Systems Thinking a Strategy for Building a Learning Organization

Systems Thinking a Strategy for Building a Learning Organization

The concept of faster change—being agile and rapidly adaptable so the constant buffeting from disruptive forces can be challenged or accommodated to the enterprise’s advantage—is the goal of many business operations.  Yet, changing an organization’s culture is not so easily done because traditions are closely held as norms, values, and beliefs.  In addition, the nature of organizational structure—the hierarchy—can slow the process of review and acceptance for new ideas.  The easiest way to make change happen is by developing a culture that is self-empowered, can continually evaluate methods and operations, then consider customer needs, functional deficiencies, and market forces to bring about new realities and efficiencies. 

The Change Dilemma 

Anytime work methods are altered, people’s feelings are involved.  The issues encountered will be technical, emotional, and political.  Although the current course of action may be flawed and difficult, stakeholders have figured out how to make errant processes work.  Over time they have learned to compensate for gaps and inefficiencies.   The helpful routines workgroups have developed to cope with existing operations provide a sense of comfort and stability.  In turn, these individuals have built mental models about who they are and what they could do based on the current arrangement for getting work done.  

So, when serviceable practices are threatened by improvement, people can become fearful and exhibit defensive behavior. Both managers and workgroups, anticipating the disruption and frustration that come with change, can become grousing skeptics who resist proposed modifications and will work to maintain the status quo.  The resulting dilemma, therefore, when making upgrades, is not only the technical aspects of change but also dealing with the human relations issues that are inevitably encountered—the cultural aspects of change. 

Changing a business enterprise is often a willful act, top-down and project-oriented, driven by consultants and managers who control the critical aspects of implementation.  Often, the method employed for bringing about transformation is public relations-based.  It uses speeches, videos, posters, and other calls for reform that set the stage and make the case for a move in a new direction.  Then, once the workforce has been sufficiently pacified, projects are initiated that systematically try to alter the organization’s culture. The process is a matter of fact, has a regimented approach that places control in the hands of a small powerful overbearing group.  Usually, a team is led by a low-level executive who reports directly to a consultant. 

The improvement projects, although well-intentioned and suitably defined, often bog down in later stages, or fail to achieve objectives, because people left to their own coping devices don’t typically have the needed skills. Stressed by repeated appeals for progress, the workforce can lose enthusiasm with each new project as individuals reflect upon why management is continually trying to reinvent the wheel.  

Accordingly, change agents and managers are frequently baffled by the reluctance of coworkers and stakeholders, confronted by upgrades, to make necessary adjustments.  The reactions displayed are usually subtle, bothersome, and may appear as brooding, quarreling, continual questioning, a reduction in cooperation, and sometimes outright expressions of hostility.  Nevertheless, the sponsors of change often shrug these behaviors off and chalk them up to the notion, that “people naturally resist change.” 

People don’t typically resist change; they resist the pain, threats, and loss of control that come from it.  Innovative ideas, although meant to be implemented, too often get put into practice using overbearing tactics.  Attempts at empowerment and problem-solving that undervalue human relations and people’s feelings will produce results that are underwhelming.

A Continual Approach to Change 

Success in a global marketplace requires a capacity for flexibility and continual renewal. Creating an operating system that empowers many change agents is the way to make it happen. This does not imply, however, that people are rouge agents free to operate on causes that are not aligned with the organization’s overall purpose and strategic goals.  But it does mean that the ability to act is embedded in individual decision-making that is based on knowledge, quantifiable information, and being close to the location where a need is discovered.  It’s all about the ability to act with confidence because skills have been shored up through training that will ensure the organization’s best interests are looked after when all is said and done.  Empowerment implies that the ability to make decisions has been given to capable individuals who recognize a need—authority, and trust have been conceded to do whatever is necessary, to meet requirements, to satisfy customers, and to make choices without having to wait on management.   

Empowerment is the process of power sharing.  In this context, authority for getting something done is divided between the workgroup and its supervision.  This is a relationship where members are granted authority to make changes and accept responsibility for decisions related to their actions.  Empowerment implies those in charge are willing to share authority, and those empowered are willing to step forward and accept the challenge.  Three components sustain empowerment and must be maintained to make it work.  These elements are a defined direction, freedom to make choices, and sufficient support to complete assignments. 

