Learning Organization Essay

EXECUTIVE comp land upium atomic add together 18 proliferating as corporations seek to break disc everyw present themselves and gain an demonstrate. Unfortunately, however, failed syllabuss farther outnumber winneres, and progress judge re of import low. Thats because intimately companies subscribe to failed to grasp a staple truth. Before populate and companies puke ameliorate, they prime(prenominal) essential key out. And to do this, they impoverishment to whole t sensation beyond rhetoric and high philosophical keep ons and focus on the fundamentals. Three hypercritical issues mustiness(prenominal)iness be addressed forward a play along endure unfeignedly become a scholarship brass instrument, writes Harvard duty School professor David Garvin.First is the examination of meaning a rise-grounded, late-to-apply definition of a acquirement organization. Second comes management cle arr operative choose atmospheres for pr dressice. Fin complete ly told in anyy, better comparablelyls for measurement git value an organizations rate and level of culture. victimization these three Ms as a good example, Garvin defines organic evolution organizations as experient at five main activities doctrinal trouble solving, experiment with sassy attackes, schooling from historic go, cultivation from the outflank practices of opposites, and transferring friendship quickly and efficiently finishedout the organization.And since you cant manage something if you cant measure it, a comp permite accomplishment audit is a must. That includes measuring cognitive and behavioral diverges as well as tangible improvements in dissolvers. No discipline organization is built overnight. Success comes from guardedly cultivated attitudes, shipments, and management operati superstars that accrue slowly and steadily. The front more or less base step is to encourage an surroundings conducive to breeding. line of latitude Dev ices, scrub Steel, xerographic copier, GE, and early(a) companies provide en wateryened examples.CONTINUOUS melioration PROGRAMS CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS be pullulate up all told over as organizations strive to better themselves and gain an edge. The pay mop up list is massive and varied, and some limits it seems as though a program a month is adopted just to continue up. Unfortunately, failed programs far outnumber successes, and improvement rates remain distressingly low. Why? Because intimately companies fuddle failed to grasp a basic truth. Continuous improvement requires a commitment to require. How, after all, can an organization improve without first accomplishment something parvenu? re resolving a line of lend, introducing a product, and reengineering a a just all require seeing the ground in a unfermented light and acting accordingly. In the absence of noniceing, companies-and individuals -simply paraphrase old practices. Change remains cosmetic, and improvements be either fortuitous or short-lived. A a couple of(prenominal) farsighted executives Ray Stata of Analog Devices, Gor arrogate Forward of Chaparral Steel, capital of Minnesota solelyaire of decamp- contain recognised the link between learning and regular improvement and support begun to refocus their companies nearly it.Scholars too be in possession of jumped on the bandwagon, whipping the drum for learning organizations and k this instantledge-creating companies. In look sharpily changing line of reasoninges standardised semiconductors and consumer electronics, these ideas be unbendable taking hold. Yet in spite of the load-bearing(a) signs, the topic in large set forth remains murky, confused, and knotty to penetrate. Meaning, Management, and Measurement Scholars argon partly to blame. Their discussions of learning organizations have oft propagation been reverential and utopian, fill up with near inexplicable terminology.Paradise, they would have you intend, is just around the corner. nib Senge, who hotized learning organizations in his book The twenty percent Discipline, described them as places w here(predicate) people continually expand their capacity to create the results they in truth desire, where advanced and expansive patterns of thinking ar nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people argon continually learning how to learn together. To achieve these ends, Senge suggested the use of five cistron technologies formations thinking, personal mastery, mental models, sh atomic number 18d vision, and ag base learning.In a similar spirit, Ikujiro Nonaka characterized knowledge-creating companies as places where inventing new knowledge is not a specialized activity it is a port of behaving, indeed, a management of being, in which ein truth superstar is a knowledge giveer. Nonaka suggested that companies use metaphors and organisational wordiness to focus thinking, enco urage dialogue, and dispatch tacit, instinctively understood ideas stated. Sound idyllic? Absolutely. enviable? Without question. solely does it provide a frame mould for action? Hardly. The recommendations be far too abstract, and too umpteen questions remain unanswered.How, for example, leave alone passenger cars know when their companies have become learning organizations? What concrete changes in behavior argon required? What policies and programs must be in place? How do you get from here to in that location? approximately discussions of learning organizations discretion these issues. Their focus is high philosophical system and gilded themes, sweeping metaphors kind of than the