Barker and Neailey (1999) proposes an individual–team learning methodology which depicts the relationship of individual learn- ing to team and higher learning. It consists of four stages, starting with an individual learning review process and then progres- sively moving through stages to develop the learning to the level of the whole project team. (Figure 4.2).
Stage 1 Individual learning reviews
The stage attempts to achieve full involvement through a process in which all team members are encouraged to reflect on and record their own learning. This is conducted using a learning log, (a tool to assist team members to structure their thinking). The learning log includes an introduction to the review process and a
INDIVIDUAL LEARNING
REVIEWS Individual activity, using
a learning log as a tool for capturing
learning.
Any project team members who want to
consider, capture and then share their
learning.
Individual learning points from the project,
captured in a learning log for personal reference in the
future.
FUNCTIONAL LEARNING
REVIEWS Local facilitated reviews
to capture key functional learning.
Any project team members who want to consider, capture and then share their learning.
A range of focused functional learning points built on and developed from
participants' individual learning.
COMMUNICATION OF LEARNING
Focused presentations to key policy holders and
project team leaders.
Leaders of existing/new teams that would benefit from the NV1
learning or are able to initiate change.
A range of local team and company-wide
process innovations.
WHOLE TEAM LEARNING
REVIEW Pre-preparation followed
by a single workshop to distil key 'whole project team' learning points.
Key project team personnel.
One or two from each function (not necessarily
the team leaders).
The 'vital few' strategic opportunities for change
based on cross project team consensus.
Involvement Description
Structure
Outcome
Stage One Two Three Four
Fig. 4.2 The individual-team learning methodology. Source: Barker and Neailey (1999)
company perspective on the need to capture and share learning.
There are a number of advantages of using the learning log:
● With the structure following the natural stages of the project, it enables individuals to place themselves at specific points in time and helps provide detailed and specific recollection of learning.
● It supports the aim of early divergent thinking.
● It provides a starting point anchored in familiar territory – what they learned as individuals.
Stage 2 Functional learning reviews
After a period of time to allow for individual reflection and com- pletion of the learning logs, a series of functional reviews need to be arranged. Given the highly divergent nature of learning likely to be recorded within the individual learning logs, it is the pur- pose of the functional review stage to encourage functional groupings (engineering, sales and marketing, manufacturing, etc) within the overall project team to combine, converge and identify the more fundamental learning points relevant to each particular function.
Stage 3 Whole-team learning review
Following work at the functional level, the third stage of the methodology brings all the leaders together, converging the learn- ing to a ‘whole project team’ level. The stage starts with pre-work (a request to review the learning points from functions other than their own). A workshop can then held to consolidate the func- tional learning into a single set of key project team learning points.
Stage 4 Communication of learning
A key element of success is a powerful process of com- munication. Powerful communication creates a ‘pull’ for the learning. The aim of the communication pull is to encourage those who can implement the necessary changes into team processes and procedures to actively seek the learning from key fact-holders. This is because while a lot of learning may be gleaned from the collective history in the form of written mate- rial, the really deep learning transfer occurs through conversa-
tions between the project team members and members of other project teams.
However, for an individual to learn he or she must move to a learning and knowledge-sharing mentality. The individual has to be motivated. The motivation can be intrinsic, i.e. from within the individual, or extrinsic, i.e. imposed from outside, usually by the organization. Buckler (1996) proposes that an individual moves through a number of stages in the process of becoming learning orientated (Figure 4.3).
These stages of individual development are:
1 Ignorance. If we accept ‘No one knows what they don’t know’, then no blame can be attached to any individual who finds himself or herself in a state of ignorance. This stage is the start- ing point for everyone. Also, it is the easiest stage to move from by enquiring.
2 Awareness. After awareness, motivation is needed from the individual to put in the effort for understanding of the subject or problem. Barriers to this, are attitudes such as ‘It’s not my job’ and ‘I’m not paid to know that’ are typical responses.
Development of supportive teamwork and peer recognition can be powerful antidotes to overcome such resistance. Conversely, poorly devised reward systems and team structures reinforce the barriers.
3 Understanding. Understanding develops as the depth of knowledge increases. Superficial understanding generally
Develop ownership
Remove barriers
Question Develop shared
vision 'whats' Develop shared
vision 'whys' Allow risk
taking Enable
'I want to know more' 'I am not good
enough to do this'
'I do not believe this will work'
'This is not my job'
'I do not know and
do not care'
'I now have a better understanding'
'I need to know about this'
'I ought to know about this'
'I want to know about this' 'I want to
try this'
'What have we learned?
– How have we learned?'
3 Understanding
1 Ignorance 2 Awareness
4 Commitment 5 Enactment
6 Reflection
Leadership
Leadership 'I do not need
to change' Leadership
Leadership
Learning requirements
Deming Process redesign
Fig. 4.3 Stages of learning and the role of leadership. Source: Buckler (1996)
leads to single-loop learning, whereas double-loop learning requires much deeper understanding. Usually, commitment starts to develop as understanding rises. On the other hand, understanding may undermine the process if it starts to strongly challenge deeply held beliefs and values. This may lead to either overt or subconscious barriers in the move to commitment. Peter Senge calls this ‘creative tension’.
