Replying to LO29004 --
On the Learning Organization Discussion List
[http://www.learning-org.com]: Kenneth Newendorp said:
>I am slightly confused about the concept of the role of
>consultants/outside help in a learning organization and...
>In applying the concepts of a Learning Organization to consulting work,
>would a consultant be wise to introduce specific ideas to the clients, or
>would they be better off having the clients read the book and do a mini
>seminar on the ideas of the Learning Organization?
Kenneth,
Your post caught my attention, partly because what I believe you said
Senge said is useful to emphasize about consultants becoming a part of the
organization.
1. My thoughts are that consultants need to obsolete themselves quickly
in an organization, otherwise they are just a part of the leadership &
management system.
2. Your discussion about mental models brings me to remind you and
others the role "developmental" coaches have in creating learning
organizations that grow and innovate as a result of increasing
self-awareness.
There are too many things to try to say in order to fully explain what I
just said, but there are research examples that indicate that
self-management and social awareness do not reach their potential without
increasing self-awareness. Therefore, relationship management (essential
abilities of learning organizations: influence, conflict mgmt, change
catalyst, developing others, teamwork and collaboration and inspirational
leadership--these coming from the EI Model of Performance) are
sub-optimized due to a lack of self-awareness!
3. As Argyris/Schoen have written about since 1974-present...
(paraphrasing)...while single loop learning (the acquisition of new
knowledge, skill and ability) is critical to learning organizational
infrastructure, the capability of double loop learning to modify the
governing variables...i.e. mental models is central to learning.
4. Building on this theory, we find significant help from understanding
Graves research which led to Spiral Dynamics and the classification of
value systems. In other words, "systems" of mental models working in
unison to create specific recognizable behaviors as surface
manifestations.
My point, when you begin to look at how to create learning organizations,
my first question is what mental models are operating vs. which mental
models would be more consistent with making sure learning--in all of
forms--takes place?
The second thing one has to know is how is change going to be accomplished
if in fact, it can be accomplished...or is creative destruction more
efficient? (Schumpeter)
Much of the work we have been doing in developmental coaching the past 5
years is now starting to provide us with a different lens of how to
approach personal and organizational performance, change and
transformation. It is becoming clear that much of what is attempted is
linear change (a topic on LO of late) without taking into consideration
the "integration" of multiple streams of development--how people are
moving through behavioral, symbolic, affective and perceptual complexity.
Without recognizing the operative value systems/mental models producing
the behavior as a surface manifestation, we "carwash" people (one size
fits all) and organizations and frankly this just doesn't work--research
shows it doesn't work!
In my view, we are fully in the age of paradox, however few have the
"self-awareness" to realize it, therefore the work most people do is in
linear single loop learning, which in many ways extends the opportunity,
but delays the benefits strived for as a learning organization. Because
complexity means that cause and effect are dislocated, we don't understand
most of the time what is causing what and therefore attribute cause and
effect poorly or terribly--depending on the case. (Argyris, 2000)
In some ways, I'm surprised and on the other hand not surprised, that so
much of what's take place in learning organizations is seemingly ignoring
adult developmental theory which in fact provides the modus operandi to
get at what is constraining the learning organization--self-awareness.
Let me provide a brief example and I'm done.
We all know that in order to have a learning organization we need to
utilize feedback. Yet, research in adult development has shown that until
someone reaches a "particular" level of self-awareness--feedback at
certain levels of adult development is:
1. viewed as an attack
2. seen as personal disapproval
3. heard as criticism
4. open to consideration
It is only at the higher levels of self-awareness that feedback is
actually sought! At this point, we have the "personal complex adaptive
system" turning into alignment with the critical nature of a learning
organization ( a number of complex adaptive systems operating in series
and in parallel--and in opposition!)
Yet, why isn't developmental coaching in business being done on a wide
scale?
Lack of awareness of what is required to actually create the
infrastructure for learning organizations, otherwise wouldn't it seem
"natural" that all LO consultants/programs/practitioners include
developmental coaching as a part of their skillset? (IMHO)
We are without a doubt seeing a convergence of learning and development
(chicken and egg) and from which we will begin to move forward with
greater efficiency in creating the benefits of a learning organization.
Yet, it won't come without leaders and managers understanding how to
develop awareness, purpose, competence and well-being in the organization
around the role of development--personal and organizational.
Over the past five years, I have studied, watched and researched how
people develop others and generally it is through a "telling" model. Oh,
yes, we have appreciative inquiry, which many practitioners have turned
into their own tool of manipulation--the very thing that appreciative
inquiry was created out of...go figure.
The emphasis is on "lack of awareness" in the consultant and instead of
them modeling awareness, they model "experience." The two are not
necessarily correlated. Now, I'll put myself in the same category, so you
won't think I'm holding myself up as a perfect specimen, but I will say
this...
Physician heal thyself.
There is limited amounts of reliable and valid research on adult
development as it relates to self-awareness or value systems, but what is
out there indicates that about 2% of the population is moving into what is
classified by experts in adult development as post conventional
development. In my view, we need post conventional leaders for learning
organizations. There is some research to that effect. (Torbert)
Yet, very few people are engaged in practicing the kinds of dialog that
leads to increased levels of self-awareness. I believe this exists for
two reasons:
1. Adult development has naturally been the domain of psychology and not
business.
2. It is "not" easy to learn to have developmental conversations because
it means objectifying much of one's one ego.
Yet, if we do believe anything that Argyris has written over the years
leading to the parameters of the learning organization domain, we would in
fact appreciate his emphasis on double loop learning and the movement to
Model II values, which happen to be...by the way--a way into post
conventional being.
Yet, we still have MOST people thinking that "telling" through consulting
because of one's experience (which sometimes can lead to higher levels of
self-awareness, although generally it is merely a reflection of increasing
levels of single loop ability) is the "way" to grow a learning
organization.
While perplexed, I do understand because human nature would explain this
dispensation to rely on problem solving rather than a shift in mental
models (governing variables) to create the necessary "human
infrastructure" for "learning organizations" to be the default mode rather
than the "fault-mode."
BTW, nature has proven the existence of the "appropriate" infrastructure
for learning organizations, yet why isn't everyone successful if some are?
And of those that use the "very" same infrastructure--natural laws--some
thrive, others fail to thrive. One could easily draw the conclusion that
it is not "difference in infrastructure (LO/OD) that leads to efficacy,
but individual responses to the "natural systems." Which is the point I'm
trying to make. You can't rely strictly on design to succeed, there must
be an equal reliance on development.
If anyone is interested, I'll provide examples in real time with
volunteers of the distinctions between "telling/leading" dialogues (where
leading in this case is NOT leading but directing) and developmental
conversations where a person has the opportunity to confront their mental
models and test them for efficacy.
Join me on the phone Monday August 26 at 9:15 PM ET at 865-362-4050 and
enter PIN # 1950. (Sorry to those in time zones which prevent "normal"
function, if enough of you write to me, I'll hold one during a time more
conducive to normal function. [coach@leadwise.com]
Also, happy to get your comments, it's been a while since I've
participated actively on the list, but that doesn't mean I haven't been
here listening.
Mike Jay
www.b-coach.com
--"Mike Jay" <coach@leadwise.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.