You wish to point and sneer? How will that help, precisely?

There have been recent news reports about leaks on-board the new British aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth.  The ship is currently undergoing sea trials, during which all systems and crew will be tested before being declared fully operational.

The purpose of the trials is to check that the ship is fit for purpose, and to familiarise the crew with both it, and each other.  In knowledge management-speak, this is part of what is known as 'learning before'.

High-performing organisations invest time and resources in deliberate learning before (i.e. through KM planning), during (i.e. through Peer Assists) and after (i.e. through Retrospects and Knowledge Harvesting Interviews) key activities, to identify key knowledge that can be reapplied in the future, thereby saving time, money and improving performance, quality and safety.

Is the ship meant to be fully operational yet?  No.

Are the crew meant to be fully trained on it yet?  No.

Have time and resources been allocated to enable this 'learning before' to take place? Yes.

Are these so-called 'leaks' normal in ships at this stage of their life?  Yes.

Are they attended and reduced so that the risk is as low as reasonably possible? Yes.

Is highlighting a so-called leak like this helpful in any way?  No.

Does the media care?  Of course not.

In his book, 'Just Culture' (reviewed on this blog here), Sidney Dekker sets out the tensions between learning and accountability and reminds us that the clamour for 'heads to roll' after each and every mistake and oversight almost always has the opposite, unintended effect.  Instead of encouraging others NOT to make mistakes, such caterwauling merely warns others to cover up their errors, thereby ensuring learning does not take place and performance does not improve.

Pointing the finger when things appear to go wrong, finding someone to blame, using words like 'fault' - these are all evidence of a workplace culture that is anything but 'just'.  In such places, learning from experience is all but non-existent and performance way below where it could be.

For a chat about how to develop a workplace culture where learning from experience, before, during and after key activities, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

What's in your left-hand column?

In the last blog post, we looked at some of the ways in which knowledge management (KM) consultants help their clients before raising the importance of culture and how it can be analysed, shaped and changed through various interventions.
Whilst surveys, workshops and interviews can help provide an overview of a team, department or whole organisation, individuals can also get a sense of the tiny part they play in shaping and sustaining the culture, for good or bad.
Honesty lies at the heart of KM and successful KM often depends on the extent to which staff feel able to share their experiences openly with one another.
Good lesson learning relies on teams discussing the successes and failures of a project without fear or favour.
Best practice creation and transfer requires experts identifying and sharing the little ‘nuggets’ of know-how that may lie buried deep within their consciousness.
But these and other KM techniques can be hampered if people feel unable to share their ideas, thoughts and feelings and instead choose to omit, cover up or even lie about their experience.
This can be hard because we are all human and, being human, 4 rules apply:

·        We like to be popular and/or respected;

·        We don’t like being unpopular and/or disrespected;

·        We don’t like being embarrassed;

·        We don’t (unless we are sociopathic) like embarrassing other people.

These 4 rules make it hard for us to talk honestly about difficult subjects unless we trust the people we’re with and are confident we’re safe to do so.
An excellent tool that can show how tricky total honesty can be is the so-called ‘left-hand column’ exercise.
You can try this for yourself:

·        Think of a conversation you had recently that felt difficult in some way – it might have taken place with a colleague, your boss, a friend or relation;

·        Take some blank paper and draw a line vertically down the centre of the page;

·        On the right-hand side, write up the conversation like the dialogue in a script or screenplay; no need to recall each exchange verbatim but capture the essence of between 5 and 10 minutes’ worth.  This may take 15-30 minutes, depending on how much detail you capture;

·        Now, having written up the key exchanges, go back through and, in the left-hand column, write up what you were actually thinking before or whilst you uttered your own words;

·        Carry on throughout the whole conversation and then read back your own thoughts;

·        Now, have a think about the difference between what you said and what you were actually thinking at the time, considering the following questions:

o   Why is there a difference and what prevented you from sharing your true thoughts with this person?

o   What would need to happen for you to feel comfortable to share those thoughts?

o   What might the other person’s ‘left-hand column’ look like?

o   Can you imagine what life at work (or home) would be like if we were able to share our left-hand columns?

o  
How can we make that happen?

