FOUR WAYS LEADERS FASHION A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN A KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY!
Amy Edmondson’s book, Teaming:?How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy, points out that organizations have to function differently today than in the past.?“Today’s effective leaders differ” she notes, “from even the most successful managers in yesterday’s routine-intensive organizations.”[1]?She holds, “The differences start with a basic mindset about human beings.?Whereas industrialization essentially infantilized workers, the knowledge-based economy only works well when it restores workers on all levels to self-respecting, self-determining adulthood.”[2]?Church leaders may well learn that church organizations reflect some of those differences in basic mindset, too, and may have to learn to accommodate them.
Organizing to learn, organizing to execute
Amy Edmondson claims that organizational learning depends heavily on leadership fostering an environment which is conducive to what she calls “teaming.”?She uses the term primarily as a verb: “a dynamic activity, not a bounded, static entity.?It is largely determined by the mindset and practices of teamwork, not by the design and structures of effective teams.”[3]?Teaming becomes necessary in a knowledge economy due to the “growing number of organizations, the constantly shifting nature of work means that many teams disband almost as soon as they formed.”[4]?She believes teaming is at the heart of organizational learning, referring to it as the “engine of organizational learning.”[5]?For proper teaming to occur, there must be a “relinquishing of control as the ultimate goal.”[6]?Rather than control, teaming “requires a new kind of leadership that supports speaking up, asking questions, and sharing ideas.?In short, teaming requires a leadership mindset that cultivates an environment conducive to learning.”[7]?
Edmondson describes the rescue of the Chilean miners in August of 2010 to illustrate how three groups came together as a team, while each group operated from a different location.?The miners were trapped underground (challenged to survive), the engineers and geologist were immediately above the accident (locating and designing the technical aspects of the rescue), and the politicians were in their offices (collaborating with governmental authorities and gathering resources).[8]?Edmondson notes, “Fortunately, the different teams came up with remarkably complementary pieces of an ultimately viable solution.”[9]?The leaders were a critical component, Edmondson observes, “The various subgroup leaders met for a half hour every morning and also called for quick meetings on an as-needed basis.”[10]?Given the scope, size, and complexity of the problem, she concludes “coordinated teaming” allowed “multiple temporary groups of people working separately on different types of problems, and coordinating across groups, as needed.”[11]?
The “teaming” concept promotes collective learning:?“groups must access knowledge, develop a shared understanding of how best to apply it, and act in a coordinated manner that is reflective of new insights.”[12]?This three-step approach coordinates both the cognitive (thinking) and behavioral (doing) schools of thought in organizational learning.?Carol C. Leavitt notes, “The cognitive school reasons that learning occurs through our mental models, structures, or schemas, which enable us to understand events and situations and to interpret and respond to our environments,”[13]?while “[t]he behavioral school asserts that we learn by gaining insight and understanding from experience through experimentation, observation, analysis, and examination of outcomes.”[14]?Edmondson’s teaming approach to organizational learning incorporates both cognitive and behavioral elements.
???????????To assist in sorting through the prioritization maze of learning opportunities, Edmondson sorts learning into three categories along what she calls “The Process Knowledge Spectrum”.[15]?She describes, “At one end of the Process Knowledge Spectrum is high-volume repetitive work” and “at the other end is pioneering research and discovery” and “in the middle are complex operations.”[16]
???????????She recommends, “Where one’s work, department, or entire organization sits along the spectrum has implications for achieving a match between the nature of the work and how learning can be optimized.”[17]?For instance:
·??????When process knowledge is mature and uncertainty low, as in a routine production setting like an assembly plant, learning should focus on improvement;
·??????When knowledge is very limited and uncertainty high, as in a pharmaceutical research lab seeking groundbreaking molecular compounds, teaming should focus on innovation and discovery.[18]
Four Ways for Leaders to Fashion a Learning Environment
1. Teaming
Teaming requires the ability of groups of professionals to set aside the idea of expertise and open to the group’s abilities.?She says, “effective teaming requires suspension of the spontaneous assumption that one’s own perspective is more accurate than those of others.”[19]?She concludes, “Teaming may feel like an unnatural act; thus, leadership is needed to create an environment conducive to teaming.”[20]?
While the benefits of proper teaming are improved performance and engaged employees,[21] Edmondson admits there are challenges in fostering “learning behaviors” that require “environments that support and encourage sharing, experimenting, and learning.”[22]?People don’t always get along,[23] silence is easier than speaking up,[24] and the hierarch affect stifles open communication.[25]?Edmondson also notes that speaking up brings the challenge of “disagreement.”?She notes the problem with disagreement is the negative “sensemaking in which people spontaneously engage when disagreement occurs.”[26]?To “cool conflict” Edmondson recommends four teaming qualities that leaders can promote: identify the nature of conflict, model good communication, identify shared goals, and encourage difficult conversations.[27]?
