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

LLC: A Case Study of Organizational Learning at EDS

Chapter Eleven, Analysis

General Lessons

One of the primary premises of LLC, as put forth by Kofman, is that an individual is able to achieve more if they operate in a environment of wonder with permission to not know all the answers and to learn. Previous chapters reviewed aspects of the LLC project. This chapter, is our chance to operate in that environment of wonder. There is much that we do not know. Here we examine the general lessons of the EDS LLC initiative. The theoretical lens, described in Chapter Two, will be used in the analysis of the outcomes described in Chapter Ten. This chapter will also include many observations made during the course of our interviews and on-site visits. For example, one observation that we made, as a result of our collective experiences on this project, is the complete and total access EDS provided us from the first contact through the intervention. We found the EDS employees to be very candid and open during interviews. In general, they seemed interested in expanding organizational learning at EDS and viewed our research as an opportunity to support this goal. In effect, they viewed it as another opportunity to learn. This chapter will analyze the specific concepts or themes we found most worthy of further discussion during our research. Please join us, as we explore and learn together!

Performance Improvements

One of EDS' expectations, at the onset of LLC, was that the company would have long term performance improvements resulting from the LLC pilot program. LLC's intent, as put forth by Kofman and Clark, was to impact and change participant's mental models and the way that they relate with other human beings. This objective is inherently difficult to measure. None the less, measurable improvements were attributed directly or indirectly to LLC and we will evaluate those first.

The Health Care SBU attributes the flattening of their organization, at least partially to LLC. This SBU increased the number of employees reporting to each manager and decreased the number of levels of managers between the President of the Division and the individual performer. One of the methods utilized was to increase the responsibility of the people at all levels of the organization. Although some managers say the Division would have done this independent of LLC, the application of LLC concepts by the Health Care LLC participants perhaps minimized the negative impact associated with this type of restructuring. LLC beliefs and values seemed to expand individual visions of what the organization could do and also worked to break down the hierarchical command and control structure that was a tradition within EDS. This infers the organization is accomplishing more work per effected employee and has reduced the number of layers of managers in the structure.

Drislane, Young and a Regional Manager, all non LLC participants, partially attribute the renewal of a contract between EDS and its' longest continuous customer to the LLC program. The reader will recall the discussion of Ellen and the approach that she utilized with this customer. It is critical to note that the LLC participant said she approached and operated differently in this situation because of what she learned from Kofman during LLC. Another observation is the new contract, with the old customer, has considerably greater revenue potential than the previous contract. We think that a customer, that was so unhappy with EDS that it was seriously considering moving its' work to one of EDS' competitors, but ends up signing a new seven year contract with revenue increases is significant. LLC is not, however, the sole reason for this success as EDS devoted many resources to maintaining this customer. But, we think the fact that several people said LLC influenced the outcome is of significance. As previously stated, relationship issues are difficult to measure however, it is the opinion of the individualism that we spoke with, that LLC gets recognition for this particular success.

The NAVP SBU also claimed performance improvements attributable to their participation in LLC. The most significant was the establishment of what members interviewed called a "safe environment". Chapter Ten reviewed a situation were an employee was contrasting the way a failure was handled before and after LLC. The failure before LLC was criticized and the employee felt bad as a result of his responsibility for the failure. As a consequence the employee spent a significant amount of time dealing and coming to terms with his failure. During this time very little value was being added to EDS' endeavors. After LLC the same employee recounted a similar failure. This time, however, he said the situation was handled with "dignity and respect for the individual". the employee immediately began working on the solution. This same unit also established group performance goals in place of individual goals. There was said to now be less of a "territorial attitude" and competition for resources was reduced. Group members said they exceeded their goals by twenty-five percent and attribute their ability to work as a team for their superior performance. The members believe that their ability to work better as a team resulted from the implementation and execution of LLC concepts and methodologies. The NAVP staff believes they know each other better as individuals, can therefore relate better and as a result meetings and other interactions are more efficient and effective.

Safety, Support, Structure and Sustainability

The issue of safety surfaced in our study of the EDS LLC program in numerous ways. One of the first occurrences is in the actual structure of the LLC program. Individuals, as part of transformational learning, needed to explore the very depths of their mental models and relationships. In order for them to do this, they needed a safe environment. This safe environment was provided in the actual learning sessions by establishing boundaries. Boundaries such as windows covered with paper so others could not observe the participants in their exploration of mental models and new possibilities, or rules that prohibited non-members from being invited in to participate in the training. The physical boundaries helped create the psychological environment that allowed people to begin to trust the team (being the participants and facilitators) and to allow them to laugh and cry and dance and think and reflect and dream. LLC first provided the opportunity for the individual to explore their relationships in the safety of their individual reflections. The study groups were structured to provide safety and lastly, the larger LLC group strove to be safe. One participant in particular spoke of the environment in this way, "...LLC was a "safe" environment and it felt very nice ... at the end of each session, the group had to leave the safe environment and re-enter the workplace."