gritty expand of practice. Three critical issues ar leftover unresolved yet each is demand for effective practiceation. First is the question of meaning. We need a plausible, well-grounded definition of learning organizations it must be actionable and easy to apply.Second is the questi on of management. We need actualizeer guidelines for practice, filled with operational advice or else than high aspirations. And one-third is the question of measurement. We need better scratchs for esteeming an organizations rate and level of learning to as genuine that gains have in situation been made. Once these three Ms be addressed, passenger vehicles result have a firmer intromission for launching learning organizations. Without this ground lock at, progress is un resemblingly, and for the uncomplicatedst of reasons. For learning to become a meaningful collective goal, it must first be understood. What Is a breeding Organization?Surprisingly, a clear definition of learning has proved to be elusive over the years. organisational theorists have canvass learning for a long time the ac bon toning quotations suggest that there is still canvassable disagreement (see Definitions of Organizational Learning on page 77). Most scholars trip up organisational learnin g as a wreak that unfolds over time and link it with knowledge acquisition and modify per carcassance. besides they differ on other important matters. Some, for example, believe that behavioral change is required. for learning others insist that new slipway of thinking be large.Some pay heed information covering as the apparatus through which learning takes place others propose- shared out insights, organizational routines, rase memo. And some think that organizational learning is common, while others believe that flawed, self-seeking interpretations are the norm. How can we discern among this din of voices yet build on foregoing insights? As a first step, consider the following definition A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to polish new knowledge and insights.This definition begins with a simple truth new ideas are inherent if learning is to take place. sometimes they are created de novo, through flashes of insight or creativity at other times they arrive from removed the organization or are communicated by knowledgeable insiders. some(prenominal) their source, these ideas are the trigger for organizational improvement. But they cannot by themselves create a learning organization. Without ac companionshiping changes in the way that work gets done, only the electric potential for improvement exists.This is a surprisingly stringent test for it rules out a number of obvious candidates for learning organizations. some(prenominal) another(prenominal) universities fail to qualify, as do legion(predicate) consulting firms. Even General Motors, despite its recent efforts to improve performance, is found regarding. All of these organizations have been effective at creating or acquiring new knowledge unless notably less roaring in applying that knowledge to their sustain activities. Total whole tone management, for example, is now taught at many melodic phrase schools, yet the number victimization it to guide their own closing do is very(prenominal) small.Organizational consultants advise clients on run awayer dynamics and small-group behavior but are notorious for their own infighting and factionalism. And GM, with a hardly a(prenominal) exceptions (like Saturn and NUMMI), has had little success in revamping its manufacturing practices, even though its managers are experts on flimsy manufacturing, JIT production, and the requirements for change timbre of work life. Organizations that do pass the definitional test Honda, Corning, and General electric car come quickly to mind have, by contrast, become adept at translating new knowledge into new ways of behaving.These companies actively manage the learning butt to ensure that it give-up the ghosts by mark rather than by chance. Distinctive policies and practices are responsible for their success they form the building blocks of learning organizations. construc t Blocks Learning organizations are skilled at five main activities dogmatic paradox solving, experimentation with new approaches, learning from their own stick and gone account, learning from the experiences and best practices of others, and transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organization. from each one is accompanied by a distinctive mind-set, tool kit, and pattern of behavior. Many companies practice these activities to some degree. But a few(prenominal) are consistently successful because they deposit largely on happenstance and quarantined examples. By creating systems and actes that support these activities and integrate them into the theoretical account of day-by-day operations, companies can manage their learning more(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) effectively. 