Learning and the Executive Team
By: Don
Dunoon
Publication:
Management (Aust. Institute of
Management magazine)
Date: August 1995 Pages: 15-17
Many executive teams are not
particularly good at learning. They approach learning in a haphazard way, rather
than as a discipline requiring attention and practice. Just as sporting teams
need to continually train and practise together, executive teams need to
systematically work at "improving their game". Effectiveness in team
learning is not something best left to chance.
Nor is executive team learning just
a 90's expression for traditional team building activities, such as clarifying
roles and improving relationships. These activities are important, but team
learning goes much deeper. In particular, the focus is on surfacing and talking
about what American organisation theorists Edgar Schein [1] and
Peter Sengel [2]: respectively term basic assumptions and mental
models.
Basic assumptions are deeply set
ideas we hold about what the world is like. We develop understandings from our
experience and over time, we confirm or modify these by subsequent experience.
As Schein explains, these basic assumptions or mental models eventually drop
from our conscious awareness. They become "just the way things are",
so we don't think to question them.
We tend to lose touch with the fact
that our mental models of the world are products of our conditioning and
perceptions; that the reality we see is relative to that of other
people, rather than objective or "out there". So, when people
challenge our assumptions we can feel under attack. And when this happens we
tend to fight back or withdraw.
Values
Commonly held values in organisations make it even harder to
draw out mental models and talk about them. To paraphrase from the distinguished
organisation scholar Chris Argyris:[3]
Most organisations are heavily
conditioned by values of maintaining control and avoiding threat, embarrassment
or other negative feelings. To question someone's assumptions creates the risk
of these protective values being violated. So, it tends not to happen.
Difficult issues that may impact strongly on the organisations effectiveness
are quietly swept aside; they become undiscussable. Of course, the fact that
important issues are being avoided because they are considered too sensitive
can't itself be talked about. Not only does the team deny key issues but it
denies the fact that it is denying them.
These issues may go to the heart of
the way the organisation defines, articulates and implements strategy. For
instance, a common mental model is that "the most important strategic
issues for us to deal with are internal." The failure to question such an
assumption can lead to a management team putting too little effort into looking
outward and to the future, to better understand the wider context of change.[4]
Mental models often bear little
relationship to the values the organisation says it stands for. For
instance, many organisations espouse a value along the lines of "our
people are our greatest asset." It's almost expected these days. Yet it's
rare that this stated belief is reflected in conscious efforts by top managers
to create systems enabling employees to meet their needs while working towards
achievement of the company's goals.
Below the surface commonly lurks a
mental model to the effect of "we need to focus more on looking after our
customers rather than on looking after our people".
There are powerful dynamics at work
that make it difficult for an executive to raise for discussion a perceived
contradiction between espoused values and actual practice. That person can be
seen as "rocking the boat", creating diversions from key tasks and
disturbing a comfortable, if implicit, team consensus.
More fundamentally, to bring up the
contradiction can be taken by other team members as an attack, since a question
is being raised as to how competently the organisation is being managed.
Talking about the issues
How then can management teams develop the ability to talk
about these sensitive issues productively?
Over the past 15 or so years,
Argyris, Senge and others have been experimenting with communications
techniques designed to help management teams get the difficult issues on the
table and converse about them openly. Of particular importance is the technique
of dialogue.
Senge defines dialogue in relation
to discussion:
In dialogue, there is a free and
creative exploration of complex and subtle issues, a deep "listening"
to one another and suspending of ones own views. By contrast, in discussion,
different views are presented and defended and there is a search for the best
view to support decisions that must be made at this time.
Dialogue and discussion are
potentially complementary, but most teams lack the ability to distinguish
between the two and to move consciously between them.[5]
Many management teams discuss issues
in a way that sees individual participants seeking primarily to advocate their
own views and to "score points" over other team members. Dialogue
requires a different stance; in particular, that participants be able to state
their own views but also to reflect on those views while encouraging
others to do the same, in ways that minimise defensiveness.
For instance, a team member may say,
"This is how I see [the issue]. In taking this view, I think I am
assuming [whatever the assumptions might be]. Do you think my reasoning is
sound, and if not please tell me in what ways." As others respond, other
team members may challenge their assumptions in a similar manner: "As I
see it, you are assummg...".
This type of interaction implies a
relationship in which the parties regard each other as partners or colleagues.
As Senge emphasises, dialogue must
be balanced with discussion. Teams need to be able to inquire into assumptions,
but they must also be able to resolve issues and move forward into action. The
discussion process needs to be skilful. The style of discussion needs to
minimise defensiveness, e.g. through avoiding such communications barriers as
put downs, unsubstantiated assertions, and talking over others.
An executive team needs the help of
a facilitator, at least in the initial stages, to assist them to recognise
their mental models and defensive behaviours. Repeated practice is also
essential. At first, team members' attempts at dialogue are affected by the
conscious effort required to apply the new skills, but with practise, the
processes can become virtually automatic.
How to get started?
First, team members need some introduction to working with
mental models and to the specific techniques of dialogue and skilful
discussion. A useful resource is The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, the
1994 how-to-do-it manual by Peter Senge and his colleagues. [5]
There are many possible starting points but you could invite your colleagues to
read sections 33 to 38 on strategies for working with mental models. Sections
56 and 57 provide some introduction to dialogue and skilful discussion,
respectively.
Then schedule a meeting to talk
about the general question of practising dialogue/skilful discussion. It's
likely that some team members will express doubts about the value of "all
this touchy feely stuff” and ask how it will impact on the bottom line. Some
team members may be threatened by the prospect of having to talk about things
they'd rather keep quiet.
There's no point in pushing team
members into experimenting with these skills if they're not ready. You will
meet with too much resistance. There needs to be an attitude of "well,
let's give it a go", even if there's not outright enthusiasm. Once you've
gained agreement to proceed, you can schedule a skills practice session.
A most important point: dialogue and
skilful discussion should be practised in the context of talking about real
business issues. In effect, you are grafting an activity designed to foster
more effective learning on to a discussion of strategic issues.
This is certainly not an approach
for those looking for the quick fix. But for organisations seeking to create a
more dynamic and pro-active culture, in which the executive team can deal with
problems at their most fundamental level, the disciplines of dialogue and
skilful discussion offer much promise.
References
[1] Schein, E.H., Organizational
Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, 1985
[2] Senge, P., The Fifth
Discipline, Doubleday, 1990
[3] Argyris, C., Overcoming
Organizational Defenses, Allyn and Bacon, 1990.
[4] Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.,
Competing for the Future, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1994.
[5] Senge, P. and others, The
Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Currency Doubleday, 1994.