I was in a conversation with my colleague Charles Jennings  about organizational innovation, and one of the topics that arose was that of barriers to successful organizational function. In particular, we were talking about how the division of responsibility between organizational development (OD), leadership development, and learning & development is a problem. And I think the problem is bigger. Separating out functions into silos makes sense in a deterministic world, but that doesn’t characterize our current environment.

Now, separation of functions can be useful. Certainly in software engineering, having application program interfaces (APIs) have led to the ability to connect powerful capabilities.  A program can call a function and get data returned via an API, and  the software doesn’t have to care how the function’s carried out.

In the org equivalent we could have a business unit request a course, for example, and L&D responds with said course. In fact, that’s not atypical.  Yet it’s problematic in human terms. The business unit may not have done the due diligence, the performance analysis, that ensures a course is the right solution.

Ok, we could change it: the business unit could indicate the performance problem and L&D could respond. However, again there’s a problem. Without understanding how things are done, L&D’s solution won’t be contextually accurate.  Any intervention won’t reflect how things are done unless interactions occur.

And that’s the point. Any meaningful work – problem-solving, trouble-shooting, improvement, innovation, research, design etc – any  learning,  is complex. And, done right, they inherently require engagement and interaction.  Moreover, we also know that the best solutions come from  creative  friction, people interacting.  Communication and collaboration is key!

Engagement between silos works best when you mix members from each.  Or, to put it another way, breaking down the silos is the only way to get the best outputs for the important work, the work that will advance the organization whether removing errors, creating new products or processes, etc.

People are complex (the human brain is arguably the most complex thing in the known universe).  Solutions that tap into that complexity, instead of trying to avoid  it, are bound to yield the best insights. We’ve now got a lot of insight into processes that facilitate getting the best outcomes. It’s time to engage with it, to the benefit of the organization.

A twitter pointer led me to an HBR article arguing that We’re Thinking about Organizational Culture all Wrong.  In it, the author argues that it’s fallacious to think that there’s just one organizational culture, , and that all people buy into it.  I agree, and yet where the author leads us is, I think, misleading, or at least not as helpful as it could be.

The argument includes two major thrusts. The first is that the cultural values may be interpreted differently.  What you mean by ‘free’ and what I mean may differ.  Take, for instance, the  difference between ‘free beer’ and ‘free speech’ (a classic example).  And this certainly can be the case.  The second is that people may comply with the culture even if they don’t agree with it. There are multiple reasons, such as job security, that could support this.

The result, according to the article, is that corporate ‘culture’ isn’t a set of shared values, it’s a “web of power relationships”.  That’s quite a leap, but the point is apt: these relationships can facilitate,  or hinder, individual goals.  However, one statement near the end rings wrong for me:

“Reliance on culture as a way to create unity can mislead those in positions of power into thinking that the core values expressed by the organization are actually uncritically accepted by employees.”.

I agree, but I think it’s simplistic.  No one in power should  be naive enough to believe that anyone uncritically accepts any values.  Instead, the view should be to recognize what core values facilitate the most effective outcomes for the organization, and then  follow some well-tested rules about change:

• sell the vision
• make it a choice
• support
• know how to address the expected problems
• be prepared to address the unexpected
• evangelize
• reward
• test and tweak
• persist

It may make sense to start small and spread virally rather than make it an overall change initiative.  Still, I think it’s a worthwhile goal.

There is a clear value proposition about having a culture that supports innovation, and identifiable components.  Abandoning the effort because culture is complex seems a missed opportunity.  The benefits are big. Cultures are developed and do change. Doing so systematically, and systemically, seem to me to be the path to competitive success.  What am I missing?

Rahaf Haroush opened the second day of the 2017 ATD TechKnowledge conference. She made clear some important points about the potential for technology.  For instance she made the case for context-sensitive performance support, social network analysis, and a learning culture. An interesting point was that existing business practices were developed in times of data scarcity. She closed by advocating experimentation, evolution, and alignment with values.  A very nice support for the revolution ;).

Let’s not start off the new year being trepidatious, shall we?  Ok,  social engineering and cultural engineering have bad connotations in a number of ways.  Yet, if I can talk about learning engineering, the desirable properties of cultures for learning, and moves in that direction, aren’t we really talking about socio-cultural engineering?  Can sense be made?

To start with, let me posit that there’s fairly good convergence on  the elements that contribute to an effective ‘learning culture’: there needs to be purpose, explicit description and development of skills, tapping into diversity, making it safe to share, responsibility, and more.  The point is that we know what makes  environments where  the best ideas are generated, developed, and put into practice.

