LLC: A Case Study of Org. Learning - General Lessons

LLC: A Case Study of Organizational Learning at EDS

Chapter Eleven, Analysis

General Lessons

Leadership

We asked the people why they thought "change" was happening. These were some of the answers: "Drislane's commitment to LLC both in resources and deeds...", "...because of Moll and his beliefs...when people see their leaders change, then they change...", "Marsha Clark truly supports and models the behavior of LLC...people will follow the leader...", "He gave people freedom to explore and to change...he encouraged people to capitalize on opportunities...he provided the safety for it to happen...", "...the leader is visible in his support...", "Leader commitment is the key to making it work...", "...he implemented the concepts within his group, he lead the way..."

It is hard to change a high successful established culture. The above comments indicate the significant role that interviewees believe the leader plays in a change effort. Many managers and participants made reference to the support of their bosses. The champion role, as part of the program, was a very visible signal to not only the participants, but to others who were "watching" LLC.

We frequently heard remarks about "whether LLC was here to stay or just the program of the month." It appears that those in the organization have been exposed to many short lived programs and this has apparently confused the work force and made them leery of reacting too quickly to the new program. This has created "a wait and see" attitude. Constancy of purpose is required in order to cause change. The champions, that we spoke with, say they fully understand this. One executive told us, "...the staff is watching my commitment and consistency regarding LLC. The battle has not yet been won." He said that if he reduced his focus on LLC many people would take it as a sign of "another program of the month" and would lose their energy around LLC.

One manager reported he was "...surprised by the magnitude of the impact one leader can have when they use the LLC tools." While the impact may be a surprise we were not surprised to find that the organization looks to the leaders for direction. We believe leadership is critical to the success of the LLC program and that employees will not take the risk if the leadership is not visibly doing the same. In the words of another manager, "...proper leadership is the lynch pin for success of the cultural change."

The Participants Relationships With Non-Participants

In some of the groups, that we spoke with, an issue of the "haves" (LLC participants) and the "have nots" (non-LLC participants) was raised by both participants and non-participants. Of the SU's that we studied, this issue was only manifested in organizations that sent multiple members of the same staff, from the same location to the LLC training. The organization that sent several individuals from the same organization, but different locations did not voice this concern. For example, the Health Care SBU sent three individuals from three different locations of the country and the individuals, that we spoke with from this SBU, did not believe this was an issue. This points to a trade off that should be considered when evaluating the number of an organizations' participants in LLC from the same site. We believe one must chose between the development of a critical mass at that site and the risk of splitting the group into a "haves" and "have nots" environment. This risk can be mitigated by awareness and appropriate action to educate the non-participants about LLC.

The result of this shared experience is a common background and bonding for the participants. This closeness can create other problems with individuals who are not part of the LLC training. The non-participants can have a negative impact on the overall object of creating an "inviting environment". The phenomenon, as reported to us, began when a group of the participants returned to their regular work sites. They said they were naturally excited about there experience and would converse in a new language. One of the participants commented, "The LLC folks used a new language. The leader of the unit could relate to this language, but the rest of the staff was at a loss as to the meaning". Non-participants indicated the participants also spoke in a "new language" that non-participants did not understand and subsequently felt left out. Participants, apparently eager to apply their learnings, would correct non-participants and advise them they were "advocating a position", for example and needed to use an "inquiry methodology". The non-participants initial reaction was "I don't know what you are talking about." The LLC participants had a new way of conversing and were using new tools. These were not traditional concepts and were not understood by others. In the early stages the group of participants were perhaps inept at using the tools and may have been too exuberant in their usage. The non-participants said the participants sometimes used the "old methods" and sometimes the "new" and it was confusing to the people around the participants. Participants did not make sure everyone outside of the "in-group" understood what they were doing. As a result, members of the work group indicated they had a range of reactions from very mild to the extreme of feeling excluded.

The participants had shared some very personal information about each other and had taken an oath that personal information, revealed during the training sessions, would not leave the training session. This was a necessary part of LLC and thought to be critical to building a safe and secure environment among the LLC participants. The negative reaction was when the participants returned to their work sites, other associates were curious and wanted to know what happened. At times the participants responded, "Oh, you just had to be there." This created an "in-group" attitude that did not harm the group dynamics among the LLC participants, but was reported as detrimental to group dynamics at the home site of the participants. For some LLC participants, what the non-participants perceived to be secrecy, was however merely a reflection of the participants "inexperience", "inability to share the learnings" or an attempt to maintain the confidentiality they had promised. We were told that Kofman had warned the participants not to train others until they were comfortable with their own abilities.

The President of NAVP recognized the problem and took steps to educate non-participants in the LLC values and tools. He felt that the exclusionary dynamics were detrimental to the overall goal of creating and fostering teamwork and cooperation. The President of this SBU asked the LLC participants to share the learnings in the staff meetings. Consequently, according to both participants and non-participants, the problem of non-participants feeling like outsiders eventually diminished and the unit continued on its path of becoming a learning organization.