Moll felt strongly about providing a safe environment. He and his staff had conversations with Dr. W. Edwards Deming about fear in the workplace. Dr. Deming, a recognized leader in the quality movement, lists "14 Points" as the basis for the transformation of American Industry. Point eight, of "Deming's 14 Points" is "Drive out fear so that everyone may work effectively for the company." 49 Deming further states, "No one can put in his best performance unless he feels secure. Secure means without fear, not afraid to express ideas, not afraid to ask questions." 50 Moll and his staff were focused on providing a safe (or secure) environment for their SBU. This same concept of "safety" is key to LLC. As a result of their prior preoccupation with this issue, Moll's team of LLC participants agreed to work on the issue as one of their business projects for the LLC program. Four other LLC participants also chose this same project due to their personal desire to work on this subject matter (discussed in Chapter Ten).

Eleven out of the fifteen people we interviewed in Moll's SBU, commented on the importance of "safety" as a critical factor in the development of a learning organization or in their ability to change. Based on comments from members of the group and our own observation of their meetings, it appears they have done much to establish that safe environment. Employees tell of a new openness where they can speak their mind and not worry about reprisal, even if their comments are against the status quo. We witnessed a display of emotion in the workplace, ranging from laughing to tears. It appeared to us that the group accepted this emotion as a natural part of being together in the workplace.

It was our perception that employees, at all levels, that we spoke with felt safe to talk with us. Their comments and stories were not all positive. The receptivity to us and openness of individuals was different than we expected to encounter and different than what we, collectively, in our thirty-seven years of experience have witnessed elsewhere. We were told very personal stories, regarding family relationships, deaths, marital discord, sexual preferences and religious beliefs. Additionally, interviewees expressed their views on the problems with LLC such as the "cult issue" or the "program of the month mentality".

In order to achieve the result EDS management desired they needed to provide layers of support within an overall framework. Management attempted to do this. They have built the structure and are now in the process of developing the support mechanisms. The structure comes from the integration of LLC and learning organization efforts within their corporate strategy and initiatives. These efforts are not an afterthought or one or two managers' desires, but are rather an integral part of EDS' strategy to remain a successful company. The efforts receive support from the top leadership within EDS. It is important for all the leaders of the company to support the same efforts (i.e. share the same vision). EDS' leadership model (described in Chapter Six) has been rewritten to support the learning principles. This subject will be discussed later in an analytic section devoted to leadership attributes. EDS management is working hard to ensure congruence and continuity in their approach to this subject matter. For example, per Clark, all leadership training models have been, or are in the process of, being revised to focus on team learning versus individual learning. The LLC concepts are embodied in leadership training models, regardless of the specific title of the training class.

Support for the cultural change was evidenced in many forms throughout the sections of the organization with which we interviewed. Numerous participants, managers and individual performers indicated their SBU President or SSU Director was supporting the process. Many pointed to the LLC participants as not only trainers or facilitators, but coaches and support mechanisms for others attempting to learn and implement LLC values and tools. Participants spoke of the "continuing dialogue" they have with each other. One fellow mentioned that there is a small group that still meets frequently to support each other in the continual learning or growth process. SBU's or SSU's, that are in the process of implementing LLC within their groups, use the previous participants as support. They said that they discuss the changes they see with each other. They say they talk with each other about how they implement LLC concepts within their own groups and they share with each other and care for each other. We believe support is a natural by-product of the relationships that developed as the basis of LLC.

Building the critical mass of support is a problem confronting the leadership of EDS. Every individual at a remote site, as well as many in very concentrated areas, commented on the issue of "critical mass". They said, "It takes a tremendous effort to change and the managers at many of the remote sites do not have access to resource teams to help them." This puts an additional workload on the remote site manager and often times slows down the process of spreading the LLC values and tools in real training sessions. One of the learnings from LLC is that individuals can always influence the system based on the relationships they develop with others. Some managers indicated this is too slow a process given the competitive challenges of the company. As EDS continues to develop in-house expertise of LLC facilitators and current LLC graduates continue to have influence, a multiplier effect is thought to happen and the transformation should, in theory, move at a more rapid pace. Clark, stated, "Presenting the concepts in so many classes is a means to leverage or cause mass implementation. This has created the need to increase the skill level of many EDS facilitators to a level of proficiency in these concepts."

At this point in time, sustainability of LLC values was an item of concern for many EDS members. This concern was expressed at all levels of the organization. Dave Bess, a manager in the Leadership Development SSU, said "The field of organizational development has been immersed in the notion of large system change and very mechanistic things have been done to effect change inside large organizations without all the tools and processes that help individuals change. Normally, organizations will come back in some respects to the original way of doing things because the people were not fundamentally or systematically changed. The field of organization learning causes us to focus on how individuals change as well as how systems and organizations change."

All thirty-three people we spoke with indicated they had personally changed. Nineteen of the people said that because it was a personal (internalized) change they felt it would be sustainable for them. The participants were strongest on this viewpoint, but even some indicated that if the support and safety was pulled out from under them, they feared that they might slip back into the old habits. The executives, we interviewed, shared the common thought that as the individuals changed they would play a strong role in insisting that the company change. We did not see or feel the ground swell in the employees that supported that position. Six people talked about "their concern about a leader that was going to be moved or might be moved" and their "fear about losing the environment that had been established." We asked if they would be assertive in keeping the LLC concepts. A few said yes, but most indicated that the culture was still for the group to adhere to the leaders' requirements as opposed to the leader following the group. The LLC participants themselves felt stronger about this issue. Their thoughts are found in the section titled "Career Changes".

