Replying to LO29004 --
Responding to Kenny Newendorp in LO29004 --
>I have been taking a course on Senge's concept of the Learning
>Organization and am trying to get an accurate picture of how to
>incorporate these ideas into a training and consulting practice when I
>graduate. I have been developing training programs based on a variety of
>concepts ranging from communication training to mental model modification.
>The mental model modification piece addresses a managers perceptions about
>their ability to accomplish all aspects of management (ie. managing
>resources, conflict, etc.). It seems obvious that training, especially
>the mental model modification, fits into creating and developing a
>Learning Organization.
I see several angles of attack and relevance in what you say. First,
there is the option of having the content of training focus on the subject
matter of the learning organization, especially Senge's works. Second,
there is the possibility of having training play an active role in the
development of a learning organization, in which case the content could
well address other matters. Third, there is the situation in which the
training unit or organization itself becomes the object in view for
becoming a learning organization. There are no doubt other options as
well, for example, the one you mention, in which the training focuses on
altering the mental models of managers (and others). In this case, the
target of the training -- the managers' mental models -- was probably set
as a result of being influenced by Senge's and others' thinking on such
matters. Surprisingly, given what I've just said, I'm going to take issue
with the last sentence in your paragraph above. Systems thinking, all
that we know about the learning organization and just about any other tool
at our disposal isn't necessarily put to the uses for which it was first
developed. Thus, while training can certainly play a role in creating and
developing a learning organization, that is no guarantee that it will play
such a role. The training function is foremost among the strategies and
tools that many managers and executives use to give the impression that
they are addressing important matters when in fact they are not; indeed,
they are studiously avoiding coming to grips with them. Training alone
doesn't get it, as my son might say. I have seen lots of managers and
executives who know full well that training alone will not adequately
address an issue and who also have the necessary authority and resources
to address the related factors that could lead to adequate resolution but
don't. Why? There are lots of reasons, ranging from not wanting the
issues resolved to having higher priorities elsewhere. (As an aside,
resource contention is such a pervasive fact of life in most organizations
that few people seem to bring it to the forefront of their consciousness
and instead deal with it in an almost subconscious way -- much to their
detriment. My point being that it is not enough to make a case for your
proposal, even in financial terms, you must also make a case for it in
relation to and in the context of other priorities and initiatives.)
Anyway, I'll repeat my basic point and move on: Just because training can
be used in support of developing a learning organization, doesn't mean
that it will be even when it looks like it is.
>I am slightly confused about the concept of the role of
>consultants/outside help in a learning organization. Senge seems to
>suggest that you should not invite a consultant into your organization for
>an extended period of time, or multiple times because the organization
>will become dependent on their efforts instead of figuring out how to
>accomplish the tasks with the talents available in the organization. In
>relation to mental model modification training, I would argue that the
>consultant is "re-wiring" the brain of the managers, helping them get
>through mental blocks that inhibit them from working to their potential.
>This type of outside help seems to fully benefit an organization, not
>detract from it.
Your confusion is perfectly understandable. There are literally hundreds
of thousands of people who go around wearing the label of consultant and
plying their trade in very different fashions. Moreover, their clients
hire and employ them in very different ways. As a consequence, one
consultant might be brought in as an expert in a certain area and expected
to more or less run the show on a temporary basis. Another consultant, or
even an "army" of consultants, might be brought in as essentially nothing
more than a substitute workforce, short term or long term. Still a third
consultant might focus on "facilitating" certain interactions and
processes with the aim of strengthening the organization's own capacity
for performance. Still other consultants might practice as and be hired
as coaches, trainers, speakers and on and on and on. Oh yes, one more
very important kind of consultant is the business consultant, the kind of
person who is hired, usually by the CEO, to come in, look around, and give
the CEO some solid recommendations for turning around an ailing business
and, perhaps, hang around to help with implementing those recommendations.
Complicating matters, these "consultants" are also very different kinds of
people. Some are shady, some are downright crooks and some are basically
prostitutes. At the same time, some are of absolutely sterling character
and possessed of high moral values and exacting professional standards.
My point here is that there are all kinds of people who are called and who
call themselves consultants and, except for that label, they have very
little in common with one another. So, depending on the purpose for which
a particular consultant is being hired, the role played by the consultant,
and the particular consultant in question, I might agree or disagree with
the point you attribute to Senge above. It's just a generalization.
>To parallel this concept, the mental model modification work will enhance
>the production of the managers, which will throw off the balance of the
>system. If managers and employees have formed behaviors based on the
>level of work performed by each, improving the ability of the manager will
>cause a need for calibration for the organization to realize the benefit
>of the new ability. Does this idea run consistent with, or contrary to
>the concepts in the Learning Organization? I seem to understand that
>expansion of knowledge or improvement of skill will always enhance a
>learning organization, is this accurate?