The Leadership Development (LD) Unit experienced the same problem of the peer group feeling left out. It was compounded, at this location, by the fact that the LLC training was happening at the home site of the LD participants. Consequently, actions taken by Kofman to insure the confidentiality of participants, to enable them to "feel safe" and "free" to use unconventional concepts, fostered an "outside the group" feeling by those observing the training but not taking part. For example, the windows of the conference room they used for training were covered with paper. This was done, according to the EDS LLC program manager, so the participants would not be concerned with who was walking by the conference room and might observe them singing, dancing or doing non-traditional activities at work. There was also a policy of no outside interruptions which allowed participants to stay focused on the purpose of the training. Apparently, non-participants did not understand what the training was about so they could not begin to understand why interruptions were not allowed. This increased the perception of isolation and difference by the non-participants that were working at the site where the training was occurring. The Leadership Development activity either did not recognize this as an issue or chose not to address it. Members of the LD staff, that were not part of LLC, revealed they felt segregated for a longer period of time than did the NAVP staff. The reaction was stronger and even described the LLC activity as "cult like".

The EDS Leadership Development Program Manager researched cults and found that cults use techniques that seem out of context for the environment they are in. LLC appeared to fit that piece of the definition. Kofman intentionally uses techniques for learning that are not traditional. The group got into what members described as "very significant and deep conversations". The group members became very close. This new community was observed by others outside of the group and created a feeling of alienation or not being part of the group. By the end of the program, the zealous attitude of the participants had tapered off. The participants said they "... quit proselytizing the concepts and just practiced them." They said they no longer "... made a big deal of telling everyone about the new tools". Sixteen months after the start of the pilot program the participants and non-participants, we interviewed, indicated the cult issue and the outsider issue seemed to dissipate. It is our opinion that the issue lasted longer when it was not confronted and addressed by the leadership of the organization. However, we can not isolate the impact of the actual training being held at the one location. This may have been the reason for the longer period of division between the two sub-sets of the group. This may be an important point for those considering this type of activity in on-going work sites.

Group Dynamics and Group Membership Changes

The group dynamics within some EDS work groups are now different as a result of LLC. We spent a day in Detroit and observed several groups in their own environment participating in various group activities. We felt the groups were very tight and close. This seemed to us to be far more than simply individuals that had worked together for a long time and gotten to know each others idiosyncrasies. It appeared people genuinely cared about each other. We felt invited to participate in the days activities. The members seemed to listen to each others views and individuals did not seem to be hindered in expressing their views. We participated in eight hours of meetings and no employee was interrupted, while speaking, during that time. We observed employees using inquiry and it appeared everyone's thoughts were not only welcomed, but encouraged. We observed efforts to develop consensus decisions.

The open atmosphere at NAVP enables the utilization of a consensus decision making process. Consensus decision making can take longer, but the people, we spoke with, felt better decisions resulted from the process. They also commented that the extra time, that is required to develop a consensus prior to establishing a decision, is more than made up for in the implementation phase of the decision. It is felt that the increased level of commitment from all the stakeholders is evident in the quality of the decision and the implementation of such. The Division President still reserves the right to make the final decision in certain circumstances. In one of the meetings we attended, we saw a demonstration of this. There was a proposal to deviate from a corporate directive and make an exception to policy. There was some discussion with the financial representative indicating the reasons for the corporate policy. Other members indicated that they felt they had legitimate reasons to violate the policy. There was not consensus in the room, but the Division President felt this exception was important since it involved the communication of information to his entire organization and decided the exception would be made. The discussion ceased and the meeting moved on to another topic. We believe there was at least one individual that left the meeting second guessing the decision and still questioning if the right decision had been made. Efforts to reach a consensus do not always work and there are times when the leader must make a decision. In this situation, most of the organization accepted it.

The NAVP organization has dedicated approximately twenty-five percent of their meeting time to LLC related activities. Only a small portion of the staff are LLC participants. There is a member of the staff who is an LLC participant and leads the staff in LLC exercises with the intent of building a learning organization at this division. She leads group check-ins and check-outs, develops and structures activities, such as physical analogs, which are physical activities designed to demonstrate and create understanding of LLC concepts within the entire staff. The primary focus is improving relationships among the members of the staff and creating a "safe environment", which will, in her words, "encourage the group to take appropriate risk and grow into a learning organization."

Part of the staff meeting, the day we spent in Detroit, was dedicated to LLC training. This was one in a series of training sessions for the staff and this particular day was focused on "dialogue". During the staff meeting there were a variety of toys, such as Play Dough, Slinkies and Nerf Balls, placed at various intervals on the conference table, within easy reach of the staff members. During the course of the meeting people would play with these toys and it seemed to release their nervous energy and allowed them to better focus on the topics or activities of the meeting. People appeared to be uninhibited and were enjoying themselves. In this same meeting staff members drew their "personal shields" and then explained them to the group. Each of their "personal shields" included: the motto they felt they lived by, a quality they possessed that made them a good leader, the most recent thing they had learned and how they felt during a significant event in their life. This was an exercise designed to get to know themselves and more importantly, to learn about the basic values of others in the group and to get comfortable with the group as a whole. The extended NAVP staff was a fun group to be a part of and although we were outsiders, we certainly did not feel that way.

