Organizational change requires individual learning
The same dilemmas apply to organizational change and the role of leaders and structures. Do leaders create change? In this regard Pettigrew (1987, p. 650) observed that leadership behavior is “a central ingredient but only one of the ingredients, in a complex analytical, political, and cultural process of challenging and changing the core beliefs, structure, and strategy of the firm”. Ultimately, leaders need to be a catalyst for change, however this can really happen only if the group is determined to achieve it, otherwise they would resist. This is where learning plays a major role because the process of learning implies a personal sense making which allows individuals to personally buy-in the need for change. A good leader acts as a facilitator of both the learning process and of the actual change. Without leadership there would be a passive attitude and the status quo would be preserved: the group would feel anxious about venturing into the unknown, therefore being paralyzed instead of questioning, proposing, making sense, in one word learning. Additionally, the group must feel confident that change can happen in order to have the mental and emotional freedom to visualize something new: leaders can reassure that the structures and resources to implement change will become available.
The challenges of stimulating learning
The article from Raab (2004) ‘Becoming an expert in not knowing: Reframing teacher as consultant’ well portraits the fact that groups have in themselves the resources for driving change, yet they need a leader to make them realize that. On the other hand, if the leader is seen as the only one responsible and having all answers, then the group will tend to become passive, sedating their inner potential. The role of the leader is nonetheless delicate because the group may feel lost and anxious if left with the feeling of lacking direction and structure: “They didn’t ‘know’ anything about them, and I hadn’t set out a structure, a process for discussion. In the resultant anxiety, there was a flight into the safety of the known” (Raab, 2004, p. 257). There is a difficult balance to achieve: on one hand, lack of structure can have paralyzing effects on learning; on the other hand “to learn is to disorganize and to increase variety. To organize is to forget and reduce variety” (Weick and Westley, 1996, p. 441).
To understand this tension is essential in order to balance the axes of the multidimensional notion of learning to change: order, disorder, safety and danger.
Large business organizations: a peculiar context
The dynamics of learning are influenced by the context in which they happen. In her article Raab highlighted the analogies between clients and students, however I would say that the differences must not be overlooked. A group of students and a group of employees are different in many ways. Students are learning for themselves, whilst workers must balance personal goals with the objectives of the company and their levels of commitment to the company’s success are also variable.
Another way in which context affects learning is the reaction to Task Conflict. Research is not conclusive as to the way learning behaviors are stimulated by task conflicts: some studies proposed “task conflict obliges employees to scrutinize task-related issues and accurately access diverse perspectives. These actions foster learning. However, task conflict is sometimes viewed as interfering with employees’ cognitive process and inhibiting their learning” (Chen et all, 2012, p.48). This shows once more that attempts to foster learning context may at time result in incongruous effects.
In a similar situation than the one described by Raab I would have reacted differently as a student, as an employee and as a manager. As a student I would probably have enjoyed the alternative method of the teacher and the freedom to learn through group discussion. As an employee I would have immediately wandered what my company wanted me to learn, because I know that ultimately the organization has objectives and my value of employee is directly related to the fulfillment of those goals. As a manager I would have enjoyed the opportunity to learn with fellow managers in an environment open to discussion, however, to be sincere, three concerns marks would have crossed my mind. The first would have been looking at the wristwatch: in reality few companies allow the luxury of a long brainstorming day without clear objectives. Secondary, the issue of trust would have passed through my mind: is this consultant capable and knowledgeable enough? Is she in control or are we going to waste the day? The third concern would have been with regards to internal politics: who is, among my colleagues, going to take advantage of the unstructured discussion to push a personal agenda? Is everybody really open to options or is someone monopolizing the discussion to get a change to push a personal idea, or to find an opportunity to shine? How much will hierarchy affect the way people feel free to express themselves and the way they would approve or disapprove of other people’s ideas? Politics, power and control are relevant factors that an hider both learning settings and change processes: “If one sees strategic change processes at least partially as a contest about ideas and rationalities between individuals and groups, then the mechanisms used to legitimate and delegitimize particular ideas or broader ideologies are obviously critical in such an analysis” (Pettigrew, 1987, p. 659).
First example of managed change in the organizational context
A first example of learning to change comes from a time I was managing the EMEA Support Organization in my company. Employees were working in a frantic environment and focusing in solving customers’ issues, however they were neglecting their responsibility to file detailed reports. My authority was not enough to drive lasting change because employees would have simply felt that they had no time to fill reports while keeping their solving as many cases. They could have, if they really wanted to: but they could see only an extra burden and no advantages. This is inline with the results of studies pointing out that “it is too narrow to see change just as a rational and linear problem-solving process. Explanations of change have to be able to deal with continuity and change, actions and structures, endogenous and exogenous factors, as well as the role of chance and surprise” (Pettigrew, 1987, p. 650). They way I addressed the situation was to gradually open their eyes to the reason why reports were needed. I realized that ultimately the teams needed to come out with a convincing solution. A first step was for me to exposed them to the need for a change, for instance by sharing with the teams many critical situations instead of dealing with them personally: in most cases if we had a better report we could have handled the situation faster, avoided clients complains and negative scrutiny from executives. The team needed first to get a sense of urgency. I must admit that I have often questioned myself about how legitimate is dramatize a situation in order to get the engagement of the team. I found relieving to learn this week that I am not alone in doing this and that many CEO use the threat of crisis to persuade stakeholders that the status quo is more dangerous than the unknowns: “They then find ways to communicate this information broadly and dramatically, especially with respect to crises, potential crises, or great opportunities that are very timely. This first step is essential because just getting a transformation program started requires the aggressive cooperation of many individuals. Without motivation, people won’t help and the effort goes nowhere” (Kotter, 1995, p. 60).