We found more than ninety percent of the people we spoke with were pleased with the changes but most were uncertain as to whether it was really here to stay. We asked every interviewee whether they felt the change was sustainable. The answers we received were: "...hope so..., ....think it is..., ... needs to be..., too soon to know..." The people want it to be sustainable, but EDS is not there yet. The organization's top management has certainly attempted to build in the sustainability based on the way they are structuring their leadership model and strategic initiatives. It appears EDS top management is building up a "critical mass" via additional LLC sessions, and are in the process of modifying all leadership training in the company to include LLC concepts.

The Transformation Agent program, facilitated by Peter Koestenbaum, with assistance from Kofman, targets the top thirty leaders in the corporation. The remaining executives, people at the SBU/SSU Director and President level and their direct reports, are being invited to participate in a program called the Transformational Journey. EDS management is integrating measurements, such as the "balanced scorecard", to ensure the learning values and leadership attributes are institutionalized in the organization. EDS executives say they have a comprehensive plan and they are working the plan.

Safety, support, structure and sustainability are all critical to the success of changing the culture. In our opinion, it appears EDS top management recognizes the importance of these four criteria and are developing plans or in process of implementing previous plans to address the afore mentioned success factors.

Risk

Participants and others with whom we spoke talked about "feeling more comfortable and confident in dealing with risk." In our opinion the first consideration is the risk taken by EDS in initiating LLC. As previously described, a detailed project plan did not exist (nor, according to Kofman and Clark, could it exist) when EDS decided to start its' LLC program. There were a few managers in EDS that believed in the idea of "growing a learning organization" and that working on the "soft side" had the potential to make EDS more competitive and improve the bottom line. Managers in the SU's, that participated, believed that they "took a risk".

The participants themselves said they "took a risk in agreeing to participate in LLC." They devoted a significant portion of eight months to the concepts of LLC. This included nineteen days of sessions, homework, study groups, project groups and writing in their journals. Many said, "LLC was a leap of faith." All interviewees said that "... no one knew what to expect or what the outcomes would be." As this was a pilot, the LLC participants would be the first to find out what would happen. Because the individuals did not know what to expect, they could not evaluate the risk.

One of the topic's of the first meeting of LLC was "courage of conviction". One of the participants said that, at the start of their session, he felt he had courage of conviction. After the session that individual had a different perspective of what it meant to take a risk and have this courage. This participant utilized Mother Theresa as an example of someone who had courage to dedicate her life to the execution of something she believed in. During LLC this participant said he looked at his life and came to the conclusion that he wanted to "take a bigger risk". Life for him was safe and stable. The biggest risk he was taking was that he felt he wasn't taking any risks. This was Scott and he was one of the individuals that dramatically changed his career by moving from a technical supervisor to an LLC facilitator. He indicated that he had "courage of conviction" and a change of this magnitude was the appropriate thing for him to be doing, though, in the process he said he was risking a very stable and safe position within EDS. This was also the same individual, that another individual indicated, used to buy lottery tickets in hopes of winning and being able to improve his life. He no longer plays the lottery because he says he is more satisfied with his life. He told us that since LLC he has done things that others think are risky, but he thinks there was no risk in his decisions and actions. LLC changed his perception of risk.

Our perception is the change in group dynamics also influenced the level of risk individuals were willing to assume. The NAVP group is trying to build a "new, safe environment of teamwork." People in this environment say they now take more risks because they feel supported by others. This support serves to mitigate the downside damage potential of risk. People can take risks and be supported from inside the organization. Ellen demonstrated this in the risks she was willing to take in establishing a new relationship with a customer she did not previously know. The increase in the risk taken was greater on issues internal to an organization than issues whose bounds extended beyond the organization. Less risk is taken on issues outside the SU's or on relations with other SU's. One non-participant commented, "...the force of the larger corporation still influences the amount of risk taken by individuals."

Other individuals described customer situations in which they took risk by sharing their personal thoughts or perspectives and did not hold them back from the customer as secrets. The story about Ellen in Chapter Ten was an example of this. By taking this risk they said they were creating an "open environment with the customer" and were able "to get, much quicker, to the heart of an issue and reach consensus and resolution." Many said that this attitude, demonstrated by the participants, also made those around them feel more willing to take risks.

Another consideration is what happens if EDS does not change fast enough or does not pursue additional development and expansion of these concepts and methodologies? Participants have commented that "...they don't ever want to find themselves in the situation that they are required to follow something so strictly that they can not be open to new ideas". Too much structure, they believe, can be prohibitive to learning and risk taking. There are certain environments where LLC participants say they could no longer work. They would prefer to leave the company rather than be subjected to those kinds of situations and environments. Prior to LLC, participants said they were more apt to accept whatever came along. They now say they are "empowered to feel freer to search for happiness in the workplace." This may be a risk for EDS.

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

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