This exercise can be done individually or as part of a workshop, provided people are reassured beforehand that they will not be expected to share anything unless they feel comfortable in doing so.  As part of organisational learning cultural change programmes, the left-hand column exercise can help people identify the ‘blockers’ that impede effective learning from experience, as well as some of the ‘undiscussables’ that remain unsaid and will always damage such efforts until they are (a) discussed and (b) addressed.
Our paper on Organisational Learning Culture is available from the Knoco website’s downloads page.
For a conversation about the left-hand column exercise in particular, or organisational learning and knowledge management in general, please contact me direct or via the Knoco website.

The expeditionary operation is dead. Long live the expeditionary operation!

The British contribution to the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan has ended.

 

I served in Afghanistan in the hot and bloody summer of 2008 and left the place convinced that what we were doing was (a) right and (b) working.

I then worked for 3 years in the British Army’s Lessons Exploitation Centre (LXC), helping the Army try to learn from the Afghanistan operation.  Indeed, it was at the LXC that I learnt about Knowledge Management (KM) and Organisational Learning (OL).  Much of what the Army has done in these difficult areas is to its credit and it is rightly considered something of a world-leader in its efforts to learn and share the knowledge that its learning generates.

I have written at length about these efforts elsewhere and a detailed account how the Army tries to learn is available here.

However, my 3 years at the LXC led me to question why such considerable efforts led to so little achievement.  Why did so many varied and costly inputs produce so few valuable outputs?

My conclusion was that the British Army lacks a learning culture and should try to develop one.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because it does not permit dissent, constructive or otherwise.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because senior officers sing their own praises and those of their soldiers but shy away from self-criticism, thereby most definitely ‘leading by example’ and demonstrating that such frankness and honesty is not the way to get ahead.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because of the ‘can do’ attitude that leads all combat arm officers worth their salt to agree to missions for which they have not been sufficiently well prepared, trained or equipped.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because the current difficult operation quickly loses its appeal and the next one will finally be the chance to do things right.

The British Army lacks a learning culture because every venture has to be successful – we always win…we can’t be seen to make mistakes…we can’t lose face.

In his searing account of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, 'Losing Small Wars', Frank Ledwidge quoted one high-flying officer’s analysis of the outcome of the British Army’s efforts in Basra thus, “We were defeated, pure and simple.”  And yet the public narrative at the time was one of ‘work well done’, ‘worthwhile sacrifices’ and soldiers, sailors and airmen and women of whom ‘we can all be rightly proud’.

To do otherwise, to question (let alone criticize) such efforts is seen as ‘doing a disservice’ to the fallen, or being ‘disloyal’ to one’s former colleagues, or basically contorted in any way possible to deflect from the very real possibility that it was one massive mistake.

And so it is today. With the final troops now leaving Camp Bastion, the message being pushed is that we did a good job, that we can be proud and that we have displayed the utmost professionalism etc etc.  For example, listen to this interview from BBC Radio 4’s ‘The World at One’, between Martha Kearney and Major General Richard Nugee, the current Deputy Commander of ISAF’s Kabul HQ.

Utter rubbish.

Brooking no criticism, permitting no honest enquiry into performance and enabling no consideration of courses of action beyond the safe and self-protecting is no way to learn.

As I have done before, I have to conclude once more with these words, from (formerly) Major Giles Harris DSO, quoted in Toby Harnden’s book, ‘Dead Men Risen’,  

“The British are very good at whipping ourselves into a sense of achievement….we almost have to, to make it bearable.  You can’t do something like this and analyse it all the way through and think: “Actually we got that wrong.”  You just can’t.  It takes so much emotional investment.  I’m not saying we lie to ourselves but there’s an element of telling yourself that it’s all right and it’s going well, just to keep going.”[1]

Such honesty.  We need more of it.

---

[1] Toby Harnden, ‘Dead Men Risen’, Page 558.

How can George Orwell help us learn about learning?

George Orwell was the famous author of ‘1984’, ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘The Road To Wigan Pier’.  One of his lesser known works is the essay, ‘Politics And The English Language’ which I shall now use to demonstrate the difference between adaptive and generative learning.