Once the teams came to believe that accurate reports were essential, we held meetings open for discussion about what new processes were best in order to find the time for writing reports. In few weeks the teams developed some interesting ideas, which led to a new process about writing reports while solving the cases and about improving our software to facilitate the task. As management we had already thought of the new process but because the team came to the idea through learning they were ready to implement it without resistance. The proposal of altering the CRM software was actually something that s management we had not considered before; therefore we were pleased to have included employees in the process of learning and driving change. Incidentally, the changes in the internal software as part of the change of processes served an important function in making the change a permanent one, because it was institutionalized. As Kotter pointed out, “change sticks when it becomes “the way we do things around here,” when it seeps into the bloodstream of the corporate body. Until new behaviors are rooted in social norms and shared values, they are subject to degradation as soon as the pressure for change is removed” (Kotter, 1995, p. 67). Because the change remained anchored to the actual internal CRM system, the management did not need to keep motivating and persuading employees about the need to stick to change.
Second example of managed change in the organizational context
A second example relates to a focus group composed by various managers, looking at ways to reorganize the organizational structure to achieve better efficiency. Unfortunately, it was a failure. Many managers were concerned about pushing their own agenda and aimed at restructuring the organization in order to increase their authority and have more chances of promotions. Others kept double guessing what would have pleased the most the Vice President. I believe that the reason for the failure was that the appointed chairman of the group had no familiarity with the effects of internal politics and struggled to lead the group into real thinking and learning. A daunting task, as Raab (2004, p.258) asked: “How do you authorize others to take responsibility and think? Access their intelligence and experience?” Unfortunately, he allowed the entire project to shamble and, not to displease anyone, fostered the creating of a final proposal, which was a chimera of everyone’s ideas. After a colleague and me expressed our feelings to the Vice Resident, a second focus group as formed, under my leadership.
The hardest part for me had been to create an environment truly opened for discussion. I realized that they were two main obstacles. The first was fear of failure; therefore I reassured the team that, in case we would not find a better way to restructure the teams that meant that we already had the best structure, therefore we would have just reported that things were already perfect. This proposition had a soothing effect because my colleagues felt that there was a sort of parachute, a plan B in case we would not find new ideas. The group became creative, relaxed, collaborative, because there was no pressure on them. Somehow I unwittingly created a safety zone, fulfilling the “leader’s role in providing a ‘container’ for the group’s anxiety, some boundary in which to explore new issues” (Raab, 2004, p. 259). A second challenge was the fact that several colleagues were not confortable with the notion of learning without protocols and memorandum. When I sent out a meeting agenda stating that we would have brainstormed for two hours, setting just 4 simple rules. Some zealous colleague kindly compiled a document which resembled a script to follow during the brainstorming, detailing complicated rules and processes to guide the brainstorming session: they were anxious about acting without a structure, almost feeling guilty about it. As if an open discussion in a corporate environment was the equivalent of a mutiny. At the time I found quite irritating the insistence on structures and systematic processes, even to brainstorm. On the light of this week studies, though, I better understand that “structure must be used to create a safe container in which to confront and work through ambiguities, uncertainties and the difficult issues” (Raab, 2004, p. 265). On hindsight I should have understood the role of Unconscious Dynamics, the fact that control and structures were invocated as ways to cope with anxiety and with the vulnerability of not knowing. This awareness would have helped me to better relate with the team and to facilitate the learning process at an earlier stage.
Conclusion
In conclusion, learning is a powerful ingredient in achieving organizational change. Leaders must be cognizant of the way organizational arrangements, culture and politics can be harnessed to constructively provide structure and control, in order to counteract the anxiety of learning and change. Without learning, leaders would be Generals at the head of an army: battles may be won, battles may be lost, and a simple cigar may affect the outcome. However, if employees are engaged in learning, then leaders will be like Generals representing an entire nation, ready to take action in the name of a shared vision and belief: then cigars and single battles won’t make a difference, because people will be determined to make a change happen.
Luis Miguel Battistella, MBA
Director, Audere Group
References
Chen, Z., & Zhao, D. (2012), ‘When and how employees learn: the effect of task conflict on learning behavior’, Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40, 1, pp. 47-54.
Kotter, J. (1995) ‘Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail’, Harvard Business Review, 73 (2), pp.59-67.
Pettigrew, A. (1987) ‘Context and action in the transformation of the firm’, Journal of Management Studies, 24 (6), pp.649-670.
Raab, N. (2004) ‘Becoming an expert in not knowing: Reframing teacher as consultant’. In: Grey, C. & Antonacopoulou, E. (eds.). Essential readings in management learning. London: Sage, pp.255-270
Weick, K. & Westley, F. (1996) ‘Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron’. In: Clegg, S., Hardy, C. & Nord, W. (eds.). Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp.440-458.