4 Commitment. Commitment cannot be achieved without intrin- sic interest and curiosity. Without it the move to action is not likely to take place. For example, many training courses do not have the desired effect because they are not attended as a result of an intrinsic desire to learn but are imposed. Such desire cannot be directed, but must come from within the individual.
It can, however, be nurtured and encouraged. To be most effec- tive, learning at this level must be pulled by the individual not pushed by the organization. Unfortunately the barriers pre- venting the transition from commitment to enactment can be formidable because they typically require the individual to change behaviour. Often this is resisted by a powerful, in-built and unconscious defence mechanism. Argyris (1992) refers to such phenomena as ‘defensive reasoning’. Individuals need to develop a high level of self-awareness if this barrier is to be surmounted.
5 Enactment. It is only when individuals, working within teams, move to enactment that real improvements through learning start to emerge. However, this involves a degree of risk taking and the working environment must cater for risk-taking behav- iour if it is to take place and benefits are to be gained.
Development of an accommodating environment increases the probability of innovation and creative solutions to problems.
The resulting energy for creativity is the true source of future competitive advantage. Effective discovery-learning systems can enable individuals to move very quickly to this stage.
Revan’s (1983) action learning concepts are based on this.
Conversely tightly controlled environments can inhibit changes to processes and limit people’s capacity to learn and improve. For instance, quality management standards such as BS 5750 and ISO 9000 can create a culture of ‘conformance’, where changes to processes and new ideas are discouraged, and would be criticized by auditing procedures.
6 Reflection. This is a key step in the learning process, and is the stage most often missing in ‘taught’ organizations. In this stage, actions, outcomes and theories are evaluated, and deep learn- ing takes place. The compliant nature of ‘taught’ organizations, in which employees are taught the ways to perform process activities and then requested to conform to standards of opera-
tion, often means that individuals are not encouraged to ques- tion or challenge theories, and inappropriate actions continue to be taken long after those theories have been discredited. In extreme cases of ‘learning by rote’ the move to learning can be extremely difficult to overcome. If there is effective reflection, then with it comes increased understanding, which in turn increases commitment and action, and a virtuous cycle of learning is unleashed (Figure 4.4).
Role of leadership in creating a learning environment
Achieving the learning company vision depends greatly on the effectiveness of managers and team leaders in creating an envi- ronment where individual, team and, thereby, organizational learning is facilitated. In order to do this leaders have to build a deep understanding of the learning process, be able to identify an individual’s position on the stages of the learning model, under- stand the driving and restraining forces applicable to the indi- vidual at that time and have intervention strategies to facilitate movement through the stages.
The role of leadership can be mapped on to the stages of learning mode. Leadership facilitates the move through the stages by:
1 Questioning. The first step up the learning ladder is to move from a state of ignorance to being aware that an area of knowl- edge exists, and that it may be of benefit to both the individual and the organization. The leader will need to possess this
Fig. 4.4 Virtuous cycle of learning
insight and an enthusiasm and commitment to put it into prac- tice. The leader’s position as a role model is therefore vital in gaining the attention and interest of the team. Other team mem- bers may also have greater understanding, and can provide help as mentors and role models.
2 Developing shared vision and ownership. Developing a shared vision in a participative way with the team is a key require- ment to move up the leader. This is, essentially, a two-stage process. Initially, when the understanding of the individual and team is brief the leader should concentrate on the ‘whats’
of the vision, and the role that learning will play in its achieve- ment. As learning develops, the debate increasingly moves on to the ‘why’ areas. Facilitation of this process also starts to expose the barriers preventing movement up the learning ladder, and enables the leader to evolve his or her own under- standing and to develop strategies to minimize their effects.
The participative approach helps unlock intrinsic motivation by enabling individuals to satisfy their inner needs.
3 Enabling. To achieve something we must try doing that some- thing. We can develop an understanding of preparing a meal from a recipe book, but until we try we will never be able to cook. Usually, however, the first few attempts involve a high risk of failure. The leader role at this stage is to provide oppor- tunity and encouragement, and a cushion for failure, if benefits are to be achieved. Strategies must be devised to minimize risk, and ensure that failure does not prevent the individual from trying again. The more quickly individuals can be moved to the enactment stage, the more quickly experiential learning starts.
4 Removing barriers. Perhaps the most important role of the leader is to identify and circumvent the effects of barriers to learning. These barriers are present at each stage of the learn- ing process, but become higher as one proceeds through the stages. The leader has to understand what might cause indi- viduals to become ‘stuck’ on the ladder and develop an aware- ness of when and why this is happening. Individuals will not necessarily be aware of the high barriers, especially those which they themselves are operating within, and these will need to be drawn into conscious awareness before they can be managed. This is a very complex process and leaders will require a high degree of sensitivity and psychological under- standing. Unfortunately, the level of sensitivity and under- standing needed for this is very rare in most organizations.