One of the conversations I’ve been having is how to shift organizations into modern workplace learning. These discussions have not been with L&D, but instead targeted directly at organizational strategy. The idea is to address a particular tactical goal as  part of a strategic plan, and to do so in ways that both embody and develop learning and a collaboration culture. The topic was then raised about how you’d approach an L&D unit under this picture. And I wondered whether you’d use the same approach to developing L&D as part of L&D operations. The answer isn’t obvious.

So what I’m talking about here would be to take an L&D initiative, and do it in this new way, with coaching and scaffolding. The overall model involves a series of challenges with support.  You’re developing some new organizational capability, and you’d scaffold the process initially with some made up or pre-existing challenges.  Then you gradually move to real challenges. So, does this model change for L&D?

My thought was that you’d take an L&D initiative, and something out of the ordinary, an experiment.  Depending on the particular organization’s context, it might be performance support, or social media, or mobile, or…  Then you define an experiment, and start working on it. To develop the skills to execute, you give a team (or teams) some initial challenges: e.g. critique a design. Then more complex ones, so: design a solution to a problem someone else has solved. Finally, you give them the real task, and let them go (with support).

This isn’t slow; it’s done in sprints, and still fits in between other work. It can be done in a matter of weeks.  In doing so, you’re having the team collaborate with digital tools (even if/while working F2F, but ideally you have a distributed team). Ultimately, you are developing both their skills on the process itself  and on working together in collaborative ways.

In talking this through, I think this makes sense for L&D as well, as long as it’s a new capability that’s being developed.  This is an approach that can rapidly develop new tactical skills and change to a culture oriented towards innovation: experimentation and iterative moves. This is the future, and yet it’s unlike most of the way L&D operates now.

Most importantly, I think, is that this opportunity is on the table now for a brief period. L&D can internally develop their understanding and ability of the new ways of working as a step towards being an organization-wide champion. The same approach taken within  L&D then can be taken and used elsewhere.  But it takes experience with this approach before you can scale it.  Are you ready to make the shift?

I asked this question in the L&D Revolution LinkedIn group I have to support the Revolutionize L&D book, but thought I’d ask it here as well. And I’ve asked it before, but I have some new thoughts based upon thinking about McChrystal’s Team of Teams. Do we use a Dual Operating System (Dual OS), with hierarchy being used as a base to pull out teams for innovation, or do we go with a fully podular model?

In a Dual OS org, the hierarchy continues to exist for doing the work that is known that needs to be done. Kotter pulls out select members to create teams to attack particular innovation elements.  These teams change over time, so people are cycled back to work and new folks are infused with the innovation approach.

My question here is whether this really creates an entire culture of innovation. In both Keith Sawyer’s  Group Genius and Stephen Johnson’s  Where Do Good Ideas Come From, real innovation bubbles along, requiring time and serendipity. You can get innovative solutions for known problems from teams, but for new insights you need an ongoing environment for ideas to emerge, collide, percolate/incubate/ferment.  How do you get that going across the organization?

On the other hand, looking at the military, there’s a huge personnel development infrastructure that prepares people to be members of the elite teams. Individuals from these teams intermix to get the needed adaptivity, but it’s based upon a fixed foundation. And there are still many hierarchical mechanisms organized to support the elite work.  So is it really a fully teamed approach?

As I write this, it sounds like you do need the Dual OS, and I’m willing to believe it.  My continuing concern again is what fosters the ongoing innovation?  Can you have an innovative hierarchy as well? Can you have a hierarchy with a culture of experimentation, accepting mistakes, etc? How do the small innovations in operating process occur along with the major strategic shifts?  My intuitions go towards creating teams of teams, but  completely. I do believe everyone’s capable of innovation, and in the right atmosphere that can happen. I don’t think it’s separate, I believe it has to be intrinsic and ubiquitous.  The question is, what structure achieves this?  And I haven’t seen the answer yet.  Have you?  Perhaps we still have some experimentation to do ;).

I recently read that Apple’s new office plan is receiving bad press. This surprises me, given that Apple usually has their handle on the latest in ideas.  Yet, upon investigation, it’s clear that they appear to not be particularly innovative in their approach to work spaces.  Here’s why.

The report  I saw says that Apple is intending to use an open office plan. This is where all the tables are out in the open, or at best there are cubicles. The perceived benefits are open communication.  And this is plausible when folks like Stan McChrystal in  Team of Teams are arguing for ‘radical transparency’.  The thought is that everyone will know what’s going on and it will streamline communication. Coupled with delegation, this should yield innovation, at the expense of some efficiency.