We have looked at these two ideas before.  To repeat, adaptive learning is what we do when we respond to a change in our environment.  We change, the environment does not.  Its outlook is short-term.

Generative learning is what we do when we develop a capability that will anticipate and respond to changes in our environment.  Its outlook is long-term.

Orwell’s essay includes 6 rules that aim to keep prose clear and concise.  Orwell hated verbosity and obfuscation because of the risk that such devices obscure the truth.  His 6 rules are:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.[1]

How do these help explain the difference between adaptive and generative learning?

Let’s imagine a company wants to improve the success rate of its pitches to clients and seeks my help.  An audit of their processes reveals a tendency to waffle, prevaricate, obscure and pad out their proposals, presentations and other communications.

I recommend the company employ me to edit, cut out, reduce and clarify all of the above.  I propose a fee based on the initial size of each document at 50 pence for each word that I remove.

Work begins and becomes a nice little earner for me.  The company is also happy because they notice a reduction in the response time it takes potential clients to review their documents and an increase in the number of successful bids.

This initiative is an example of adaptive learning.  We have addressed the problem of poorly worded proposals and, provided the value of the new business exceeds my fees, everyone is happy.

Some questions:

• Does this proposal help us to identify a root cause?
• If I dropped dead tomorrow or got bored of this work, would the company be able to maintain its current success rate?
• Has the company developed a capability that it lacked before my involvement?

No.

Now let’s look at how generative learning might address the same problem.

Following the audit (the one which identified a tendency to waffle, prevaricate, obscure and pad out their proposals, presentations and other communications), I propose:

• Market analysis for existing and abortive clients (i.e. what sort of proposals succeed in Asia, Africa, Scandinavia etc?  How do we adjust our style to meet their expectations?)
• Exploration of why proposals have been so verbose up until now (i.e. how does the Boss write?  Is there a culture of pretension in place? Do people feel the need to demonstrate overt intellect or education because their daily work provides no such opportunity?);
• All proposal-writing staff to read George Orwell’s essay;
• Design and delivery of a short training package to all proposal-writing staff to help them apply Orwell’s 6 rules where appropriate;
• Update of recruitment criteria for proposal-writing staff to ensure successful applicants can use various styles and understand clarity and conciseness.

If time is short, the initial adaptive response remains valid.  However, the company will only develop new capabilities if it examines root causes and understands its client base.
Those questions again:

• Does this proposal help us to identify a root cause?
• If I dropped dead tomorrow or got bored of this work, would the company be able to maintain its current success rate?
• Has the company developed a capability that it lacked before my involvement?

Yes.

So there we are - an explanation of the difference between adaptive and generative learning, thanks to George Orwell.

Read his essay!

For a conversation about learning, knowledge management or even George Orwell, please contact us direct or through the Knoco website.

 

---

[1] Taken from http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/; accessed 5 Feb 2013.

Do you want to know why so many organisations don't learn? I'll tell you....

Next month I'll be running a masterclass for ARK - details of which can be found on their site here.
The aim of the class is to look at organizational learning (OL) and knowledge management (KM) from cultural and behavioural perspectives. Through a series of presentations, discussions, and exercises, I will help participants will explore:

• Challenges, risks, and behaviours that inhibit OL and KM
• Opportunities, enablers, and behaviours that encourage OL and KM
• The importance of leadership and its impact on learning, for good or bad
• Examples and absences of learning from recent history and current affairs

I'll be using examples from my time in the British Army, the City, and now as a KM consultant to explore why some organizations – and people – find it so hard to learn.

After taking part in this masterclass, participants will:

• Be able to identify, create, and make the most of learning opportunities
• Identify, avoid, and manage some of the risks that limit learning
• Have an awareness of how their own behaviour helps or hinders learning
• Have several new tips and approaches for their ‘learning toolkit’
• Have some recommended reading for further study

The masterclass is aimed at OL and KM practitioners from all sectors, novices and experts alike. If you want to move beyond ‘lessons learned’ and gain insight into how to facilitate improved performance, this is for you!



For more information about knowledge management and organisational learning, please visit the Knoco website.