Matthew Holmes observed.
>It is my view that a "safe learning environment" is all about creating a
>risk (& blame) free environment for exploration and experimentation.
>Unfortunately, for many people, the concept that "getting things wrong" is
>actually OK is very new. ... - and I think we all know how powerful these
>two beasties can be in influencing the behavior of individuals.
and he asked
>What approaches does anyone know of that develop this environment for the
>purpose of creating a learning experience?
I prefer to separate mistakes into two or three categories. There are the
mistakes the correction of which is completely in my sphere of influence.
These are the ones I prefer to let my people make and correct themselves.
They are the beginning of the lesson that mistakes are not the end of a
career.
There are the mistakes that I can probably take care of but run a
significant risk of attracting unfavorable attention from outside of my
sphere of influence. These risks I try to anticipate and make known to the
people who can make the mistakes. For these I prefer to establish the
communication freedom that allows my people to call me in on the
decisions. Even so, I prefer to not only allow, but to encourage, my
people too make the necessary decisions and take action. An observed
phenomena is that as people gain experience operating in this field of
risk they become more competitent in making correct decisions.
Finally there are those sensitive areas that would destroy all the good
work already completed. The boundary separating the risky mistake from
the destructive mistake is always murky and often shifts. I try to make
this boundary as clear as possible. When we are approaching this boundary
I try to be aware of the technical, political, and social forces coming to
play and lead my people through. There are times when I have felt the
obligation to take the responsibility for a possible mistake squarely on
my shoulders -- at such times I explain what has brought me to that point
and make the decision or take the action. At that time everyone involved
with the team should understand their possible role and response to
possible negative outcomes of the action. They must first understand that
the world is not coming to an end, and second what they should do to
mitigate the effect of a wrong decision on the goals and objectives of the
project (business unit).
Let me illustrate. Level one, mistakes that are within sphere of
influence. A team designing a customer information system defines a
customer as a person or business at an address. You know that even a
person may have several addresses. The team builds its database and in
testing you ask whether the address is the ship to or the bill to address.
Whoops! A bit of database design and reprogramming later and all is well.
Level Two Risky stuff. Your company is scheduled to ship a new product in
two months and your team is to select a major supplier of components. You
can use your present supplier but their prices are high and delivery
history not good. Your team proposes shifting to a new supplier who has a
good reputation but is a new player. Your marketing group and president
would not like missing a ship date because the new supplier was unable to
deliver. You work through all of the tasks that have to be complete to be
on-time. The schedule is aggressive but your team and the new vendor seem
determined to make it work. Look your project manager in the eye and say
"I think you have thought of everything, go and do it. Keep me informed
of your progress." Then be alert to signs of delay or failure.
Level three. Things that ruin your whole day. Real life experience. The
officer directing the operation of your ship orders a course change that
would head the ship to a coral reef some 30 yards away. You immediately
countermand the order. With the same immediacy you explain the danger of
following through the original decision and return control to the officer.
Note the immediate vote of confidence given the officer. The
countermanded order is a decision that the behavior was not correct.
Returning control is saying that I think you are still competitent to
carry out the responsibility.
These three develop an atmosphere of confidence between the leader and the
led, and it builds leaders for the future. The approaches are openness,
trust and support in both directions.
--"William J. Hobler, Jr" <bhobler@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>