Principle 8: Learning, innovation and continual improvement (Item 9)
Continual improvement and innovation depends on continual learning.
You should make time to reflect on what has happened or is happening,
why it is happening.
Learning does not happen without reflection, thinking about what has
happened or is happening, why it is happening. People need to discover
things for themselves. That probably applies to everything. A journey
of self-discovery.
Learning is fundamentally associated with conscious changing of the
status quo — leading to new goals, decisions and ways of doing
things. At the level of the individual, this is means changes in beliefs,
assumptions and values that influence attitudes and behaviors.
True learning only occurs through a process of reflection as
the individual takes time to challenge his or her beliefs, assumptions
and values.
At the level of the company, learning is about changes in the assumptions,
norms and rules (implicit and explicit) which underpin the culture,
decisions and behaviors of the company's people.
It is important for companies to create and develop their own reflective
awareness.
How do you do it? Senge suggests that we should
use the `left hand column' to help us reflect. Divide your page in two.
Use the right hand side to make your notes about what is being said
– facts. Use the left-hand side to record your thoughts, your feelings,
what you were thinking but did not say.
Double loop learning is the process of questioning your deep assumptions,
your beliefs, your picture of how the world works and why. This is one
of the very hard things to do. We all `know' things about the world
and about people. We are all make assumptions and have prejudices. It
is very difficult to challenge our assumptions because we are usually
not aware we make them.
How do you do it?
- Reflection.
- Dialogue, especially with people who hold
different views, can help to challenge and possibly uncover assumptions.
Another reason for diversity in the workplace and in your network
of friends and contacts. However, your company must be along way down
the path of implementing Principle 7 (`Enthusiastic People') before
dialogue will work. Fear will be too strong otherwise.
- Use Goldratt's assumption breaking tools (ie,
`evaporating cloud' described in Principle 7 'Enthusiastic People').
- Whenever you find yourself saying "we
must do this because ...", you are probably making an assumption
about the "because". Challenge it.
- Ask yourself questions about "Why did
it happen?" "What can we learn from what happened?"
"How can we do better next time?" If you find that you are
blaming a person (eg, "It is Bill Blogg's fault"), you are
making a poor assumption. You must look for the deeper learning behind
what has and is happening.
It is amazing that companies try to do things without practicing first.
It is amazing that they think they can. The arrogance of thinking that
says we do not need to practice.
Compare this with enormous amount of practice in almost every other
human endeavour. In any sport you can think of, do people who are very
good at it (experts) get good at it the first time they do it –
or do they practice, and practice and practice until moderate skills
become excellent skills. If it is a team sport, do they not practice
doing it together? Think of all the learning they have made – learning
from mistakes, doing the hard bits over and over and over, finding better
ways.
In music, haven't all musicians practiced for hours alone and together
to get as good as you see them?
Why then, do companies think they do not have the need to practice?
You don't have time, right? Too busy, right? Very probably, you are
too busy fighting fires caused because you did not practice.
Our recommendation. Make time to practice. If it is important –
make time to practice. Work out what a practice session would look like
and do it.
 We saw this game used
in training by Peter Wildblood recently to illustrate a number of issues
about knowledge and learning. Each person in the group is given 24 matchsticks
to be arranged as shown. The instructions are to "remove 8 matches
to leave 2 squares not touching. When you have it, raise your hand.
If you are right, you will be tapped on the shoulder. Those tapped can,
if they wish, coach others. Coaching is to take the form of silence
if wrong and clapping if right." Learnings were:
- Many people would not let anyone else see their solution –
either breaking it up or covering it when it was complete. Hoarding
knowledge.
- Many people had to solve it themselves and ignored the coaches (who
had knowledge). Ignoring existing knowledge. Refusing to learn from
others.
- Other people did not attempt to solve it by themselves and simply
touched each match in turn and removed it if the coach clapped. Very
efficient. However, they did not learn a solution, just and efficient
way of working – for them. They remained totally dependent on
the coach.
 In the workplace we
see tension between these three groups. The first, conditioned by that
damaging environment for learning and sharing knowledge, the school,
don't want cheating or cheats to benefit. Many behave as though marks
are being allocated and only a few will be awarded.
Surely, in the work place `cheating' should have little meaning. So
long as it is legal, `cheating' is encouraged. We call it benchmarking.
[You need to draw a distinction between stealing a piece of intellectual
property and copying a piece of learning – a good idea. If you
intend to use someone else's intellectual property, ask permission,
and acknowledge their contribution.]
The third group are always calling on the coaches to help them –
"I can't do this, please help" "My computer won't work,
please help". Help is usually gladly given, but it ties the second
group down to being a permanent helper and may prevent both groups from
being able to do their real work – which they may resent.
Does the third group need to increase their skills? Do they actually
need those skills, or do they need them so infrequently and would not
be able to get to a useful level without significant time devoted to
the skill? Most people are in that third category about computers –
the technology is moving so fast that it is almost impossible to keep
up. Should the arrangements be formalized between the two groups, about
what skills and knowledge they share and how?
|