Impact of a Learning Environment on Employee Commitment - Essay Example

ASSIGNMENT – LEARNING ORGANIZATION AND HUMAN MOTIVATION Prepared by Naif …………………………….. Semester …., 2005 …………………………………………………………………………. College Name Impact of a Learning Environment on Employee Commitment & Creativity In order to survive in the intensely competitive business environment, companies today have to seek innovative management practices that would optimise the utilisation of the enterprise resources. While traditional competitive platforms such as cost management and production capabilities which have become prerequisites to stay in business no longer offer competitive edge that is sustainable, organisations are increasingly focusing on their human capital and organisational management as a source for developing competitive platforms. In his book, In Search of Excellence, Tom Peters speaks of eight themes which the successful companies adopts and two of them focus on the optimisation of human capital – Autonomy & entrepreneurship through fostering innovation and nurturing champions and secondly productivity through people (Peters & Waterman 1982). Achieving innovation and continuous development through workforce involvement and commitment has become a challenge, which organizations seeking to excel, has to address as a top priority. Employee commitment is the most potent competitive driver an organisation can develop for pursuing its objectives and harnessing employee commitment involves creating an environment, which allows for autonomy and achievement. Flexibility among the workforce is critical for developing lean and effective organisational structures which is critical for organisational excellence (Peters & Waterman 1982) High performance work teams are the norm of today’s successful companies where the team members perform multitasks on highly flexible work agendas. Employee creativity is developed and nurtured by those organisations that recognise the potential for breakthrough products and process innovations. Such companies as 3M which is placed at the forefront of innovation, capitalises on its employee creativity and promotes it through policies as the “15% rule” allowing time for pursuing personal projects. The manager who wants commitment, flexibility and creativity from employees is therefore advised to provide them with lots of learning opportunities. As per the management guru, Peter Senge, “If a seedling has no room to grow, it will never become a tree.” (Senge 1990) Providing a workplace environment, that promotes learning opportunities through innovation, creativity, participation and autonomy addresses the motivational needs of the employees. Motivational theories as Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs as well as Alderfer’s ERG Theory both identify people’s desire for growth and self actualization. Both theories see this need category as the highest order needs in the pyramid and in Alderfer’s ERG model, the “Growth” includes need for creativity and productivity (Weiss 2001). Herzberg’s Two Factor theory of Hygiene and Motivator factors also address the need for providing learning opportunities and an environment for growth and achievements. McClelland’s Trichotomy of Needs, while not being concerned of how to satisfy needs, holds that needs can be created and developed and by doing so with certain needs, a person’s productivity can be improved. Out of the three needs in his model, the Achievement factor or nAch is the need for demonstrating high performance levels, mastery over complex tasks and ability to taken on challenging tasks. An organisation that develops achievement needs in their staff through opportunities for growth, autonomy and creativity will therefore stand to gain from the resulting high productivity of these staff. While some of the proponents of organisational learning as Senge sees it as a new source of competitive advantage, the concept of providing learning opportunities for the employees is closely linked with the Organisational Development theories proposed by Argyris, Handy or other OD theorists. As per Argyris, organisations usually adopt a “single loop” learning, where the learning involves detection and corrective actions. However he also identifies that organisations develop “double loop” learning, which involves modification of existing status quo of the organisation based on feedback available and thus facilitate organisational learning (Argyris and Schön 1978). There is a marked divergence of the literature on organisational learning, where the thinking differs mainly on what organisational learning is (Huber 1991). Alan Garvin defines a learning organisation as “an organisation skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” (Garvin 1993). This definition address the fundamental crux of learning process if learning is to take place, which is the need for new ideas. This definition has the advantage of having the concept of learning organisation translated in to practical and operational set of requirements. Peter Senge describes a learning organisation as a place “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (Senge 1990). Senge’s description, while addressing what a learning organisation should ideally be, leaves out any indication of how this idyllic status is to be achieved. In Ikujiro Nonaka’s work, the learning organisation is defined as a place where “inventing new knowledge is not a specialized activity, it is a way of behaving, indeed a way of being, in which everyone is a knowledge worker” (Nonaka 1991). Their work identifies differentiation between "tacit knowledge" and "explicit knowledge" which is of key importance to organisations in sharing of knowledge which is created. Tacit knowledge which is personal, context specific and subjective in its nature, needs to be shared by making it explicit in the form of codified, systematic, formal, and easy to communicate knowledeg. In the same manner, explicit knowledge should be made implicit through the absorption of explicit knowledge by the work force. This involves internalisation of manuals, rules and regulations, procedures etc (Nanaka & Takeuchi 1995). While this model proposes a process which can be applied in to the organisational setting, its effectiveness will vary depending on how people view the power of holding tacit knowledge as exclusive knowledge. Even of people indicate willingness to express their tacit knowledge to be made explicit, to what degree will the discloure take place and whether tacit knowledge can be made fully explicit is also a question. Garvin identifies five essential activities which a learning organisation performs, including systematic problem solving; experimentation with new approaches; learning from own experiences; learning