Professionals too busy to learn LO9045

Joe Katzman (joe@embanet.com)
Mon, 12 Aug 96 14:30:13 -0500

Was: Intro -- Dave Pollard LO8639
[Subject line changed by your host... ]

Dave Pollard <pollardd@inforamp.net> asked:

>(1) How do you motivate very busy professionals to learn?
>(2) How do you design curricula for different learning styles?
>(3) How do you deal with senior execs who don't think they need to learn?
>(4) How do you mix generalist and specialist training/learning in a company?

Dave,

Congratulations on your position as CKO of Ernst & Young Canada, and
your wish to help guide E&Y toward becoming a "Learning Organization." You
asked some thought-provoking questions. Here are some of my thoughts,
Cc:ed to the LO list so that others might benefit from them as well.
I'm always more than a little bit skeptical of people who wade in with
answers before they have taken the time to really understand the terrain,
so I'm going to try and avoid that. What I will attempt to provide are
some questions that I think are worthwhile, along with some elaboration
for context and finally some pointers to ways of thinking and resources
that may help you in your endeavours if you haven't already run across
them.

SOME RADICAL QUESTIONS

* What do you mean by "learning organization", or for that matter
"knowledge-driven organization"? Every organization is a learning
organization, and driven by what people think they know. The question
really boils down to WHAT you want your firm to learn, and how fast. What
are your senior management's honest answers to that? What are yours?
Nothing wrong with having biases, you understand, as long as they're in
the open.

* E&Y is a professional services firm. As Mintzberg and other point out,
that often means younger members are given standardised templates and
procedure to apply. That can be important to your firm's efficiency - do
you really want to do away with that and move to a completely innovative
configuration? Or do you want an innovative overlay on an essentially
professional structure? The answers will have a significant effect on
where you go from here.

* Whether you choose an "overlay" or "full transition" strategy, there
will come a point where the requirements of innovation and standardization
are both strong enough to start pulling in opposite directions. What keeps
your firm together when that happens, and prevents either wild
inconsistencies or degeneration into a totally politicized environment?
By the way, how politicized are you NOW? If very, who are the factions,
and which ones might find your ideas advantageous or the reverse?

OFFICIAL FUTURES

Every stable organization has an "official future," a way things are
expected to unfold. It's a specific sub-species of mental model, and a
very, very important one. What's E&Y's?
Is it predicated on continued rapid growth of the consulting field? Or
is it a process not dissimilar to the one lawyers went through recently, a
world of smarter clients, smaller billings, an in-house/specialist split
in the profession, and tighter margins in both a financial and performance
sense? What could happen to make the official future NOT come true? How
likely is that...and thus how likely is the official future? What other
scenarios can you build for your industry's future, based on 2-3 key axes?
What would E&Y need to do if they came true? How can you begin thinking
and preparing now, so that you'll recognize the signs early on and be able
to react intelligently?
The answers to these questions should have a big effect on how you
define E&Y's emerging LO. If you can get your firm thinking about these
kinds of scenarios, it will also have the salutary effect of laying the
foundations for creating a more open learning culture by making the need
more immediately relevant and apparent. It certainly worked for Shell.

Next, let's step from the larger questions down to the firm level...

ENABLING A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

> (a) How do you motivate and reward Continuous Learning in organizations?

Turn this question around from a general request to the list into a
question about your particular organization *right now*. What are the
answers?
In other words, "what does the system track and reward?" If the answer
is "billable hours uber alles," your consultants are essentially doing
what they're ordered when they sacrifice the future (learning & upgrading)
to the present (bill the client). Accounting is necessarily focused on the
past, not the future - perhaps that is one reason E&Y in particular is
culturally predisposed in this direction?

As Mintzberg notes: "Change in the professional organization does not
*sweep* in from new administrators taking office to announce wide
reforms...Rather, change *seeps* in through the slow process of changing
the professionals - changing who enters...in the first place, what they
learn...(norms as well as skills and knowledge), and thereafter how they
upgrade their skills." [Mintzberg on Management: 192] In your environment,
I'd add one more factor: playing time.
One vital yet often overlooked reward is what Tracy Kidder ("Soul of a
New Machine") called "pinball." Or as the Blue Jays understand it, playing
time. As a consulting firm, how does E&Y determine 'who plays' on
consulting assignments? Is that matching based on what they know, or just
whomever is handy? Is there any systematic way of tracking what people
know in terms of the sectors they've worked on, the types of projects
they've done, learnings they have sought out, etc.? If not, why not? How
many ways could something like that help E&Y, while giving knowledge and
skills a more quantifiable aspect so beloved of accounting types?
Or consider what might happen in a "law firm reprise" scenario for your
industry. What happens if E&Y starts to face tighter competition, more
educated customers, and much more attention to the billings:value ratio?
Will clients still accept "billing for learning curves" the way they do
now? (Perhaps this is even changing already, a warning sign of a potential
future in progress?) Like many of your consulting clients, you can make
needed changes early or pay in downsizing blood later. Perhaps this idea
is one such change?
The flip side of such an endeavour is also interesting. If you lack
critical skills, pretty soon you aren't working so much, or at least
handing over opportunities to those who have taken the time. Suddenly,
people find the time to learn - because it becomes the only real form of
security. Which it is anyway for them and for your firm, but internal
systems don't always reflect this fact.