This group utilizes a "tool" to control anger and hostility called a "singing bowl". A "bowl ringer" is assigned and this person's responsibility is to "ring" the bowl when the conversation begins to be strained or is becoming heated. When the bowl is rung it reverberates for over a minute. During this time the group is expected to be quiet and concentrate on their breathing and re-focus their thoughts on exploring the issue at hand and not advocating their position. When the reverberation stops the conversation can resume, presumably without the emotion. We did not have the chance to observe this tool in action, although the bowl was on the table beside the designated "bowl ringer". The day we spent in Detroit the bowl was not rung. This may have been for several reasons: the presence of outsiders, it was an LLC training and practice day, the staff has sufficiently "evolved" to not need this type of intervention, the topics of that particular day were not controversial or perhaps the "tool" is not used at all.

We observed three different check-ins with the entire staff and various subsets of the staff. These people seemed to take check-ins seriously. We observed this group intently listening to each other. We had heard that check-ins some times were emotional, due to the personal sharing of events that were impacting the individual on that particular day. We observed three people who became emotional while they shared personal issues that were on their mind and diverting their attention from the intent of the meeting. The three situations were centered around family issues involving serious illness, death and the "empty nest" syndrome. The other members of the group supported these individuals, showing great personal empathy. During a break in the meeting we observed a few hugs for those group members. Again, as outsiders we were made to feel comfortable and at ease within the environment of this group.

There was one issue that did cause us to be uncomfortable, several times we were invited to "join" the activities. As researchers we were torn. We wanted to keep our distance as dispassionate third party observers and did not want to interfere with the group we were trying to observe. On the other hand this group made us feel so welcome we did not want to offend them or indicate lack of support of the LLC concepts they were implementing by not participating in their activities. We did remain observers of these activities until the last check-in. At this point in time we were welcomed into their circle and comfortably participated in our (we were a part of the group) check-in and ending check-out.

The last issue to understand is how these group dynamics are affected by changes in group membership. To comprehend this concern two different perspectives need to be explained. From the perspective of a new individual entering a group, that is practicing the concepts of LLC, the group is said to be much less intimidating and easy to enter than traditional groups. New members say they were welcomed into the group and their input is both desired and respected. The application of LLC tools, like check-ins and check-outs, seemingly allows the new member to instantly feel part of the new group. The new member can then very quickly become a productive member of the staff. From the groups' perspective, a new member creates an imbalance in the dynamics of the group. The use and implementation of the LLC concepts and methodologies, according to participants and non-participants, builds a "safe environment of trust". The addition of a new member temporarily interrupts this environment. The safety, comfort and trust that exists between the established group members must be developed again with the new member. This takes a period of time until the group feels as comfortable as it was prior to the addition of the new member. From a group standpoint, it is more difficult to accept a new member because of this temporary regression. A group practicing LLC concepts and methodologies is significantly easier to join, but the addition requires the momentary suspension of the safe and trusting environment until it can be reestablished. We believe people were more willing to engage in conversation because they viewed it as an opportunity to learn.

Change

The LLC process began with the recognition of the participants existing mental models. Kofman first demonstrated to the participants, utilizing a variety of techniques, the limitations of their current mental models and the need to expand how one perceives the world around them. From this common understanding individuals could then begin the construction of a new mental model of the world focused on "learning, growth, humility, wonder, empathy, compassion, authenticity and love". The amount of change participants reported was varied and ranged from some participants saying they now have "... a whole new perspective on life ..." and can now begin to "... love and learn ...", to participants saying that they felt they "... already believed and practiced the principles... " and that LLC "... only served to reinforce pre-existing beliefs and values." Occasionally individuals we interviewed, told us participants changed to a degree greater that the participants themselves recognized. Participants that perceived minor change themselves, acknowledged increased conviction to demonstrate the learning organization concepts.

The impact of the change was said to be felt at home and at work. Participants described themselves as more open and approachable at work. Every peer or subordinate, of an LLC participant we interviewed, felt their peer or boss had been "favorably impacted" by the LLC experience. Family members noticed change as well. Participants are changed via the LLC transformational process and accordingly use the LLC concepts and tools with their families. All twelve of the LLC participants, that we spoke with, indicated some type of effect on the relations with family members and friends and are very satisfied with what LLC has allowed them to accomplish with this aspect of their lives.

Tools from LLC are being utilized. Talking sticks are carried by several participants and at least one of the groups, whose members we interviewed, utilize the singing bowl in their staff meetings. Check-ins and check-outs were not only a regular part of the meetings which included the LLC participants, but we found, through personal observation and stories from interviewees, evidence that the concepts had been adopted in meetings not directly involving LLC participants.

Table of Contents | Previous topic | Top of Section | Next topic

Acknowledgements

The authors hereby grant to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document whole or in part.

search
members' login (lost username/password?)
username
password