Please read part 1 of this post if you have not already done so…
Attributes of a ‘learning organisation’
You can always tell a learning organisation. It usually stands out from the rest, that is the first thing. Usually, other organisations are envious of it. Usually, other organisations want to ‘bring it down’. Usually, other organisations feel threatened by it and are very critical of it as well. It is usually very successful and in a very short time period. Usually, when you interview the staff in that organisation, they are very happy and very positive in their outlook; they enjoy going to work. Usually, the incidence of sick leave is very low, much less than the average of about six days lost per staff member per year. It is basically a positive atmosphere to be in.
Usually, there are no, or limited, industrial action problems in a learning organisation. As the learning organisation develops, it often turns out that unions become irrelevant, because people start feeling empowered to say what they need to say. It means that the organisation has less need of formal roles and templates such as industrial awards because staff feel they can trust management. Am I trying to put unions out of a job? Unions do have a role, but maybe that role will have to change if they are to survive. As long as that ‘trusting’ ethos and culture is continued and promoted, staff and management will learn to trust unions as well as each other. The most important point about this emergence of trust in the organisation is that, even when there is a transition of CEOs, provided the new CEO is of the same view in terms of developing the organisation and has a definite belief in the learning organisation, then the trust will continue. I have seen many examples where a new CEO brings in a new, regressive culture and brings down the whole concept of a learning organisation and quickly destroys the gains made.
In fact, a change of CEO is a major obstacle in introducing the principles of learning organisations more widely.
The CEO’s commitment is essential
It follows from what I am saying that bringing about changed organisational and individual behaviour necessarily takes some time and yet, as we know, the average tenure of a CEO is steadily shortening and is now regularly falling below five years. Given all the pressures of ‘short-termism’ on CEOs to produce immediate and continuing improvements in the bottom line, quarter by quarter, what CEO has the inclination, or indeed the time and opportunity, to really pursue what is a longer term activity to lay a new foundation for the organization? In other words, it could be argued by a CEO that the concept of a learning organisation, while attractive, is nothing more than another academic ‘woolly’ idea which lacks applicability in the so-called ‘real world’. This is certainly true if the CEO does not believe in the concept of a learning organisation. It could be, though, that if that CEO moves into a learning organisation, she can be influenced by the past ‘trust-behaviours’ which have developed in that organisation. The new CEO can actually add to the process. If, however, the new CEO is ‘closed’ and does not believe in the concept of a learning organisation, then the whole process is likely to fail.
Let us take an example where the CEO may well be interested in, and indeed intellectually committed to, the principles of learning organisations. The ‘real world’ pressures, however, of improving the bottom line, reducing the work force, closing plants, introducing or deleting new products, expanding overseas, dealing with some Asian crisis, worrying about the impact of the low or high value of the Australian dollar, all intervene. All these sorts of issues tend to dissuade the CEO from investing in longer term strategies which might well eventually find their way to the bottom line, but which will, as we have already pointed out, take some time to work their way through. In other words, is there any point at all in a CEO pursuing such principles in the age of “short-termism”?
The answer to that big question is ‘yes’, and it is a BIG ‘yes’. The realities are that the structures within a learning organisation are there to enable staff to talk about such issues and their impacts, and ideas for dealing with them. Using your people, truly the most important resource in your organisation, in such a way helps you strengthen your organisation to more successfully deal with all these sorts of issues. Talk with your staff about how to restructure or about the need to restructure. How it can best be done? No doubt there may be job losses and that needs to be talked through by staff in a very open and honest way, based on the honesty and trust which exists in the organisation. All the other issues that we have mentioned, like new products, financial impacts, global impacts, or expansion overseas, are also important issues for staff to be involved in. Certainly the CEO sets the focus and the direction; however, he or she also needs to give this directional focus to their people to stimulate the necessary discussion and ‘buy-in’. This might seem to run against the common perception of a CEO needing to be strong and decisive. That’s true; however, it is more important that a ‘strong’ CEO be strong by encouraging his people to say “no” when necessary, rather than simply asserting or pretending to be “strong”.
Organisations need ‘followers’ as well
Peter Senge used an analogy in The Fifth Discipline based on the movie Spartacus. Spartacus was about to be executed, but the Roman Emperor at the time pretended to not know, or did not actually know, who Spartacus actually was. He asked a group of people, numbering in their thousands, which one of them was Spartacus. One person replied “I am Spartacus”, then another said the same. And another. Eventually, everyone in that huge group said “I am Spartacus”. All the people in an organisation need to act like this – to feel able to say “I am also part of this, I am on the same train, I am a key part of this organisation and I am able to make an input into everything”. Sometimes we need to recognise that it often takes courage to be a follower. Sometimes, leaders and managers feel that followers are, or should be, mindless. In fact, they must not be. It takes courage to make a decision to be a follower. This involves an internal process in a person to decide whether they are going to be a follower. Being a follower does not imply that the individual will do anything that is said by the leader. A follower implies constructively deciding to follow the vision or direction of the organisation or leader. A follower is not someone who is brainless or just accepts anything that is given to him/her.
In a learning organisation, we have “leaders” and we have “followers”. Both roles are powerful, necessary and important if an organisation is to become highly successful and able to change with the times. It requires courage to be a “leader”, but it also requires courage to be a “follower”.
