You May Not Be A Learning Organization!

The October 9, 2022 issue of STO Realities--

https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/systems-failure-peter-reier/

-- explored the phenomenon of repeated and chronic Turnaround Event Failure from a Systems thinking perspective.

More specifically we examined the developmental maturity of the modern Turnaround Process in terms of systemization and feedback and considered whether we have established adequate levels of Systemization and Feedback to have a reasonable expectation of achieving the ultimate maturity goal – can we approach Turnaround as a “learning organization”?

The examination led to the inescapable conclusion that the modern Turnaround Process is fully equipped from a Systems thinking perspective to deliver the results we claim to desire—success.

In that October Issue we speculated that the mass corporate direction changes through 1980s and forward to cease or very severely curtail all forms of company support for training and mentorship, would be a rather simple place to begin remediation.?

We suggested that where we are today, is likely a long-term consequence of the short-term fiscal decisions to end in house training, and we closed with the business statement—Training and Mentorship are Investment Spends, not expense spends.

We will stand by the advisement of that October 9 issue; training will almost certainly be a necessary part of turning things around for the turnaround industry.

Today let’s think about the pearl of wisdom in the Peter Senge quote; “failed to adopt a true systems view, despite an abundance of “Systems Analysts”.

This author has a lot of personal experience with companies—and their turnarounds—which are NOT Learning Organizations; including the experience of being inside an organization that was a leader in terms of Learning Organizations, but in a single management shift eliminated systems learning from their corporate DNA.

The consequences began within a relatively short period of time, but the consequences were now removed from the decisions that directly caused them, like many companies at that time the management ladder was an elaborate form of musical chairs, which also was a decision with a purpose; but that purpose also led to dire unanticipated consequences, but that’s another story for another day.?

The point is, falling off the Systems Thinking approach to management is extraordinarily easy, and often enough is a direct result of pillared management structure leading to the making of consequential decisions in the isolation of freestanding Silos (Management Pillars).?

Today let’s explore what getting back on the Success Train looks like, how can we help Turnarounds the world over gets back to the critical priority of being “learning organizations”?

Peter touched on it with that quote… “despite an abundance of Systems Analysts”

Let’s step down form the Systems Thinking pulpit for a second, management teams seldom leap directly to the Systems solution, first it is common to see a series of “Program Roll-outs”.

Back in the day we used to refer to these as “Flavour of the Month” and laugh about the fact that the company wasn’t interested in consultants to help us get back on track, they would keep bringing in “new approaches” until they found someone who agreed with what they “believed”.

Honestly, that is a simple and bitter interpretation from the floor, but I promise you that is exactly how it will be heard and received when approached in such manner.

Now on one hand, it would be fair to say that I use my platform in large part to promote the idea that there is no Growth, no Win, no Success, without Change… and that Change must be perpetual.?

Change is not the coming Storm, it is merely the day-to-day variance of the weather.

So then, why do I now appear to be disparaging a search for solutions through consultants?

Well – I’m not.

Let’s revisit Peter’s quote one more time… “despite an abundance of “Systems Analysts”.

We can rephrase this… “Despite an abundance of highly experienced consultants”

??????????????????????????????????????“Despite an abundance of extraordinarily experienced personnel”

????????????????????????????????????? “Despite an abundance of “x.y.z” software solutions expenses.”

We can keep going, but you get the idea I’m sure.

What is missing here?

Systems Analysis can readily show us where we came off the rails.

Systems Analysis can readily show us the most viable road back to the farm.

However, unless we have an Execution and Implementation plan the reports from the Systems Analyst, the reports from the Consultants, the absolute mission critical data from the personnel, our SAP, our P6 license, our Navitrack license… all a complete waste of money??????????????????

As Peter Senge calls out…

>> The U.S. in particular has failed to adopt a true systems view, despite an abundance of “Systems Analysts”.

--From the linear view, we are always looking for someone or something that must be responsible—

--In mastering systems thinking, we give up the assumption that there is an individual, or individual agent, responsible.

--the search for scapegoats—a particularly alluring pastime in individualistic cultures…

…is a blind alley. << Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline <<

We will stand by the conclusions of our Oct. 9 edition, a cultural return to training and mentorship... from entry level though CEO is imperative, but that alone only prepares the soil for next steps.

We need to accept Processes and Programs are not magic, and do not produce an easy button, not just for Turnaround, for anything really.

It is all meaningless without Execution!

In many ways my former co-workers were not incorrect in their assessment… “flavour of the month”, and realistically that is a completely fair assessment from their POV.

How did we get here?

Well… being no longer young, and having the curse of a memory that will not let me go… I have a few thoughts to that.

• “Swim in your own lane” … a very, very, necessary reprimand in most board rooms became interpreted as “every team works in isolation with full autonomy.”

Swim in your own lane only ever meant, bring to the team YOUR expertise, and allow the other members of the TEAM the respect that they do not need you telling them how to complete their work.

Swim in your own lane NEVER meant, ignore the Process, ignore the rest of the team; and honestly, I hate to sound impatient on this; but seriously--how was that not completely obvious?

• The removal of Hierarchical reporting and authority structure, I admit I can’t even begin to comprehend this Societally driven change, so I can’t speak to it other than to point out this is a very clear contributor to the destruction of the robust learning organization I was once apart of, and sadly watched fall all the way to the opposite side of the spectrum.

Another Turnaround specialist on LinkedIn, Sonny Best PMP , uses the bi-line

“The Industry can be better!”

I completely agree with Sonny, I have no idea if we agree for the same reasons.

Perhaps Sonny is far less jaded and cynical than me and just maintains that optimistic “can be better” stance out of incurable optimism… but for myself I know the industry can be better… because I was there once, and it was glorious.

Let’s try to have a little bit of fun since it’s close to the holidays, let’s see if we can do a “Foxworthy” style close to drive the point home…

• If your current Lessons Learned file contains the same lessons as last time; you may not be a learning organization.
• If you budget for Analysis but skip on executing the recommendations; you may not be a learning organization.
• If you believe your consultant must be wrong because they do not agree with “the way you’ve always done it”; you may not be a learning organization.
• If you just tossed out your established Turnaround Process because “It” failed; you may not be a learning organization. (spoiler “It” didn’t fail)
• If you Scapegoated your last Turnaround General Contractor; you may not be a learning organization.
• If you Scapegoated your Turnaround team for perceived financial reporting failures; you may not be a learning organization.
• If you do not understand that Turnaround is an “all in” endeavor and everyone is part of it not merely the TA team; you may not be a learning organization.
• If there is no support to enforce proper fully developed and professional support plans from the Support Teams, including but not limited to, Finance, HSE, Operations, Maintenance, Work Management, Engineering, Projects, and Integrity; you may not be a learning organization.
• If members are being added to the Turnaround Core Team for any reason other than experience and expertise; you may not be a learning organization.
• Your Steering Team is there to remove obstacles to the turnaround process if they will not participate in managing the Support Team members to compliance; you may not be a learning organization.
• If your Strategy Team does not clearly and unambiguously support the turnaround process; you may not be a learning organization.
• If your Turnaround Manager is only a figurehead with no authority; you definitely are not a learning organization.

In the natural schedule of events, the next issue of STO Realities would be published on New Years Eve, we will skip that edition, call it Holiday season stand-down, and see everyone back here in mid-January 2023.

Season Greetings and best wishes for everyone from all of us at Progressive Plan Inc.

Subscribe today, it costs nothing, (great value), and delivers each issue of STO Realities directly to your inbox.