So, my skills database idea is one potential answer to the question of:
How can you align that reflection more closely? What other proposals can
you imagine which would work in a similar way? Roger Van Oech suggests
'looking for the second (third, fourth) right answer,' and I've found that
to be very valuable advice.

ENABLING A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: POSTSCRIPT

One area where I WILL get prescriptive: if you're serious about creating
a culture of this type, top-level members of the firm must be send the
message in words and actions on a very frequent basis, even as more
concrete measures are taken that actually start to have a more direct
impact on the way people work (like the skills matching system). This
should continue way past the point at which partners get bored of it; most
people don't really hear things until the 3rd-4th time, and there will
always be someone hearing it new. People have "pet themes" they will work
into conversations at every opportunity - if they're really serious about
making E&Y an LO, a couple of the senior managers besides yourself will
need to adopt a new pet.
The main targets for these messages, BTW, should be people on the
supervisory and team leader level. It probably goes without saying, but
they are the ones who must translate the goal into real attention and
rewards for most consultants.

Finally, let's step down one more level, to the real 'nuts & bolts' of a
learning/training system...

TRAINING PROGRAMS

> (b) Since everyone learns differently, how do you develop curricula that
> are robust and flexible enough to serve at least most people?

I had always thought that learning organizations aren't made so by one
"silver bullet" training program or curriculum, but by a web of
opportunities and learning experiences that draw people in naturally. The
more paths you create to learning opportunities, the more likely it is
that someone will choose one of them.
Some people respond best to a formal opportunity with speakers, etc. It
helps them focus and they're comfortable with the structure. Others wither
in this setting, and need something that lets them learn at their own
pace. They need personal control and freedom to explore. Some learn from
other people as they go, relying on stories and transmitted personal
experiences. Mintzberg accurately notes that this is how many managers
(not sure about consultants) prefer to get their information, one reason
formal MIS systems are insufficient.
So training must include all of these options, or you will select out
those individuals whose style is not addressed. Daunting? Yes. But when
you think about it, a true LO really needs to keep ALL of these paths
strong.
A "three track" approach might run speakers and formal workshops on
various topics, and let people register for those that interest them.
Motorola is well-known for their "Motorola U." approach, and it can work
well. For those that want more control and self-paced material, libraries
with relevant materials, self-study guides, etc. work well. If they really
need more in-depth training, they can then take a course, and will
probably prove some of the best students once they do. For those who like
the one to one human touch, incorporating learning objectives into the
relationship they already have with their firm mentors (they do have
those, don't they?) may work best, helping to point them toward sources
and courses that will further their personal career development. And above
all, constant contact with and feedback from customers, circulated
throughout the firm. There IS a wider world out there, and it pays to pay
close attention.

The key here as I see it is "cross-selling". The formal programs should
point people toward self-help resources for further study, and vice-versa.
Supervisors and mentors should be asking what their charges have been
doing in these areas to ensure that they remain valuable to the firm.
Customer feedback highlights new opportunities and/or weaknesses, and
training/study resources are put in place to help meet them. Each path
then reinforces the others, and the result is a diversity of sources
ranging from general knowledge to more specialized material. Also a
diversity of delivery options, to meet as many peoples' needs as possible.

MOVING THE IMMOVABLE

> (c) How do you deal with irascible senior executives who think that,
> because they have been successful (by traditional short-focus measures)
> in business, they don't need to learn new things (like how to use
> computers)?

Increase the pressure pulling them toward the desired outcome, while
working to diminish the barriers (fear, mostly) that might prevent them
from coming to you. I might set up systems around them that make it
increasingly difficult for them to function without the skill, while
continuing to hold out a non-threatening, welcoming offer of private
instruction at their convenience. When the pain threshold gets high
enough, they'll come to you.
Knowledge sharing is part of the key. Many consulting firms are using
computer-based communication via networks extensively for this purpose. If
a junior can use these systems to pull knowledge from around the
corporation, they can become almost as effective as people who are much
more senior and lack this access. An excellent internal application of the
learning network.
Which if implemented leads to the question: why are you paying the
senior person any more? The answer: because they contribute their
expertise and judgment to the system, and thus to everyone in the
organization. If that isn't true and they are in fact cut off, their
cost/benefit value to the organization becomes much more questionable. In
the final stages if nothing else has worked, you should have this dynamic
pointed out to them by a more senior individual. By then, it will be too
late for them to kill the network - which means they must adapt or leave.

AVENUES YOU MIGHT EXPLORE

RADICAL QUESTIONS

Understanding organizational configurations a la Mintzberg is useful for
getting an idea of the type of organization E&Y might be, and thus a
better handle on the basic forces driving it. This book will also help you
to better understand his recent Harvard Business Review article.
David Hurst, a member of this list, has also done some interesting work
about organization types and how they cycle through various stages, much
like an ecosystem. I believe you will find some of his ideas helpful to
your efforts and thinking.

