The Learning And Change Spiral

There aren’t many certainties in today’s business world, but one certainty is that change is the norm. This includes a change in the language associated with organisational change. Recent work by Herriot, Hirsh and Reilly (1998), for example, shows that organisational change now seems to consist of a series of overlapping transitions, some more profound than others, where one transition is often not completed before another transition starts. This phenomenon of overlapping transitions has led Herriot, and his co-writers, to suggest that the stabilisation phase, present in more traditional transition models, is possibly now outdated, give that many organisations no longer reach that stage.

Edie Weiner, President of Weiner Edrich Brown, an American consultancy, suggests that in today’s business world we need to think about the concept of ‘transitioning’ i.e. of changes where there are no clear beginnings or endings, as opposed to the concept of transition singular^[1].

One of the implications of this new phenomenon of ‘ transitioning’, is that organisations need to be constantly learning. Change requires learning and indeed learning leads to change: the bigger the change the greater the need for learning. Thus a key strategic task today is developing the organisation’s capability to learn from each transition experience, so that the organisation can be better prepared for subsequent transitions.

The key career development task in organisations then, according to Herriot and his co-writers, is to help individuals make effective transitions by helping them learn from these, so that they are better prepared for making even bigger transitions in the future. This requires providing the right kind of support at each of the three distinct transition phases: preparation, encounter and adjustment phases.

As facilitating learning and change map directly onto HR’s core capabilities, HR has an opportunity significantly to add value, from a knowledge management perspective. However, there is a view that if HR wants to develop a learning-centric culture there is a need to re-educate themselves, and their business partners, on what we mean by learning and how best to encourage and facilitate learning in the modern workplace.

Etienne Wenger (1998), a leading researcher and writer in the field of learning, believes that one of the assumptions that many institutions hold about learning is that of learning being an individual process that occurs through teaching in locations held away from the workplace. It is for this reason, Wenger argues, that many of us find learning irrelevant, boring, and end up believing that it is something that we are not cut out for.

Alred and his co-writers (1998) suggest that we have adopted a very linear view of learning up until now, one that is reinforced through some of the language associated with learning. For example, we refer to ‘key stages’ in the national curriculum, and learning levels in the National Vocational Qualification system. However, in the case of adult learning, learning isn’t always linear as it doesn’t always involve learning something new. Instead, learning can involve ‘finding new ways in old truths’, i.e. developing new perspectives on the ways things have always been done.

So is there an alternative way of thinking about learning? Wenger argues that there is. He has developed a theory of learning, which he refers to as a social theory of learning, based on the assumptions that (a) learning is as much a part of human nature as eating and sleeping and (b) learning occurs naturally through our active participation in the practices of different social communities. It is Wenger’s view of learning that has fuelled the renewed interest in Communities of Practice, as we shall see in the next chapter.

As Edie Weiner points out, individuals today suffer from ‘Educated Incapacity’, i.e. knowing so much that they have difficulty seeing things differently anymore. To overcome this phenomenon, she suggests that there is a need to create learning forums that enable individuals to see things through a different lens.

Learning, I would argue, is fundamental to the process of seeing things through a different lens. However, one of the key challenges for organisations is to let go of some of their traditional ways of thinking about learning and to encourage and help teams and individuals experiment with new ways of learning.

While it is acknowledged that formal learning has an important role to play in developing knowledge, the value of informal learning and learning by other means should not be underestimated. Formal learning only represents the tip of the iceberg when it comes to learning; around 70 per cent of our learning is informal. Thus it is important that organisations build and encourage environments where informal learning is as valued and supported as formal learning.

Ghoshal and Bartlett (1998) suggest that training programmes alone cannot develop employees to their maximum potential in environments where the knowledge base for people’s jobs is changing rapidly. In their book, The Individualized Corporation, they refer to the experience of General Electric (GE) who, despite investing extensively in formal training, acknowledge that only about 10 per cent of a manager’s knowledge comes from this type of training.

A survey by Reg Revans^[2], a leading expert in the field of Action Learning, identified that many organisations find it helpful to make distinctions between training and development. Revans’s survey identified these distinctions as:

Development involves:

• Self-motivation and people thinking for themselves

• A more holistic approach, taking into account the whole situation

• Addressing longer-term needs

• No right or wrong answers

Whereas training:

• Is more specific as it is related to identified current learning needs

• Produces an extension of existing abilities

• Is done for you and to you (i.e. it is less learner-directed)

But what about formal education, what is its role in the knowledge economy? Traditionally education, particularly higher education, has provided the means for opening up peoples’ minds, exposing individuals to new thinking, thus helping them see things through new lenses. In a world where change is a constant, formal learning is important, and indeed continues to form an important part of many organisations’ Learning and Development strategies, particularly for those in senior roles. Corporate sponsorship for MBAs is an example of the value placed on this particular type of learning activity. In addition, in recent years we have seen a trend towards organisations setting up their own workplace university, where individuals can gain exposure to ideas, theories and practices, which are not necessarily related to their immediate role.

Other strategic questions relating to learning in the knowledge economy include:

• Should the organisation focus on providing ‘just-in-time’ or ‘just-in-case’ learning solutions? and

• Who should be responsible for developing generic human capital (i.e. skills and knowledge which enhance the worker’s productivity irrespective, of where he or she is employed) and specific human capital (i.e. skills and knowledge which only apply to current employer)? Should this be the organisation’s responsibility, or should this be a joint responsibility between employers and employees?

Where there is a recognised shortage of skilled workers and the pool to be drawn from is getting smaller and smaller it seems that organisations have to become adept at managing the paradox of helping individuals build their employability, but at the same time provide a stimulating and enriching work environment so that individuals want to stay. This is part of the changing psychological contract of employment.

That said, it seems that not all organisations are prepared to invest in building their employees’ human capital (generic or specific). A survey by KnowledgePool^[3], a worldwide training provider, identified that less than half of the workforce surveyed had received any training in the past year. Wearing their strategic hat, HR should be prepared to question and challenge statistics like these. Questions that spring to mind include: What category/levels of workers are not receiving training? Is it possible that these categories/levels are being developed in other ways? What skills need to be developed? What is the best way of developing these skills? How can we turn statistics like these to our advantage?

^[1]Weiner E., Global Trends in the Way That Work and Jobs are Organised. International Association of Career Management Professionals (IACMP) 2000 Global Conference, Brighton, 6–9 July 2000.

^[2]Survey findings reported in C. Pearce (ed.), The Effective Director: The Essential Guide to Director & Board Level Development. Kogan Page Limited. 2001.

^[3]Survey: 12 million British workers did not receive any training in the last year. www.knowledgepool.com/news/ press/britain2002