Direction provides the boundaries for action by classifying the intent as well as the results expected.  Definitions include desired outcomes, measures for results, and any other information that makes clear what the deliverables will be.  Freedom allows the workgroup to choose methods for achieving results and applying skills to complete the job.  This is guided by a clear definition of authority and responsibility.  However, within that latitude people are allowed to do what is necessary without being second-guessed.   Support means providing the resources necessary to get the job done.  Included would be essential equipment, materials, information, people, and training.  In addition, this suggests those in management and leadership positions must become mentors, collaborators, and partners in the process of improving outcomes.

Empowerment is built on trust.  Power sharing implies that decisions made by a workgroup should not be reversed without their advice and input.  A relationship of this nature facilitates collective learning and supports the group’s position by sending a message of respect.  Restrained oversight allows workgroups to resolve issues and fix the consequences of their actions.  The following are means that support empowerment and advance the process of self-direction: 

• Make sure there is a clear purpose and unambiguous direction.
• Ensure skills are sufficient by providing training so people can successfully operate in the prevailing environment.
• Be willing to place responsibility for the fundamental details of getting what needs to be done in the hands of process operators and their informal leaders who display the will and capability to complete all appointed activities.
• Assure that decisions by work groups are not reversed without member consultation and consent.
• Provide a mechanism for addressing injustices, and political clout to deal with power structures that may undercut the workgroup’s ability to freely engage in assigned activities. 

A continual approach to change involves both problem-solving and decision-making.  The process of problem-solving usually produces options, and decision-making cuts away alternatives to find the best solution.  Although there is a tendency to see individuals at the top of an organization as influential and able to unravel tough issues, problem-solving and the ability to make good decisions should be the job of people at all levels.  Successful organizations are those enterprises where problems get resolved as difficulties arise, and at the location where the trouble first occurred.  Nevertheless, the organization’s leadership is going to be judged upon its ability to keep the enterprise out of harm’s way and upon the capacity of operational units to remain effective and efficient.  This means day-to-day issues must be dealt with and improvements made that keep customers, clients, or constituents happy and returning.  Problem-solving and associated decision-making must produce results that have lasting impact. 

The Organization as an Open System

An organization is the sum of many processes working together under the restraint of environmental influences to achieve a particular purpose.  Organizations are an amalgamation of human and material resources—people, equipment, methods, materials, and capital—that are managed and deployed to produce outcomes.  Because outcomes are achieved through the application of labor—human endeavor—organizations are also social enterprises that interact with their surrounding environment.  The organization is part of an open system that receives environmental inputs and converts them into outputs that are consumed by the environment. 

All components in the system are connected in a series of codependent relationships that are joined through links and feedback loops. Links and loops never exist in isolation. They comprise a circle of causality in which every element can be both cause and effect that are influenced by some and influencing others. As a result, sooner or later, information on the system’s condition, good or bad, will be revealed. Optimization can only happen when all adjoining processes and components are considered as a whole and evaluated as potential opportunities for alteration and change.   Meddling with one part of the system at the disadvantage of others will only produce second-rate results.

 Although, when mapped or viewed in their environmental context, systems may appear to be linear. However, because there are feedback loops, process activities are circular and continual.  In a typical company, with hundreds of internal and external customers, many process cycles are operating, all interrelated, all running on different clocks, and many feeding back on each other. These can be studied, according to Peter Senge (1994) in his book "The Fifth Discipline,” using W. Edwards Deming’s (1986) PDSA—plan, do, study, act—cycle when trying to answer the questions: Why did this happen? And what can we do about it?  The cycle is described below.

1. Plan:  Based on the situation, decide what will be done.  Determine the goal and how outcomes will be measured and assessed.  Develop a set of actions and sequence the activities. 
2. Do:  Put the plan into action.  Carry out the steps and let the process run.  If the investment is large or the action complex, test on a smaller scale first.
3. Study:  Observe the results, gather facts based on data, assess outcomes against expectations, and draw conclusions.
4. Act:  If outcomes meet expectations, scale up and integrate into the normal routine.  If outcomes are not meeting expectations, problem-solve and devise a modified or new approach.  Repeat the cycle. 

The cycle is repetitive and ongoing.   When used, it keeps people from leaping into action without first considering how things will be done before looking for results.  It provides a buffer, a way of slowing and then appraising actions.  It forces individual learning and helps people recognize that two data points do not indicate a trend.  Ideas and proposed solutions get tested first, which then provides an opportunity for recovery when actions don’t produce the desired result.  Using the PDSA cycle reduces the inclination to operate using heuristics and the seat of one’s pants. 