* Henry Mintzberg's "Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of
Organizations." See esp. Chapters 10,11,13,& 14; also the intro. to Part
II.

* David Hurst, "Crisis & Renewal: Meeting the Challenge of Organizational
Change." For a shorter introduction to his views see his article in Report
on Business Magazine, in the 1996 'Canada's Most Respected Companies'
issue.

With respect to using scenarios to develop potential futures and think
about their consequences, Peter Schwartz is 'the man'. His partners in the
Global Business Network like Stewart Brand and Lawrence Wilkinson are also
excellent resources, and Membership in the GBN is something you and your
firm should seriously consider. As CKO, this skill is a vital tool for
your kit.

* Peter Schwartz, "The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an
Uncertain World."

* Lawrence Wilkinson, (How to Build Scenarios), "WIRED magazine special
edition: the Future of the Future," 1995. You can probably find a version
of this article electronically via their on-line site HotWIRED
http://www.hotwired.com/

* The Global Business Network web site
http://www.gbnetwork.com/

RESOURCES: ENABLING A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Complexity theorists have done a lot of work on issues of
self-organizing systems, Hebbsian neural networks, etc. Learning and
adaptation seem to take place virtually automatically once an internal
"market" is created that rewards it. If you're looking to create
self-organizing behaviours within larger groups, this literature is worth
a serious look:

* M. Mitchell Waldrop, "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of
Order and Chaos." See esp. Chapters 5,6,& 7.

* Meg Wheatley, "Leadership and the New Science."

* William E. Halal, (From hierarchy to enterprise: Internal markets are
the new foundation of management), "Academy of Management Executive,"
1994, Vol. 8, #4.

At the values level, I really, really recommend Stephen Covey. I read
many 'self-help' books, and most are fluff or quick fixes. Covey is the
real deal. There's a different between the important and the urgent,
between enhancing production and enhancing the power to produce. Effective
people and organizations are usually those who understand and act on this
difference in favour of the important and NOT urgent - because otherwise
the important stuff doesn't get done. Your description of E&Y hints very
strongly at an "urgency trap" among many people. Covey uses the analogy of
the Golden Goose, among others. For E&Y, maybe you need to use Compound
Interest. Regardless, this is an underlying and probably undiscussed
mental model that needs to be brought into the open and adjusted if your
efforts are to succeed.
Since you seem intrigued by Herman Miller, I also recommend Max DePree.
His book is short in the same sense that Sun Tzu's work is short, and will
go a long way toward helping you understand the things you've seen at HM.

* Stephen Covey, "First Things First"; "The 7 Habits of Highly Successful
People"; "Principle-Centered Leadership."

* Max DePree, "Leadership is an Art"

RESOURCES: TRAINING SYSTEMS

For creativity and learning at the personal level, Roger Van Oech is an
excellent guru. I can attest from personal experience that his methods
work.

* Roger Van Oech: "A Whack on the Side of the Head: How you can be more
creative."

If you're going to set up a training system, these articles by some
fellow consultants are good places to start. I like the way the articles
are organized around the way your audience sees the programs, and also
deal with matching the program to the situation and needs of the company.
Too often, both of these vital perspectives are missing.

* "Danger! Corporate training ahead."
http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359/danger.txt

* "What's Training Good for anyway?"
http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359/tgood.txt

Finally, for an excellent source of provocative articles about
technology, knowledge-based corporate strategies, and various other
trends, I highly recommend FAST COMPANY Magazine. Davenport disses
re-engineering. Xerox execs. talk about Communities of Practice. Mort
Myerson talks about how his personal view of leadership changed from
leading first EDS, then Perot Systems. The Siemens-Nixdorf experiements
with "reverse mentoring." A great self-paced resource and idea fount for
all of the innovators in your company. Best of all, FC has a web site with
many of these articles available for viewing!

http://www.fastcompany.com/

See esp:

* Brooke Manville & Nathaniel Foote, (Strategy as If Knowledge Mattered),
April/May 1996.

* Mort Myerson, (Everything I thought I knew about leadership is wrong),
April/May 1996. Excellent for leaders in your firm, because Mort's been on
the journey you're undertaking.

* John Seely Brown & Solomon Grey (The People Are the Company), Feb/March
1996. Talks about communities of practice.

RESOURCES: MOVING THE IMMOVABLE (KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS)

Want to see how electronic communications fit in? For a great starting
point with lots of information about your competitors, try this:

* "Knowledge Sharing Within Management Consulting Firms"
http://www.kennedpub.com/gware.html

Though it might help to read this primer article first:

* Thomas A. Stewart, (Managing In A Wired Company), "Fortune," July 11/96,
Vol. 130, #1.

I hope that this has been helpful, and points your thinking in some new
directions. It certainly isn't the be-all and end all, nor was it intended
to be. As such, feel free to e-mail back with any reactions and thoughts.
I look forward to continuing the discussion.

[Host's Note: Joe, thank you for this extensive list of references!...]

-- 

---------------------------------------------------- Joe Katzman, MBA joe@embanet.com "The more you know, the more you can imagine." ----------------------------------------------------

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>