2. Framing for learning
Framing can help “people interpret the ambiguous signals that accompany change in a positive and productive light … .”[28]?In her reflection on a research project involving the implementation of a new medical process in 16 different hospitals, Edmondson concludes, “by the time the research was over [framing] turned out to be the single most powerful factor explaining success.”[29]?She notes, “differences in how the project was framed by each project leader gave rise to different attitudes about the technology and the need for teamwork.”[30]?Edmondson observed the key aspects of successful “framing implementation” were: the leaders’ role; the team’s role, and the project purpose.[31]
Framing includes simple things, such as leaders choosing their own team members.?She observed, the “successful leaders simply recognized and communicated that in doing MICS they were dependent on others.”[32]?She encourages, “Leaders must explicitly convey their own sense of interdependence with others for a successful outcome, express their own fallibility, and communicate a need for collaboration.”[33]?For this to occur, “leaders must frame their role in the project in ways that invite others to participate fully.”[34]?Not only does the leader’s role need framing, but also the team members’ roles.?Edmondson notes, “thoughtfully framing the roles that different people should play in a joint effort is important to building a cohesive team and an effective process.”[35]
Finally, framing is not complete without justifying the project’s purpose.?Edmondson charges, “The leader’s job is to articulate and help people cohere around this shared purpose.”[36]?She observes two types of purposes: aspirational and defensive.?
3. Make it psychologically safe
Edmondson warns, “interpersonal fear can dominate modern work life and thwart the collaboration that is desperately needed in the knowledge intensive organizations that dominate today’s economy.”[37]?She explains, “The term psychological safety describes a climate in which people feel free to express relevant thoughts and feelings.”?She calculates, “the ability to seek help and tolerate mistakes while colleagues watch can be unexpectedly difficult.”[38]?Yet she insists “frank conversations and public missteps must occur” in order “to realize the promise of collaboration across differences.”[39]
In 2003, the space shuttle Columbia lost its seven passengers on its attempt to reenter the earth’s atmosphere.?It was later discovered that a low-level engineer had emailed his immediate superior about an exterior piece of foam that had detached during the shuttle’s launch.?The low-level engineer had noticed this potential hazard when watching a video replay of the shuttle’s launch.?During the investigation after the Columbia had disintegrated, it was discovered this low-level engineer did not report the hazard higher than his immediate supervisor, because, “engineers were often told not to send messages much higher than their own rung in the ladder.”[40]?Edmondson concludes such tragedies of not speaking up in the workplace are “an all-too-common organizational dynamic.”[41]?People don’t want to stand out in fear they may draw undesired attention.?She notes, “people are reluctant to voice concerns or engage in behaviors that could threaten their image within a wide spectrum of industries and organizations.”[42]?
Another example is the case of military training pilots: “The prospect of speaking up to the superior officer brings significant emotional costs” and, in research, it was observed junior pilots would risk their own lives to avoid “being chastised or ignored.”[43]
Edmondson offers examples of how psychological safety promotes teaming and organizational learning, and how to encourage psychological safety.?In brief, she describes, “psychological safety makes it possible to give tough feedback and have difficult conversations without the need to tiptoe around the truth.”[44]?Which (in practice) means, “if they make a mistake others will not penalize or think less of them for it.”[45]?Ultimately, she concludes, “This belief comes about when people both trust and respect each other, and it produces a sense of confidence that the group won’t embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up.”[46]
Research shows that “the most important influence on psychological safety is the nearest manager, supervisor, or boss.”[47]?Edmondson offers eight leadership behaviors which cultivate psychological safety: be accessible and approachable; acknowledge the limits of current knowledge; be willing to display fallibility; invite participation; highlight failures as learning opportunities; use direct language; set boundaries; and hold people accountable for transgressions.[48]
4. Learning to learn from failure
Failure is not easy to discuss.?Edmondson encourages organizations to look for small failures.?In her research she observes, “Small failures are often overlooked.”[49]?She explains, “Due to a natural desire to protect their image or status, very few people would voluntarily choose to publicize their own mistakes.?But to capture the value of small failures, individuals and groups must learn to acknowledge their performance gaps.”[50]?Furthermore, she observes, “Managers have an added incentive to disassociate themselves from failure because most organizations reward success and penalize failure.”[51]?She concludes, “A natural consequence of punishing failures is that employees learn to avoid identifying them, let alone analyzing them or experimenting if the outcome is uncertain.”[52]?