However, research hasn’t backed that up. Open space office plans can even drive folks away, as Apple’s hearing. When you want to engage with your colleagues and stay on top of what they’re doing, it’s good.  However, the lack of privacy means folks can’t focus when they’re doing heavy mental work. While it sounds good in theory, it doesn’t work in practice.

When I was keynoting at the Learning@Work conference in Sydney back in 2015, a major topic was about flexible work spaces. The concept here is to have a mix of office types: some open plan, some private offices, some small conference rooms. The view is that you take the type of space you need when you need it. Nothing’s fixed, so you travel with your laptop from place to place, but you can have the type of environment you need. Time alone, time with colleagues, time collaborating. And this was being touted both on principled and practical grounds with positive outcomes.

(Note that in McChrystal’s view, you needed to break down silos. He would strategically insert a person from one area with others, and have representatives engaged around all activities.  So even in the open space you’d want people mixed up, but most folks still tend to put groups together. Which undermines the principle.)

As Jay Cross let us know in his landmark  Informal Learning,  even the design of workspaces can facilitate innovation. Jay cited practices like having informal spaces to converse, and putting the mail room and coffee room together to facilitate casual conversation.  Where you work matters as well as how, and open plan has upsides but also downsides that can be mitigated.

Innovation is about culture, practices, beliefs,  and   technology.  Putting it all together in a practical approach takes time and knowledge to figure out where to start, and how to scale.  As Sutton and Rao tell us, it’s a ground war, but the benefits are not just desirable, but increasingly necessary. Innovation is the key to transcending survival to thrival. Are you ready to (Qu)innovate?

In much of the discussion about tapping into the power of people via networks and communities, we hear about the learning culture we need. Items like psychological safety, valuing diversity, openness, and time for reflection are up front. And I’m as guilty of this as anyone! However, one other element that appears in the more rigorous discussions (including Edmondson’s Teaming and Sutton & Rao’s  Scaling Up Excellence) is accountability. (Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t appear in other pictures, but it’s certainly not foreground.) And it’s time to address this.

So, the model for becoming agile is creating an environment where people learn, alone  and together.  But it’s informal learning. When you research, problem-solve, design, etc, you don’t know the answer when you start! Yet it’s not like anyone else has the answer, either.  And we know that the output is better when we search more broadly through the possible solution space. (Which is what we’re doing, really.) This means we need diverse inputs to keep us from prematurely converging.  Or searching too narrow a space. We also need also those different voices to contribute, or we won’t get there. And we have to be open to new ideas, or we could inadvertently cut off part of the solution space. We also need time and tools for reflection (hence reflecting out loud).

Typically, the process is iterative (real innovations percolate/ferment/incubate; they aren’t ‘driven’): going away, doing tasks, and returning.  Here,  we need to ensure people  are  contributing, doing the work.  We don’t want to micromanage it, but we do want to assist people because we shouldn’t assume that they’re effective self and social learners.  In short, we can’t squelch the feeling of autonomy to accompany purpose (ala Dan Pink’s Drive), yet the job must get done!

When there’s purpose, and community, accountability is natural. When we comprehend how what we’re doing contributes, when we have reciprocal trust with our colleagues that we’ll each do our part, and when there’s transparency about what’s happening, it’s a natural. A transactional model, when it’s a network and not a community, doesn’t feel safe, and doesn’t work as well.  As Edmondson documents it, you want to be in the learning zone where you have both accountability  and safety. And that’s not an easy balance.

So one of the steps to get there is to ensure accountability is part of the picture. And it’s not just calling someone on the carpet. Done right, it’s a tracking and regular support to succeed, so accountability is an ongoing relationship that suggests we  want you to succeed, and we’ll help you do that. Accountability shouldn’t be a surprise! (Transparency helps.)

When we talk about the high-minded principles of making it safe and helping people feel welcome, some can view this as all touchy-feely and worry that it won’t get things  done.  Which isn’t true, but I think it helps if we keep accountability in the picture to assuage those concerns.  Ultimately, we want outcomes, but new and improved ones, not just the same old things. The status quo isn’t really acceptable today. In this increasingly dynamic environment, the ability to adapt is key. And that’s the Learning Zone. Are you ready to go there?