More importantly, using PDSA encourages the measurement and analysis of outcomes.  The “study” phase promotes the use of data to determine trends and make cause and effect comparisons to verify assumptions.  As a result, the focus shifts to the selection and use of metrics and outcome indicators. Such measurements provide the basis for aligning change with the origination’s goals and purpose.  Analysis in this context reinforces the discovery of meaning from data and information to support decision-making and conclusions.  In short, outcomes are evaluated against expectations using facts. 

In addition, the PDSA cycle can be used to assess the personal learning cycle.  The results of training are evaluated against proposed goals and outcome competencies.  Personal learning and organizational learning are symbiotically joined.  There is a mutually beneficial relationship.  Organizations do not typically learn and grow unless their members—while interacting with the environment or organizational processes—recognize a need or opportunity, and consequently go through the four learning phases to grow personally.  The ability to achieve elevated levels of performance requires an organizational approach where personal learning is encouraged and supported. 

Building a Learning Organization 

Creating a learning environment—one where learners are eager to learn and not anxious about being judged—is shaped by both teaching style and instructional methods.  Style must consider the adult learners’ mature understanding of the world and their prior experiences.  On the other hand, methods must accommodate the learners’ preferences; and the way they perceive and judge information.   These co-contributors to learning must be nurtured and become part of the organization’s value system.   Without the support of leadership and senior managers who understand how people learn, develop, and improve, the workforce will not produce the lessons learned and consequentially organizational growth.  Survival will be compromised, leaving the enterprise at risk of failure as competitive and environmental pressures challenge its ability to stay relevant or compete. 

As someone considering how to make learning a permanent value—part of the organization’s culture—don’t try to reshape cultural attributes.  Focus instead on those mechanisms that drive the underlying elements of attribute formation and can influence changes in the quality of attribute expression. Here are six methods that can be used to lock in those qualities that shape and create a learning organization. 

• Frame and communicate the circumstances for making changes.  Define why organizational learning is important to individual growth, and company growth.  Cut through the clutter of daily influences that can create complacency, so everyone understands why it is necessary to move in a new direction.
• Develop and communicate a strategy that people can buy into.  Develop a central theme—a purpose—that people can rally around and create a sense of urgency so those affected are ready to take a chance on something different.
• Display actions and behaviors that set an example.  Begin to operate in a way that shows everyone what is acceptable conduct.  Actions that display contrary thinking, and privileged or guarded behavior send a mixed message that can’t be easily explained away.  Don’t get caught saying one thing but doing another.  Be willing to reflect honestly on successes and failures.
• Create an infrastructure that will facilitate a new way of doing work.  Infrastructure is the framework that coordinates the division of labor, the flow of resources, and communication.  It is typically defined by organizational charts, flow charts, and work instructions.  Put people in places that reflect and practice values that are compatible with the newly defined direction.  If need be, change key people.  Sometimes turnover is what is needed.
• Develop people’s helpful practices.  These include those things related to hiring, employee development, promotion, discipline, and termination.  Treatment must be considered fair and compassionate in these instances.  Also, consider and make sure people have the right information and support so operating within the revised work culture is not intimidating.
• Clarify performance standards and how outcomes will be measured. Performance standards describe the boundaries for responsibility and authority.  In addition, these standards define what is acceptable and what is not.  When modifying the culture, develop processes where expectations for results are explicitly stated.

However, a key cultural driver is leadership.   Being the one in charge will not be easy.  There are going to be people at both managerial and operational levels who don’t want to see their way of doing things upset.  These individuals have gained respect and a certain level of comfort under the current arrangement.  But if new ideas and new ways of operating are going to become reality, then leadership will have to make sure everyone is on board and moving in the same direction.  Being that individual will take fortitude—articulating and championing lifelong learning along with the ability to move when opportunities present themselves while meeting new challenges.  This means building an organizational climate that is nimble and capable of changing in an increasingly fluid business environment. 

Learning, training, and retraining are essential to creating the skills and capacity necessary to succeed in the long run.  People who are learners are comfortable when confronting new challenges because they understand how to engage the learning cycle and apply plan, do, study, and act—PDSA—to uncover workable solutions.  More so than others, individuals accustomed to learning—know how to appreciate, acquire, adapt, and apply—are open to new ideas, able to solicit information and facts, can analyze and reflect, and then draw conclusions that have relevance for application.   People who understand how people learn, develop, and improve are those individuals who will keep on being important to business, its workers, and the larger community.