Edmondson observes an interesting phenomenon in more complex systems.?She notes, “the more complex the situation in which we find ourselves, the less likely we will be to understand the relationship between failure and fault.”[53]?She notes, “Logically, we can see that many of the things that go wrong in organizations couldn’t have been prevented, or may come from thoughtful exploration of a new area.”[54]?However, “The unfortunate consequence” Edmondson asserts, “of this gap between logic and practice is that many failures go unreported or misdiagnosed and their lessons are lost.”[55]?
Edmondson notes that failures in routine operations “are usually caused by small process deviations”[56]?but failure in complex operations “are particularly challenging because the stakes tend to be high.”[57]?She therefore concludes, “analysis usually reveals an organization’s process, rather than a human, to be at fault when disaster strikes.”[58]?Finally, Edmondson sees failure in the innovation operations category increased due to the very nature of the activity.?She says, “To innovate, people must test ideas without knowing in advance what will work.[59]
Learning from failure requires a different “psychological and organizational” atmosphere.?Edmondson encourages “a spirit of curiosity and openness, as well as exceptional patience and a tolerance for ambiguity.”[60]?She refers to such traits as “inquiry orientation,” which “is characterized by the perception among group members that multiple alternatives exist, and that frequent dissent is necessary.?These perceptions result in a deeper understanding of issues, the development of new possibilities, and an awareness of others’ reasoning.”[61]?She lists several strategies for learning from failures: support systems for identifying failure; embrace the messenger; gather data and solicit feedback; reward failure detection; support systems for analyzing and discussing failure; convene interdisciplinary groups; analyze data systematically; establish and support systems for deliberate experimentation; reward experimentation and its inevitable failures; and, design intelligent failures for learning.[62]
Summary
Being able to act and risk failure is never easy when the environment is unsafe, when there is reputational risk, employment risk, or even physical risk.?By avoiding the risk of acting, many people miss out on learning opportunities and the innovative ways God may be at work.?Remember what it was like when you first learned to read. Knowledge acquisition is meant to be fun. It is all part of the maturing process, an unending task. Thomas Edison once said, “I have not failed.?I have just found 10,000 ways that will not work.”?The goal of leadership in a knowledge economy is for leaders to create desirable conditions where people can take actions and risk failure to improve efficiencies, solve problems, and discover new possibilities.
[1] Ibid., 40.
[2] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 13 – 4.
[5] Ibid., 14.
[6] Ibid., 23.
[7] Ibid., 26.
[8] Ibid., 186.
[9] Ibid., 189.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 191.
[12] Ibid., 27.
[13] Leavitt, Carol C., “A Comparative Analysis of Three Unique Theories of Organizational Learning,” (White Paper, Ivins, UT 84738, September 14, 2011.), 4.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., 32.
[16] Ibid., 33 – 4.
[17] Ibid., 36.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid., 83.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., 58 – 60.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid., 62.
[24] Ibid., 62 – 3.
[25] Ibid., 63 – 4.
[26] Ibid., 64.
[27] Ibid., 71.
[28] Ibid., 83 – 4.
[29] Ibid., 90.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid., 94.
[33] Ibid., 96.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid., 100.
[37] Ibid., 118.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid., 116.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid., 117.
[44] Ibid., 118.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid., 119.
[47] Ibid., 117.
[48] Ibid., 139.
[49] Ibid., 153.?
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid., 156.
[52] Ibid., 158.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid., 160.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid., 161.
[57] Ibid., 162.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid., 163.
[60] Ibid., 168.
[61] Ibid., 169.
[62] Ibid., 170 – 182).
Martin Edward Lee serves as Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer of Classical Stewardship Institute since 2016. Mr. Lee has been a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pastor for 23 years and an investment advisor for 20 years. Prior to his service at Church Organizers Foundation, Mr. Lee was a branch manager (securities principal) at LPL Financial, the largest independent broker dealer in the United States.?Serving as an investment advisor over the past two decades, Mr. Lee has focused on understanding the financial and economic needs within the nonprofit community. He has a wealth of knowledge and experience providing economic and financial solutions to the unique challenges in the nonprofit community. He has had direct fiduciary oversight of $50 million in endowment and private client investments on platforms at UBS PaineWebber, LPL Financial, and TD Ameritrade.?Mr. Lee is committed to building up the community of faith through promoting organizational stewardship and cultivating healthy innovation.?As an LC─MS pastor, Mr. Lee, has served family- to corporate-sized ministries.?He has provided advisory services to hospitals, shelters, community foundations, and libraries.?He also serves as a full-time pastor in the Intentional Interim Ministry of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and is a faculty member of Lutheran Transitional Ministry Association (LuTMA).