from others and transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently through out the organisation (Garvin 1993). Systematic problem solving involves relying on scientific method rather than guesswork for diagnosing problems (fact based management) and the use of simple statistical tools to organize data and draw inference. An example of successful application of this systematic problem solving is demonstrated by Xerox company, which has been one of the pioneers who have mastered this approach through its six-step problem solving method being applied in almost all decision making aspects of the organisation. Xerox’s six step model follows a process of identifying and selecting a problem, analyzing the problem, generating potential solutions, selecting and planning the solution , implementing the solution and finally evaluating the solution (Howard 1992). The limitation of applying systematic problem solving concept is that available data and facts may not be comprehensive and representative of the new situations. Experimentations involve the systematic searching for and testing of new knowledge, usually motivated by opportunity and expanding horizons. The experimentations can fall in to the category of ongoing programs or demonstration projects. Corning, the renowned glass manufacturer engage in continued process of experimenting to uncover new formulations that increases yield and to develop new grades of glass. For experiments to be successful, managers must ensure that employees feel secure in participating in the process. There should be an incentive and evaluation system that favours risk taking. The challenge for the managers is to ensure that the accountability and control is maintained but the employees are not penalised unduly for failures. Challenging experimentation projects usually provide inspiration and gain commitment from employees while meeting motivational needs of those with high nAch factors as discussed in McClelland’s motivational theory. Limitation in applying experimentations in promoting organisational learning is the questionable justification in allocation of scarce resources to risky projects. Failures should be treated objectively as blame passing cultures will not be able to foster successful environment for learning through experimentations. Learning from past experiences involves the reviewing of successes and failures through systematic assessment and recording the lessons learnt in a form which is accessible to employees for future practices. Companies such as IBM and Boeing have ensured the knowledge acquired through their past failures is instrumental in developing and launching subsequent successful products. Measures should however be taken to safeguarded against possible pitfalls of the new situation to which the learning is being applied, as it may not reflecting the same macro, micro environmental conditions. Learning from others advocates that instead of self-analysis, a new perspective is sometimes required to further the learning process. This can be identified in the practice of Benchmarking where an ongoing investigation and learning experience ensures the best industry practices are uncovered, analysed and implemented. While learning from others’ experiences, can bring a fresh insight and competitive comparison, caution should be exercised when benchmarking by taking in to account the variations in internal environment while setting benchmark targets. Transferring knowledge should happen efficiently throughout the organisation to ensure learning to take place with maximum impact. Variety of mechanisms such as written, oral and visual reports, site visits and training programs can be utilised for this purpose and further encouraged through linking of incentives to such activities. However the risk of valuable knowledge reaching competitors outside the organisation is a key concern. The cultural resistance, power play and organisational characteristics may also have varying implications on the effectiveness of transferring of new knowledge across the organisation. Peter Senge identifies 5 disciplines, which is needed for creating and nurturing organisational learning. These include personal mastery, mental models, team learning , shared vision & systems thinking. Personal mastery involves identifying and pursuing ones life goals. These are long-term goals and may sometimes takes a lifetime for achieving or trying to achieve. It is important that there is a clear understanding of the current situation and reality without any bias and misconceptions so that the gap that exits between the vision and reality can be gauged and the reality can be changed to meet the desired vision or goal. The gap, which exits between the desired status and reality, is referred to as creative tension and should be used positively to create learning and continuous improvements (Senge 1990). Mental models are ingrained beliefs and assumptions people form and hold and use in perceiving the world. These models shape the actions and decisions of people and restrict people in taking wider perspectives than what fits their mental models. With flawed mental models, people make the mistake of only seeing one possibility or aspect of the situation when there could be innumerable number of different possibilities. Argyris collaborating in Senge’s work proposes the technique of left hand column, which can be used in identifying the flaws in mental models (Argyris 1993). Team learning is the third discipline, which needs to be developed to facilitate organisational learning. Teams are defined as a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, a set of performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Shaw 1981). Group learning occurs through the synergy and resulting productiveness within the group, which is much greater than the sum of the individual efforts. For successful teamwork, openness in communications, honesty and commitment as well as respect for each other becomes critical. Shared vision is essential to create organisational wide learning. Everyone in the organisation should be clearly aware of the organisations aims and objectives, what their role in the process of achieving these objectives and how they can contribute to the achieving of this vision. Shared vision can be achieved only if the organisation is capable of developing a vision with the involvement of the employees so that they feel ownership of the vision and commitment for achieving it. Systems thinking is the fifth and last of the Senge’s disciplines for creating a leaning environment and focus on seeing the interconnectedness of the subsystems and elements to the whole. By appreciating the interlinkages and seeing the system as a whole, the ability to develop decisions which works in cohesion with the whole decision rather than taking a fragmented view of the issues. Many organisations while being good at creating or acquiring new knowledge, fail notably in the area of applying this new knowledge in their activities to reflect the new learning. Few companies as Honda, Corning and General Electrics have risen to the task by becoming adapted at translating new knowledge in to new ways of behaving. Distinct policies and practices are responsible for their success. For example, 3M practice many policies, which facilitates creation of a learning organisation. The 15% rule at 3M allows employees to engage in experimental projects of their own choice. 