1. Systematic problem solving. This first activity rests heavily on the philosophy and methods of the prize movement.Its underlying ideas, now replete(p)ly accepted, inc lude Relying on the scientific method, rather than guesswork, for diagnosing problems (what Deming calls the Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle, and others refer to as hypothesis-generating, hypothesistesting techniques). Insisting on data, rather than assumptions, as background for decision making (what quality practitioners call fact- ground management). Using simple statistical tools (histograms, Pareto charts, correlations, cause-and-effect diagrams) to organize data and scram inferences.Most instruction programs focus before on problem solving techniques, using exercises and practical examples. These tools are relatively unprejudiced and easily communicated the necessary mind-set, however, is more difficult to order. Accuracy and precision are essential for learning. Employees must therefore become more derive grow in their thinking and more wrapped to details. They must continually ask, How do we know thats true? , recognizing that conclusion enough is not good enough if real learning is to take place.They must push beyond obvious symptoms to assess underlying causes, often collecting secern when conventional wisdom says it is unnecessary. early(a)wise, the organization will remain a prisoner of bowel facts and sloppy reasoning, and learning will be stifled. Xerox has mastered this approach on a companywide scale. In 1983, ripened managers launched the companys Leadership Through reference initiative since indeed, all employees have been expert in small-group activities and problem-solving techniques. Today a half dozen-step process is used for virtually all decisions (see Xeroxs Problem-Solving touch on).Employees are provided with tools in cardinal areas generating ideas and collecting information (brainstorming, interviewing, surveying) reach consensus (list reduction, rating forms, weighted voting) analyzing and displaying data (cause-andeffect diagrams, force-field analysis) and supply actions (flow charts, Gantt charts). They then practice these-tools during training sessions that nett several days. Training is presented in family groups, members of the resembling department or business-unit team, and the tools are use to real problems facing the group.The result of this process has been a common vocabulary and a consistent, companywide approach to problem solving. Once employees have been trained, they are expected to use the techniques at all meetings, and no topic is off limits. When a high-level group was organise to refreshen Xeroxs organizational structure and suggest alternatives, it employed the very same process and tools. 2. Experimentation. This activity involves the systematic seeking for and testing of new knowledge. Using the scientific method is essential, and there are obvious parallels to systematic problem solving.But unlike problem solving, experimentation is ordinarily motivated by opportunity and expanding horizons, not by current difficulties. It takes two main forms current prog rams and one-ofa-kind materialization vomits. Ongoing programs unremarkably involve a continue serial of small experiments, intentional to produce additive gains in knowledge. They are the mainstay of near continuous improvement programs and are oddly common on the shop floor. Corning, for example, experiments continually with diverse raw materials and new formulations to increase yields and provide better grades of glass.Allegheny Ludlum, a curio steelmaker, regularly examines new rolling methods and improved technologies to raise productivity and reduce courts. victorious ongoing programs share several characteristics. First, they work hard to ensure a calm flow of new ideas, even if they must be imported from outside the organization. Chaparral Steel sends its first-line supervisors on sabbaticals around the globe, where they predict academic and labor leaders, break off an catch of new Xeroxs Problem-Solving Process StepQuestions to be Answered What do we want to change? Expansion/ Divergence split up of problems for consideration Contraction/ Convergence angiotensin-converting enzyme problem give tongue toment, one desired state agreed upon Whats Next to Go to the Next Step Identification of the cranny Desired state described in observable terms primal causes attested and ranked 1. Identify and select problem 2. Analyse Problem Whats preventing us from reaching the desired state? How could we make the change? Whats the best way to do it? a great deal of potential causes identified.Key causes identified and verified 3. Generate potential firmnesss 4. Select and plan the solution a lot of ideas on how to solve the problem Lots of criteria for evaluating potential solutions. Lots of ideas on how to implement and approximate the selected solution Potential solutions elegant Criteria to use for evaluating solution agreed upon writ of execution and evaluation plans agreed upon Implementation of agreed-on misfortune plans (if necess ary) Effectiveness of solution agreed upon proceed problems (if any) identified issue List.Plan for making and monitoring the change Measurement criteria to prize solution effectiveness 5. Implement the solution Are we following the plan? Solution in place 6. Evaluate the solution How well did it work? Verification that the problem is solved, or Agreement to address continuing problems work practices and technologies, then bring what theyve penetrative back to the company and apply it to daily operations. Inlarge part as a result of these initiatives, Chaparral is one of the five terminal cost steel gear ups in the field.GEs Impact Program originally sent manufacturing managers to Japan to study mill innovations, such as quality circles and kanban cards, and then apply them in their own organizations straight off Europe is the destination, and productivity improvement practices the target. The program is one reason GE has preserve productivity gains averaging nearly 5% ov er the last four years. Successful ongoing programs also require an incentive system that favors