In Pursuit of a Learning Organisation

Part 1.2 Team and Organisational Learning

For those of you following these articles in order, this is a continuation of the section on the reading I have been doing on Learning Organisations and that led to my research. You can find part 1.1 here if you need to refresh your memory and if you are picking this up for the first time. It will also provide a bit context to both the reading and the research.

Team Learning

So much that has been written about learning refers mostly to the individual and as you'll see, team learning doesn't appear be as heavily researched, though there is a chance I just didn't read it. Reading on this area though, has forced me to reflect hard on my military career with the Royal Air Force, from day one in basic training it becomes clear that you are nothing without those around you and that you have to adapt to each other to succeed.

In the workplace though, most of the focus is still on the individual, we pay individuals, we recognise individuals and we promote individuals. We also develop, in the main, individuals. Yet in the military all of my initial learning was completed in teams, with others and for others. Yes there is a different focus and yes there is an obvious reason for it but, surely the modern business place is missing something, isn't it?

The reading on team learning highlights the notion of environment, climate and culture.?Alignment and Dialogue (Bohm, 2003, 2004; Isaacs, 1999; Senge, 2006) appear to contribute to successful team learning.?The ability for teams to operate in harmony or in synergy towards a shared vision (Senge, 2006) enables a team to waste less energy working against each other and avoid the development of defensive routines (Argyris, 1985).

No surprises to find that Amy Edmondson (1999) supports this further by indicating teams with psychological safety, where individuals feel they can be themselves and interpersonal trust is evident, are more likely to learn quickly or point out errors when they occur, without fear of repercussion or causing embarrassment.?This is where we start to see the impact learning can have on the bottom line. Through improved working efficiencies and the removal of blockers caused by relationship challenges, positive conditions for team learning could begin to reduce workplace conflict which could reduce stress, absence and turnover.

Environment, hierarchy and the managers power all impact on the team and their ability to learn. Sinha and Stothard (Sinha and Stothard, 2020) indicate that during times of hardship teams look to more direct leadership in stricter more structured hierarchies where power disseminates down to support team learning.?Conversely, when environmental hardship is reduced more relaxed or flatter hierarchies are more suitable.?This backs up the notion presented by Arie de Geus in his book ‘The Living Company’ (1999) that successful business should be able to adapt to the outside world.

Structures also play a big part in what Ahmed, Loh and Zairi call group learning and continuous improvement (1999).?Consistent with Dweck (Dweck, 1986), they propose that individual creative performance is decreased by expectations of conformity or judgement and that in the group context this creativity is further reduced by overbearing autocratic leadership.?Ahmed, Loh and Zairi go on to state that group creativity can be increased through group diversity and organic, rather than, mechanistic structures.?Group cohesion is mentioned here too.?Like Argyris (1985) they highlight the importance of group cohesion but indicate it as more of a balancing act rather than just the group possession of cohesion.?They state that, with insufficient cohesiveness, fear can be present and with too much, elements of group think can be created and so complacency is common. Once again we could look at the operations of human resources teams within an organisation and the fine balance of governance practices.?What might reduce risk, through human control, might also stifle individual learning, creativity and innovation leading to a reduced capacity for improved group performance.

Many will look at the military and assume that it too is autocratic, hierarchical and directive in its leadership. It can be all, specifically when in a crisis but all those involved know that this works best and look to solve problems together, to adapt and overcome and follow the leaders direction to the letter. However, in times of calm the opposite is true. In my experience it was supportive, encouraged self-direction and the hierarchy and rank, while still respectfully there, flattened. How many business are still running crisis like structures as the crisis begins to ease and how many are able to use their cohesive teams to effectively adapt?

Organisational Learning

This is where that discussion of subjectivity and objectivity creeps back in. Is it really possible for organisation to learn and to live? I'm still on the fence.

As we once again scale up to an Organisational level of learning we can take a closer look at Senge’s Disciplines (Senge, 2006).?Senge’s perspective appears to derive from a number of sources that include Sociology, Psychology, Physics and Complexity.?While popularised by Senge’s work, the notion of organisational learning has existed for some time (Argyris and Schon, 1978; De Geus, 1999; Nonaka, 1994; Senge, 2006) and links to other thinking surrounding levels of learning (Bateson, 1972).

Literature regarding personal mastery and team learning has already been highlighted and are key components of Senge’s version of a Learning organisation.?We have also touched on elements of personal vision and as we consider the organisational context, vision or shared vision is underlined as a key discipline of a learning organisation.

Individuals having a personal vision is considered an important factor of shared visions by Senge (2006).?Senge also points out that shared visions are usually more successful where emotional connection is sparked and to achieve that spark a personal vision should be present.?It is no surprise that, as you begin to look at shared visions closer, the other of Senge’s disciplines come in to play.?For instance, Senge suggests that personal mastery, the ability to set goals and hold creative tension in order to achieve them, enables an individual to create a personal vision and that team learning can be enabled by collecting the visions of each individual and galvanising a shared vision.?By taking a systems thinking approach, each team will need to consider the wider shared visions of the other teams around them to ensure they support each other’s work under one clear organisational vision or goal. I would love to know how many of you have spoken to your colleagues about their personal vision and how they are connecting them to their teams shared visions.

Studies (Kantabutra, 2009; Kantabutra and Avery, 2010, 2011) support Senge’s position on shared visions and evidence how clear, challenging and compelling visions that generate high emotional commitment, drive success, specifically in driving customer and employee satisfaction.?This could indicate that visions are a strong driver of both social and human capital leading to overall organisational success.

Ralph Stacey (2003) contradicts what he calls ‘mainstream thinking’ regarding learning organisations much of which I've already referenced here. Stacey indicates that organisations aren’t able to and should not own, manage or store knowledge, as knowledge is a process of social interactions fuelled by feeling rather than something we possess.?

Stacey concludes that getting rid of all processes designed to manage, share and create knowledge is the best way forward and that organisations should just allow knowledge to evolve and self-organise.

This ‘living present’ and complexity approach is without doubt of value and would be beneficial over the long term to create success.?However, while I agree with what could be called a utopian view of an organisation without governance, I feel this might not be palatable for the general leadership practitioner uneducated in complexity science.?This might seem unfair, but I definitely felt of my depth reading about quantum theory and its relationship to dialogue written by David Bohm.

So what?

If we really are going to support the business we work for and the people that work in them to continually improve, we really have to go deeper into the worlds outside of learning. Yes, having an understand of learning is without doubt a foundation but it is just the tip of the iceberg. If your focus narrows on the learning you are blind to all the other things that need to be in place to enable it. If you look at the individuals, teams and the organisation as a whole and as a system, then you begin to realise that learning will happen under the right conditions, you just have to find out what those conditions are.

Next week I'll share how this all relates to success.