3M also provide financial assistance through its Genesis Grant program for its engineers who wish to pursue their projects commercially (Lucas 2004). 3M’s continued success in its vast and diverse business operations is directly attributed to its committed workforce and it is no doubt that the learning environment in which these employee’s creativity levels are nurtured has bring forth the flexibility and commitment which has driven the company’s success. Companies such as Boeing, British Petroleum and IBM facilitate the learning process though accepting experimental failures as stepping stones for success. When considering other countries, which have been successfully in creating successful organizational learning, Japan is in the forefront. Japan’s Total Quality Movement is a good example of how generative learning is nurtured. Japanese firms are in a continuous quest for innovation in management practices which driven by the workforce (Senge 1990). Scandinavian countries have also succeeded in creating learning organisations in which high performance work teams achieve heights of performance through autonomy and commitment to their objectives. Volvo is one of the pioneering firms, which has implemented a learning environment to develop workforce productivity. In considering the relevance of organisational learning in context of the American society, the significant contributions it can make in making America sustain its global dominance in the market place is obvious. However very few organisations have truly succeeded in adopting the concept of organisational learning, despite the fact that many of the gurus of organisational learning have originated from the country. Main impinging factor for this can be seen in the individualism, which is a dominant characteristic of the American society. Organisational learning is more aligned with pluralistic, community bound characteristics, which is common in countries such as Japan. As building a learning organisation is not an individual task, but a group effort, companies need to make a cultural change within its organisation and develop e principle requirements such as team spirit to facilitate the learning process. In the new era of knowledge economy, the thinking and acting has to happen at all levels of the organisation, not just at the top. Leaders of learning organisations have to part with their traditional roles of management and take on the role as teachers, designers and stewards. They should become the architects of organisational systems. Managing diversity will be essential. If the requisite level of diversity does not exist or is not effectively managed, the organisation will be unable to adapt to a rapidly changing, external environment (Heil, Parker & Tate 1995). Management commitment and resource availability are the other key ingredients for success in creating a learning environment. While many limitations may exist in the prescribed means of developing learning organisations, and the various views may not converge on its principle aspects of what makes a learning organisation, there is substantial grounds, to acknowledge the positive effects which a learning environment can bring forth on the employee motivational levels. The concept of learning organisations recognises the need for allowing the human minds to have autonomy in exercising their creative thinking, which would result in new ideas that may vastly improve upon the present status quo. Restrictive thinking patterns, highly structured organisations and limited scope for experimenting with new and innovative ideas has stunted the spirit of creativity in many within today’s organisations. When improvements and developments are results of employees actions, the commitment for sustenance is high. Thus, by creating a learning environment which nurtures team learning, flexibility, creativity and autonomy, the organisation will not only benefit from the innovative and creative output, which results in but also from the workforce commitment and heightened level of workforce moral. Reference List Adam, E. E. Jr. & Ebert, R. J. 1995, Production & Operations Management, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Argyris, C. & Schon, D. 1978, Organisational Learning: A theory of action perspective, Addison-Wesley Reading, Massachusetts. Bell, S. J. & Whitewell, G. J. 1990, “Organisational Learning Research: Taking Stock of the Underlying Theoretical Views” Working Paper in Marketing. Available at : http://www.management.unimelb.edu.au/Staff/paper/wpm1.pdf Garvin, D. A. 1993, “Building A Learning Organisation,” Harvard Business Review, July - Aug 1991, pp. 78 -91. Heil, G.M., Parker, T. & Tate, R. 1995, Leadership and the Customer Revolution, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, pp. 92-93. Howard, R. 1992, “The CEO as Organisational Architect: An Interview with Xerox’s Paul Allaire,” Harvard Business Review, September - Octomber 1992, p.106. Huber, G. P. 1991, “Organisational Learning: The contributing Process and the Literature” Organisational Science, Vol 2. Kim, D. (1993). "The link between individual and organisational learning", Sloan Management Review, Fall 1993, pp. 37-50. Lukas, P.2004, “The Great American Company 3M: The Magic Of Mistakes” available at: http://www.fortune.com/fortune/mostadmired Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995, The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York. Nonaka, I. 1991, “The Knowledge –Creating Company,” Harvard Business Review, November-December 1991, p. 97. “Organisational Learning” 2004, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R.H. Jr. 1982, In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., New York. Shaw, M. 1981, Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior” 3rd ed, McGraw Hill, New York. Senge, P.M. 1990, The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York. Senge, P.M. 1990, “Leaders New Work: Building Learning Organisations,” Sloan Management Review, Fall, 1990. Weiss, J.W. 2001, Organisational Behavior & Change, 2nd ed., South-Western Collage Publishing, Ohio. Read More