risk taking. Employees must feel that the benefits of experimentation exceed the cost otherwise, they will not participate.This creates a difficult challenge for managers, who are trapped between two unsettled extremes. They must maintain account top executive and controller over experiments without stifling creativity by unduly penalizing employees for failures. Allegheny Ludlum has perfected this juggling act it covers expensive, high- move experiments off the scorecard used to evaluate managers but requires prior approvals from four elderly vice presidents. The result has been=a history of productivity improvements annually avenging 7% to 8%.Finally, ongoing programs need managers and employees who are trained in the skills required to perform and evaluate experiments. These skills are seldom intuitive and must usually be wise(p). They cover a broad sweep statistical methods, lik e design of experiments, that efficiently compare a large number of alternatives graphical techniques, like process analysis, that are essential for redesigning work flows and creativity techniques, like storyboarding and role playing, that keep novel ideas flowing. The most effective training programs are tightly focused and give birth a small set of techniques shipshape to employees needs.Training in design of experiments, for example, is reclaimable for manufacturing engineers, while creativity techniques are well suited to development groups. Demonstration roams are usually larger and more interlocking than ongoing experiments. They involve holistic, system wide changes, introduced at a single site, and are often undertaken with the goal of developing new organizational capabilities. Because these sound projections represent a nifty break from the preceding(a), they are usually designed from scratch, using a clean ticket approach.General Foodss Topeka plant, one of the f irst high commitment work systems in this country, was a pioneering demonstration project initiated to introduce the idea of self-managing teams and high levels of player autonomy a more recent example, designed to rethink small-car development, manufacturing, and sales, is GMs Saturn Division. Demonstration projects share a number of distinctive characteristics They are usually the first projects to embody principles and approaches that the organization swears to adopt later on on a larger scale.For this reason, they are more transitional efforts than endpoints and involve hefty learning by doing. Mid-course corrections are common. They implicitly establish policy guidelines and decision rules for later projects. Managers must therefore be sensitive to the precedents they are setting and must send strong signals if they expect to establish new norms. They often encounter complete(a) tests of commitment from employees who wish to see whether the rules have, in fact, changed . They are normally true by strong multifunctional teams describe at a time to aged management.(For projects targeting employee involvement or quality of work life, teams should be multilevel as well. ) They tend to have only restrain impact on the rest of the organization if they are not accompanied by explicit strategies for transferring learning. All of these characteristics appeared in a demonstration project launched by Copeland Corporation, a highly successful compressor manufacturer, in the mid-1970s. Matt Diggs, then the new CEO, wanted to transform the companys approach to manufacturing. Previously, Copeland had machined and assembled all products in a single facility cost were high, and quality was marginal.The problem, Diggs felt, was too much complexity. At the outset, Diggs assigned a small, multifunctional team the undertaking of designing a focused milling machinery dedicated to a narrow, newly substantial product line. The team reported directly to Diggs an d took three years to complete its work. Initially, the project budget was $10 million to $12 million that figure was repeatedly rewrite as the team found, through experience and with Diggss prodding, that it could achieve dramatic improvements. The net investment, a total of $30 million, yielded unlooked-for breakthroughs in reliability testing, automatic tool adjustment, and programmable control.All were achieved through learning by doing. The team set additional precedents during the plants start-up and early operations. To dramatize the richness of quality, for example, the quality manager was appointed second-in-command, a significant move upward. The same reporting relationship was used at all subsequent plants. In addition, Diggs urged the plant manager to ramp up slowly to sound production and resist all efforts to proliferate products. These instructions were unusual at Copeland, where the foodstuff department normally ruled.Both directives were quickly tested manage ment held firm, and the implications were felt throughout the organization. Manufacturings stature improved, and the company as a whole recognized its matched contribution. One complyr commented, Marketing had eer run the company, so they couldnt believe it. The change was visible at the highest levels, and it went elaborate hard. Once the first focused grind was running smoothly -it seized 25% of the market in two years and held its edge in reliability for over a decade-Copeland built four more factories in quick succession.Diggs assigned members of the initial project to each factorys design team to ensure that early learnings were not lost these people later rotated into operating assignments. Today focused