I think it might help regarding your comments above if you think of the
"balance" in question as a dynamic balance, that is, one that is ever
shifting and changing, constantly and continually adjusting, readjusting
and aligning then realigning, a kind of organized and reasonably stable
chaos instead of a rigid, almost static situation in which everything is
precisely ordered and controlled. So, on my part, I don't see the
difficulty you allude to.
>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? What are realistic
>expectations to set for organization? Culture change is not a quick thing,
>so what would you suggest as the first steps for the organizations to
>take? As I said, I'm in school currently and am trying to organize my
>ideas and skills so I can start a consulting practice when I graduate.
>Any suggestions/thoughts you have are much appreciated.
Your questions above hang squarely on the level at which the consultant
enters the organization and his or her charter/charge from the client.
They are also very much affected by the size and structure of the
organization; for example, coming in at the CEO level in a multi-billion
dollar, multi-national manufacturing corporation with an employee
population of 300,000 and 19 operating divisions, all set up as more or
less autonomous business units is quite different from coming in at the
behest of the CEO of a 300 person non-profit, local health services
organization. The "first steps to take" have nothing to do with how to
create or develop a learning organization but instead have to do with
getting clear about the results your client seeks, his or her expectations
of you in that regard, your assessment of the organization's readiness and
your assessment of your client's commitment and likely staying power and
on and on and on. If you are brought in as a consultant to help
create/develop a learning organization, and you take on that assignment,
then you have accepted a prescription if not an underlying diagnosis as
well. That's okay and there are plenty of consultants who work in that
mode, i.e., implementer; however, there are lots of other consultants who
would push back and take a long hard look at the organization, the client,
the circumstances and the stated goals and objectives before leaping into
action if indeed they leapt into action at all.
That's the end of my direct response to your posting; now for a wee bit of
preaching.
I've been a "consultant" for 30 years. I was trained initially as an
organization development (OD) consultant and so I adopted early on the
notion that consulting is a helping profession and that help is defined by
the recipient, not the provider. My choice as a consultant is to choose
to help or not in light of my client's aims and ambitions, not to
determine what is or isn't good for the client. That's his or her call;
mine is limited to what is or isn't good for me. To be sure, I will at
times work very hard to help a client see how what he or she is doing is
getting in the way of getting what he or she wants but I don't try to
remake my clients in my own image or some other currently in vogue image
(as I have seen so many consultants attempt to do). I take on a wide
range of assignments; some call for me to function as an expert in some
area, some mean that I am little more than temporary help and more than a
few require of me that I define and lead an effort in relation to some
ill-defined, poorly structured situation. These latter kinds of
situations have been my "bread and butter" for 30 years and I'll let you
in on a little secret: Not once have I had to worry about making certain
that the other team members learned what was to be learned; they all did
and they all did a remarkably good job of picking my brain and coming away
with a lot of what I knew coming in. (Of course, I was also quite willing
to have them do that, which is not always the case with a lot of
consultants.)
Now to the bottom line.
If your aim is to establish a consulting practice and earn your living
that way, then you need to possess three sets of skills or competencies or
capabilities or whatever you choose to call such things. One is in the
area of business management. Keep in mind that not only are you a
consultant, you are also a small business owner/operator and your practice
can go quickly down the drain if you don't tend to its business aspects.
Second, you will require a solid set of consulting capabilities. And
third, you will require technical expertise in whatever area you profess
to be a consultant, be that training, organization development, learning
organizations, systems, civil engineering, finance and accounting or
whatever. Finally, you need to take stock of your contacts and
connections because the consulting biz, at least the consulting biz I
know, hinges very much on repeat business and referrals from satisfied
clients. In my experience, marketing and advertising don't play much of a
role. And, because repeats and referrals drive the consulting biz, it's
vitally important that you treat each and every project as a "must
succeed" endeavor. Why? Because the only thing you have going for you in
this business is your reputation, your track record. Let that get sullied
and your are out of business in a flash. Keep it intact and unsullied and
good, interesting, well-paying work will come your way.
Hmm. A bit of a rant, I'm afraid, but hope you find it helpful.
There are a couple of articles about consulting and consultants on my
articles web site that you might find useful, too. See the link in my
e-mail signature below. Once there, scroll down and click on the articles
link.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
740.397.2363
nickols@safe-t.net
"Assistance at a Distance"
http://www.nickols.us
--Fred Nickols <nickols@safe-t.net>
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.