CHANGE, LEARNING, STEWARDSHIP & SUCCESS IN THE AGE OF UNREASON

“Change Management”, “Transformation” and the need to be “Agile” seem to be the obsession of twenty first century businesses and organisations. Faced with volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) conditions that is unsurprising. But, when these terms are used, how many people know what they really mean, and do they have clarity about what they are trying to change or transform, or what the purpose and benefits of being agile are, and how they are achieved in practice? The evidence suggest often they do not.

Sometimes they terms are qualified. Change Management is defined more narrowly as “culture change” or “systems change” for example. But narrowing the focus makes little difference since what is meant by culture, and how to change it, also seem to be very badly understood.

Thirty-two years ago, The Age of Unreason by Charles Handy was published. In it he argues that changing is only another word for learning, and that theories of learning are therefore also theories of changing. Charles goes on to say:

"Those who are always learning are those who can ride the waves of change and who see a changing world as full of opportunities not damages. They are the ones most likely to be the survivors in times of discontinuity. They are also the enthusiasts and the architects of the new ways and forms and ideas. If you want to change, try learning one might say, or more precisely, if you want to take control of change, take learning more seriously."

From the statements so far, it is clear that change may be external and require us to respond, and it can be internal and be driven by us, either proactively or as a reaction. But the change that gives us a greater chance of achieving long-term success is proactive change, driven by us, and achieved by learning.

Charles then introduces a “Theory of Learning”. He states that he learned very little in school that he remembers, because it was about transferring answers to problems from those with the answers to the pupil, rather than the pupil answering a question or solving a problem. As a result, “there was nothing about change in all of that. Nor, in fact, was there much about learning as it really is.”

This made realise the degree to which learning in work is similar to that in schools, with leaders thinking it is their job to transfer the answers to employees. Instead, employees should be encouraged to search for answers to questions, and for solutions to problems. Some readers may argue they are, but given the very high numbers of employees disengaged from their work, I would suggest most employees are not. “Top-down” management is still the dominant practice.

Charles believes learning is a continuous circular process with four segments that need to be completed, then repeated iteratively. But most people get stuck – at the start. The process begins with “a question, a problem to be solved, a dilemma to be resolved, a challenge to meet.” But “if it is not our question, we shall not push the wheel round” to the next stage. [Charles emphasises the word “our”].

This insight may seem trivial to many, but the implications are of critical importance in my opinion. The insight should influence decisions about leadership styles and structures, and who it is that decides what questions to ask, and gets to make decisions. Additionally, it means great importance should be attached to ensuring employees have the interest and capability, to know what questions, dilemmas and challenges are important to the organisation, and that they regard them as important. How can that be achieved?

Employees need a clear understanding of the strategy of the organisation. They must also believe in it. They will if they contributed to its development and, therefore, feel some ownership of it. It wasn’t just imposed on them. Strategy should be seen as an ongoing iterative process to which they contribute. Not a plan but a way of thinking that drives a continuous iterative search for new ways to create more value for all stakeholders, themselves included.

Director and leaders should see themselves as stewards whose focus is the creation and preservation of real value, by designs informed by values deemed likely to ensure the organisation has a strong and lasting reputation. Employees, and all those in a relationship with the organisation should take pride in their association with the firm, and be motivated to want to support its ongoing success.

In such conditions change will not be feared. It will be embraced as Charles suggests, resulting in the benefits he described in the quote above. Additionally, I believe these insights into organisations can be applied to the way in which countries should be governed. The development of a country is far more likely if citizens have the capabilities and motivation to want to create more value for it. And if governments see their duty as being driven by the principles of good stewardship. This approach would lead to better solutions to our collective challenges, of which we now face many. Too much autocratic and centralised government is akin to top-down management which stifles the change, transformation, and agility we so badly need.

These and similar topics will be discussed by three world class thinkers during the next Enlightened Enterprise Academy conference “Lessons in Longevity and Stewardship.” It takes place online on Tuesday 26th October from 2 pm BST (3 pm CET, 9am EST) FREE TICKETS ??