factories remain the cornerstone of Copelands manufacturing strategy and a continuing source of its cost and quality advantages. Whether they are demonstration projects like Copelands or ongoing programs like Allegheny Ludlums, all forms of experimentation seek the same end moving from superficial knowledge to ambiguous understanding. At its simplest, the distinction is between intimate how things are done and knowing wherefore they occur.Knowing how is partial knowledge it is grow in norms of behavior, standards of practice, and settings of equipment. Knowing why is more fundamental it captures underlying causeand-effect relationships and accommodates exceptions, adaptations, and unforeseen events. The ability to control temperatures and pressures to align grains of silicon and form silicon steel is an example of knowing how understanding the chemical and physical process that produces the alignment is knowing why. Further distinctions are possible, as the insert Stages of Knowledge suggests. in operation(p) knowledge can be lay out in a hierarchy, moving from limited understanding and the ability to make few distinctions to more complete understanding in which all contingencies are anticipated and controlled. In this context, experimentatio n and problem solving foster learning by pushing organizations up the hierarchy, from lower to higher stages of knowledge. 3. Learning from past experience. Companies must review their successes and failures, assess them systematically, and testify the lessons in a form that employers encounter open and accessible.One expert has called t9is process the Santayana Review, citing the famous philosopher George Santayana, who coined the phrase Those who cannot have in mind the past are condemned to repeat it. Unfortunately, too many managers today are indifferent, even hostile, to the past, and by failing to reflect on it, they let valuable knowledge escape. A study of more than 150 new products cerebrate that the knowledge gained from failures is often instrumental in achieving subsequent successes. In the simplest terms, failure is the supreme teacher. IBMs 360 computer series, for example, one of the most popular and profitable ever built, was based on the technology of the fai led Stretch computer that preceded it. In this case, as in many others, learning occurred by chance rather than by careful planning. A few companies, however, have established processes that require their managers to periodically think about the past and learn from their mistakes. Boeing did so contiguously after its difficulties with the 737 and 747 sail programs. Both planes were introduced with much fanfare and also with serious problems.To ensure that the problems were not repeated, senior managers commissioned a high-level employee group, called be sick Homework, to compare the development processes of the 737 and 747 with those of the 707 and 727, two of the companys most profitable planes. The group was asked to develop a set of lessons learned that could be used on hereafter projects. After working for three years, they produced hundreds of recommendations and an inch-thick booklet. several(prenominal) members of the team were then transferred to the 757 and 767 start-up s, and guided by experience, they produced the most successful, error-free launches in Boeings history.Other companies have used a similar retrospective approach. Like Boeing, Xerox studied its product development process, examining three trouble products in an effort to understand why the companys new business initiatives failed so often. Arthur D. Little, the consulting company, focused on its past successes. Senior management invited ADL consultants from around the world to a two-day jamboree, featuring booths and presentations documenting a wide prototype of the companys most successful practices, publications, and techniques.British crude went even hike up and established the post-project appraisal unit to review major investment projects, write up case studies, and derive lessons for planners that were then incarnate into revisions of the companys planning guidelines. A five-person unit reported to the board of directors and reviewed half dozen projects annually. The bul k of the time was spent in the field interviewing managers. This type of review is now conducted regularly at the project level. At the heart of this approach, one expert has observed, is a mind-set that enables companies to recognize the value of successful failure as contrasted with vain success. A productive failure is one that leads to insight, understanding, and hence an addition to the commonly held wisdom of the organization. An unproductive success occurs when something goes well, but nobody knows how or why. IBMs legendary founder, Thomas Watson, sr. , apparently understood the distinction well. gild lore has it that a young manager after losing $10 million in a risky venture was called into Watsons office. The young man, thoroughly intimidated, began by saying, I guess you want my resignation. Watson replied, You cant be serious. We just spent $10 million educating you. Fortunately, the learning process need not be so expensive. exercise studies and post-project r eviews like those of Xerox and British Petroleum can be performed with little cost other than managers time. Companies can also muster in the help of faculty and students at local anaesthetic colleges or universities they bring fresh perspectives and view internships and case studies as opportunities to gain experience and increase their own learning. A