I have been following the recent threads regarding the effectiveness of
LO's and the relationship between LO concepts and quality initiatives and
I believe that they are related threads. Although I have been silent to
this point on the list regarding these topics, the gerbil on the wheel in
my mind has been running fast and furious, leading me to what probably
surmounts to a blinding flash of the obvious. I'm going to share it anyway
(a word of warning, this may get lengthy before I've gotten it all out).
First, a couple of observations related to the measurement of the
effectiveness of LO initiatives. It seems to me that much of the debate
in this thread is similar in some ways to a debate that has been going on
in the organizational sciences in general for quite some time - which
level of organizational analysis is MOST appropriate for research.
Basically, there are two sides arguing their own beliefs, those that take
a macro perspective (this is the organizational level of analysis taken by
population ecologists and organizational sociologists) and those that have
adopted a micro perspective (looking at individual actions and
interactions, such as is commonly taken by social psychologists). The
answer to the debate is quite clear....it depends. This discussion
largely parallels the debate about whether LO efforts should focus on
individual learning or organizational level learning in aggregate. Is the
progression primarily a top-down influence or a bottom-up influence? (Yes)
How do individual actions (and learning) form the aggregate actions (and
learning) of the organization? Obviously, the debate regarding the
measurement of the effectiveness of efforts and what metrics are used is
an important one, and one that is hard to settle (judging from the number
of recent postings).
Senge and Deming both tapped in to a similar vein in their thinking that
links the micro and macro perspectives, that being the adoption of a
process or systems perspective. Similarly, in an attempt to integrate the
micro and macro perspectives in the organizational sciences, Robert House
and Denise Rousseau (and several of their colleagues) recommended adopting
a "meso" organizational perspective in organizational analysis and
research in the organizational sciences, recognizing that influence in
organizations is both top-down and bottom-up - the context effects the
individual and vice versa. Arguing one to the exclusion of the other does
not make much sense. The systems level of analysis essentially begins to
define the means through which individual actions and learning are
translated into organizational activities (learning as well as outcomes).
As Deming so clearly demonstrated in the red bead experiment, the
relationship between individual activity and system outcomes is not a
direct link. The Beer Game demonstration also illustrates this quite
clearly, showing that the relationships within a system are interdependent
(which Covey also picks up on) and not linear in nature. Order clearly
emerges, but the non-linear relationships and interactions of the
different sources of variation present in the system make prediction of
individual events impossible (sounds chaotic in the mathematical sense to
me).
So, what metrics should we use? The answer again is obvious - it
depends.....on the systems and processes of interest. Any LO effort
should begin with some kind of determination of what systems and processes
are to be effected. This should also include a discussion of who the
customers are and what outcomes might be effected by an improvement of the
process (Deming referred to this process as establishing the aim, Senge
called it developing a shared vision). Without this process, the evidence
of the effectiveness of the efforts will be anecdotal at best. Individual
learning may or may not lead to organizational learning. And the
relationship between individual learning and organizational learning
and/or performance may, or may not, be predicted.
Given that this is the case, I suggest that any reported LO successes in
our discussion begin with a synopsis of the aim of the intervention (set
the stage for the rest of us), even if this was just to teach a group of
individuals within an organization to learn how to learn both individually
(personal mastery) and collectively (systems thinking, mental models, and
team learning) in preparation for an organizational crisis that has not
yet been identified (or without a shared vision being established). What
did they (or you) set out to do or learn? How did you know that you were
effective? Truly successful LO's will provide numerous examples of how
they have implemented LO principles to successfully achieve performance
outcomes (reduction of scrap, quality improvement, reduced billing errors,
faster cycle times in production or development, placement of foster
children) or successfully overcome some organizational crisis ("we
survived!"). They will also provide evidence of how they are presently
applying their ability to learn to new situations that are constantly
arising.
At any rate, I don't think that Senge's intent (and it clearly wasn't
Deming's) was to fixate on any one financial indicator and deem it THE
metric for determining effectiveness. At least in my own mind, clearly
quality initiatives and LO initiatives are focused on the same stuff.
However, until the question of the aim of the process has been answered,
or a shared vision has been established, I don't know how the
effectiveness can be determined.
For those of you who are still reading, thanks for playing. I would
appreciate any and all attempts to set straight my ramblings. Happy
learning!!
Jon Krispin
"Wherever you go, there you are." Unknown
--"Jon Krispin" <jkrispin@prestolitewire.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>