The second thing we know, with less certainty but growing awareness, is how to get there.  It’s a ground game: being clear, working hard, walking the walk.  It’s not easy, as the stories of when the committed leaders moves (or is moved) on and subsequent regression bear out.  Yet it can be, and has been, done.

So, if  we’re choosing cultural values, and working towards them, both in ways that reflect what science tells us about doing our best, aren’t we really doing such engineering?  Yes, social engineering  also refers to another means for breaking security systems. And cultural engineering has various legacy implications including ‘culture’ (read: theatre, music, etc) and even misguided political movements in the past.  Maybe we need a better term, but I think the concept of moving in a positive environmental direction is something to be considered systematically.

The open question is, does this make sense at a societal level as well?  Ok, not going there.  But regardless, I reckon that there’s a strong link between learning and the organizational culture.  Organizational Development, I guess, is the field that does this, though they seem to not focus on actual skills as much as facilitation. That’s not a bad start, but perhaps there’s an opportunity to break down silos here. Getting these elements  aligned.  Which, of course, is an organizational change.  Pondering, and I welcome your thoughts.

OK, so I made up the term silage (and then found it was a real word with a different meaning), but here I don’t mean siloed fodder (except perhaps metaphorically).  What I’m talking about is the damage that can come from silos. And I heard a tale yesterday in the course of an investigation  into  corporate innovation that illuminated what I’m talking about.

In this case a particular business unit, with a strong bias to rigor in execution, is also working on innovation.  And it’s going pretty well, it appears.  They’re working on opening up communication, supporting it through programmatic actions, and sharing success stories.  These are powerful tools to change a culture.  But there’s a barrier.

Part of the challenge is in management. This layer, between executive desire and tactical actions, is being encouraged to support this move, but is still largely measured on outcomes.  And, the group that owns management development isn’t connected to the group supporting the programs.  Guess what? It’s a turf war.  One silo doesn’t want any incursion into it’s area of activity.  And this is a problem.

To succeed, you really need to work systemically.   It’s hard enough to make change happen without having to deal with areas that aren’t on board. There’s going to be be a far higher likelihood of success if all the elements are aligned (and a large number of other elements conducive to successful change). If the mentoring and coaching isn’t there to go along with programmatic impetus (see 70:20:10), you’re dropping the ball. You’re going to see a drop off, instead a continual upward learning curve.

As things move faster, to adapt you need to tap into the power of people. That means developing a culture that learns, and that requires both crossing silos in implementation  and in then leveraging the collective thinking.  Can we avoid collateral silage?

Someone recently asked how you would go about measuring culture change, and I thought it’s an interesting question.  I’ll  think ‘out loud’ about what might be the possibilities.  A  learning culture is optimal for organizational innovation and agility, and it’s likely that not all elements are already in place.  So it’s plausible that you’d want to change, and if you do, you’d like to know how it’s going.

I think there are two major categories of measures: direct and indirect. Direct measures are ones that are impacting the outcomes you’re looking for, and indirect ones are steps along the way. Say, for instance, one desirable outcome of a learning culture would be, well, learning!  In this case, I mean the broad sense of learning: problems solved, new designs generated, research answering questions.  And indirect would be activity likely to yield that outcome. It could be engagement, or social interaction, or…  If we think of it in a Kirkpatrickian sense, we want to generate the indirect activity, and then measure the actual business impact.

What direct measures might there be?  I can see time to solve customer problems or problems solved per time.  And/or I might look at the rate of research questions answered.  Or the rate of new product generation.  Of course, if you were expecting other outcomes from your culture initiative, you’d naturally want aligned methods.   You could just be concerned with employee engagement, but I’m somewhat inclined (and willing to be wrong) to think about what the outcome of increased engagement would be.  It could also be retention or recruitment, if those are your goals.

These latter – engagement, recruitment, retention – are also possible indirect measures.  They indicate that things are better. Another indirect but more targeted measure might be the amount of collaboration happening (e.g. the use of collaboration tools) or even activity in social networks.  Those have been touted as the benefits of building community in social media, and those are worthwhile as well.

As a process, I think about what I might do  before, during, and after any culture change initiative.  I’d probably want a baseline to begin with, and then regular (if not continual) assessments as we go.  I’d take small steps, perhaps in one unit to begin, and monitor the impact, tuning as I go along.  Culture change is a journey, not an event, after all ;).

 

So ok, that’s off the top of my head, what say you?