Fearless - Learning Organizations
We’ve all heard the term “learning organization.” But what does it really mean? A learning organization allows associates to expand their knowledge, skills, and opportunities to innovate, and everyone in the organization is encouraged/expected to continuously be learning. Learning organizations have several features that make them different than other general organizations, even those with learning opportunities. Learning Organizations actively participate in the creation and acquisition of knowledge to adapt more quickly to changing environments. New and innovative thinking is nurtured by leaders at all levels and encourage associates to continually learn together.
A key aspect of organizational learning is collaboration between a wide variety of individuals. This is best put by Savita Yadav in the Journal of Business and Management: “A learning organization does not rely on passive or ad hoc process in the hope that organizational learning will take place through serendipity or as a by-product of normal work. A learning organization actively promotes, facilitates, and rewards collective learning.”
Some of us may remember Senge’s book, The Fifth Discipline, which talked about the five pillars of the learning organization. Senge’s book emphasizes “new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.” The first pillar, according to Senge, is systems thinking. This type of thinking thrives on differing viewpoints and honoring the voices of colleagues and peers. Every voice is important.
Often, organizations espouse their learning culture while rewarding those who show up, do their tasks, and don’t question the status quo. Associates don’t feel like their ideas are heard, so they don’t see a point in sharing them. A Gallup poll in 2017 found only 3 in 10 employees believe their opinions count in the workplace. They estimate by moving that ratio to 6 in 10, organizations could realize:
According to Amy Edmondson in her book The Fearless Organization, “In most workplaces today, people are holding back far too often – reluctant to say or ask something that might somehow make them look bad. To complicate matters, as companies become increasingly global and complex, more and more of the work is team-based. Today's employees, at all levels, spend 50% more time collaborating than they did 20 years ago. Hiring talented individuals is not enough. They have to be able to work well together.”
Psychological Safety
In 2016, Google published the initial results of their Project Aristotle initiative. Their results showed that the highest performing teams were highest in psychological safety, or how safe team members felt to “take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other.” Amy Edmondson had similar results when her research showed that some leaders were better able to foster psychological safety within the team and those teams with the highest levels of psychological safety were generally the highest performing teams. Other research has shown that reducing anxiety can increase team productivity.
I bet someone right now is saying "It's not ok to have anything goes" or "we can't relax performance standards. This is not what is meant by psychological safety. As Amy Edmondson clarifies “Psychological safety is not an ’anything goes’ environment where people are not expected to adhere to high standards or meet deadlines. It is not about becoming ’comfortable’ at work. This is particularly important to understand because many managers appreciate the appeal of error-reporting, help-seeking, and other proactive behavior to help their organizations learn. At the same time, they implicitly equate psychological safety with relaxing performance standards – that is, with an inability to, in their words, ’hold people accountable.’ This conveys a misunderstanding of the nature of the phenomenon.”
Recommended by LinkedIn
Culture of Silence
There can be many consequences to low psychological safety at an organization. Not all of them are simply business consequences. Here is an example.
On February 1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry to earth, killing all 7 on board. During its launch, a piece of foam had fallen off the shuttle's external tank and struck the wing of the Challenger. Video from the launch appeared to show this and several NASA engineers approached their higher ups to get closer look using the Department of Defense's (DOD's) orbital cameras. However, officials at NASA felt it was unnecessary and decided not to request this footage from the DOD. The foam strike possibility was discussed at a senior leadership meeting before the shuttle's re-entry but the engineers were not asked for input and stood silently as the possibility was dismissed. When asked later why they didn't speak up at the meeting, one of these engineers said "I just couldn't do it. I'm too low down, and she [NASA leader] is way up here."
What Do We Do?
There is a lot to fostering an environment of psychological safety at an organization. In fact, it's more than I can cover in one blog post. However, Amy Edmondson talks about three basic steps everyone in organizations can take to start the journey. This article talks in more detail about building psychological safety in an organization.
Is There More to a Learning Organization?
There is a lot more to a learning organization, but psychological safety is the basis on which an organization’s culture of learning is built.
For now, look at the resources below for more information about psychological safety at organizations.
Additional Resources
