The importance of learning systems in Transformations
Transformations require a technical theory and an organisation that is capable of learning to change. Technical theories are found in areas such as accounting, economics of the firm, marketing, research and development, certain theories relating to HR (such as incentive schemes, personnel selection and training), finance, information technology, competitive strategy (Argyris and Sch?n, 1996) and I propose this includes frameworks used in transformations. The term ‘learning’ in this discussion refers to the ability of the organisation to detect and correct errors, in this case in a transformation.
There are two types of learning system; single-loop and double-loop learning.
“Single-loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on ‘techniques and making techniques more efficient’ (Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87) Any reflection is directed toward making the strategy more effective. Double-loop learning, in contrast, ‘involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie actual goals and strategies. (op. cit.)” By this definition, significant transformations that require a shift in mindset, such as an agile transformation, would benefit from double-loop learning. Focusing only on the technical theory alone is insufficient for the best outcome.
Technical theories have characteristics which create high levels of confidence. These characteristics include; the definitions are precise, the data collection is objective, the findings are replicable, the approach is systematic and accumulative, the purposes are understanding and prediction and, in the applied arena brings control. The underlying assumptions are that the theory is causally rigorous, and it should produce predictable and reproducible results when it is applied as prescribed. This implies that any practitioner should achieve the same result and where these differ, it should be possible to backtrack and find out where the deviation occurred. The values, principles and practices are made as explicit as possible through training, technical theory coaching and consulting supported by a variety of artefacts. However, when this leads to an overconfidence bias, the ability to learn is undermined. This isn’t a fault with the technical theory itself, it is a problem within the organisational learning system driven by Model I behaviours (see Argyris and Sch?n, 1996).
Often, when the transformation runs its course and success is declared based on a host of vanity metrics proving the ‘boxes have been ticked’, the business outcomes don’t materialise or the benefits are not sustained. The reaction is typically to “take control”, mandate the approach, add more training/coaching/consulting, change tools and produce more artefacts. Sometimes the reaction is to drop the transformation program entirely. When this doesn’t challenge the existing norms and values, it may be a viable approach. However, most transformations do challenge the existing norms and values, so instilling double-loop learning is important. This should be coupled with moving people away from Model I behaviour when encountering difficult situations.
When dealing with transformations, the ability of the organisation to learn should be part of the agenda. Suppliers of transformation services and change agents should be knowledgeable and promote organisational learning as a key outcome. HR also has a role to play by setting policies, organisational structures and rewarding positive change in norms and values that help to move away from deeply entrenched defensive behaviours. Organisational training programs to foster double-loop learning are also a possibility. Investing in organisational learning can be the difference between practical success and an expensive theoretical exercise.
References
Argyris, C. and Sch?n, D. (1996) Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Usher, R. and Bryant, I. (1989) Adult Education as Theory, Practice and Research, London: Routledge.