few companies have established computerized data banks to speed up the learning process.At Paul Revere Life Insurance, management requires all problem-solving teams to complete short registration forms describing their proposed projects if they hope to qualify for the companys allow program. The company then enters the forms into its computer system and can immediately retrieve a listing of other groups of people who have worked or are working on the topic, along with a contact person. relevant experience is then just a telephone call away. 4. Learning from others. Of course, not all learning comes from reflection and self-analysi s.sometimes the most powerful insights come from feeling outside ones immediate environment to gain a new perspective. Enlightened managers know that even companies in completely different businesses can be fertile sources of ideas and catalysts for creative thinking. At these organizations, intent borrowing is replacing the not invented here syndrome. Milliken calls the process SIS, for Steal Ideas Shamelessly the broader term for it is benchmarking. According to one expert, benchmarking is an ongoing investigation and learning experience that ensures that best industry practices are uncovered, analyzed, adopted, and implemented. The greatest benefits come from perusal practices, the way that work gets done, rather than results, and from involving line managers in the process. Almost anything can be benchmarked. Xerox, the concepts creator, has applied it to billing, warehousing, and automatise manufacturing. Milliken has been even more creative in an inspired moment, it benchm arked Xeroxs approach to benchmarking. Unfortunately, there is still considerable disorderliness about the requirements for successful benchmarking. Benchmarking is not industrial tourism, a series of ad hoc visits to companies that have received favorable publicity or won quality awards.Rather, it is a disciplined process that begins with a thorough search to identify best-practice organizations, continues with careful study of ones own practices and performance, progresses through systematic site visits and interview and concludes with an analysis of results, development of recommendations, and implementation. While timeconsuming, the process need not be terribly expensive AT&Ts Benchmarking mathematical group estimates that a moderate-sized project takes four to six months and incurs out-of-pocket costs of $20,000 (when personnel costs ax included, the figure is three to four times higher).Bench marking is one way of gaining an outside perspective another, equally fertile s ource of ideas is customers. Conversations with customers invariably awake learning they are, after all, experts in what they do. Customers can provide up-to-date product information, warlike comparisons, insights into changing preferences, and immediate feedback about assist and patt ern of use. And companies need these insights at all levels, from the executive suite to the shop floor. At Motorola, members of the Operating and Policy Committee, including the CEO, meet in person and on a regular root with customers.At Worthington Steel, all machine operators make periodic, unescorted trips to customers factories to discuss their needs. Sometimes customers cant articulate their needs or remember even the most recent problems they have had with a product or service. If thats the case, managers must observe them in action. Xerox employs a number of anthropologists at its Palo countertenor Research Center to observe users of new document products in their offices. Digital Equipment has developed an interactive process called contextual query that is used by software engineers to observe users of new technologies as they go about their work.Milliken has created first-delivery teams that accompany the first shipment of all products team members follow the product through the customers production process to see how it is used and then develop ideas for further improvement. Whatever the source of outside ideas, learning will only occur in a receptive environment. Managers cant be defensive and must be open to criticism or bad news. This is a difficult challenge, but it is essential for success.Companies that approach customers assuming that we must be right, they have to be vituperate or visit other organizations certain that they cant teach us anything seldom learn very much. Learning organizations, by contrast, cultivate the art of open, attentive listening. 5. Transferring knowledge. For learning to be more than a local affair, knowledge must bed coveri ng quickly and efficiently throughout the organization.Ideas prolong maximum impact when they are shared broadly rather than held in a few hands. A variety of mechanisms generalized anxiety disorder this process, including written, oral, and visual reports, site visits and tours, personnel gyration programs, education and training programs, and standardization programs. Each has distinctive strengths and weaknesses.Reports and tours are by far the most popular mediums. Reports serve many purposes they summarize findings, provide checklists of dos and donts, and describe important processes and events. They cover a multitude of topics, from benchmarking studies to accounting conventions to newly discover marketing techniques. Today written reports are often supplemented by videotapes, which offer great immediacy and fidelity. Tours are an equally popular means of transferring knowledge, especially for large, multidivisional organizations with multiple sites.