and sustain the base for a
> learning organization, rank and status would have to go out the window. A
> secretary (excuse the term) stands as equal a chance of obtaining support
> for her or his learning as an executive, no matter what form or level this
> learning took.
>
> If this is true, then there would have to be steps taken to ensure that
> both the non-physical and physical environments (policies, office layout,
> etc.) sends the message that all employees are "worth" the same.
I wrestled with that once long and hard. I was the manager of a group
that I was trying to lead into new ways of working. If I wanted an open
system, where their ideas and mine stood to be evaluated equally, how did
that work? How did that fit with my given role as manager and theirs as
managerees (sic)?
I'm sure I don't have the final answer, but I do have a few pieces that
worked for me. First, I decided the purpose of the work was _not_ to
become a learning organization. It was to achieve certain business
purposes; becoming a learning organization (I used a different term at the
time, but it was in the direction of becoming a learning organization) was
a means to that end. If that sounds strange, consider it this way. We
weren't being paid by the larger organization to become a learning
organization; we were being paid to accomplish certain goals. I believed
(and believe that subsequent results demonstrated) that moving in the
direction of a learning organization was a very effective way to attain
those goals, better than any of the alternatives I could think of, but the
focus on the goals kept us, well, focused. See Cliff Havener's book
_Meaning: The Secret of Being Alive_ if you want more on that.
Second, I did work to minimize any unnecessary trappings of the
differences in our roles. I was helped in that my company at the time
tended to have little in the way of managerial trappings. My cubicle, if
anything, was smaller and plainer than theirs, because I needed less
equipment. There was no culture that managers wore ties and dresses while
individual contributors wore jeans--we all tended to dress on the casual
side. No one of us, me included, got extra flexibility on hours (we all
had flexible working hours, and they were applied equally) or extra perqs
(reserved parking or the like).
Third, we talked openly about the roles we played. As X or Y or Z, each
of the individual contributors had certain roles for which they were
responsible; as manager, so did I. We also had different educational and
experiential backgrounds. That didn't mean that any one of us was better
than another, nor that one's ideas were a priori better than another's. I
worked to ensure everyone believed they should contribute their insights
to our work, no matter whether theirs contradicted mine or not, and they
did (to the amazement of others who would occasionally meet with us and
suffer "dropped jaw" syndrome, asking the individual contributors in our
team, "Can you really treat him [me] that way?").
Did it work? Quite well, I think. We did achieve our business goals (83%
process cycle time reduction in a knowledge work [design] task that
started at over 6 weeks long). Those who saw us and understood saw many
of the trappings of a learning organization (especially the action
science/mental models side, as that was a focus). If you want more
background, see "Emphasis on Business, Technology, and People Cuts
Turnaround Time at Hewlett-Packard's Lake Stevens Division," National
Productivity Review, Winter, 1998-99.
Did we see opportunities to do better? Certainly. In light of your
question about rank and status, we didn't get far enough to address reward
systems. I think that could be important, and I don't have a fully
thought through answer. I think a key is to start back at purpose again.
Regards,
Bill
-- Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.