About SoLOrganizational LearningPublications & ResourcesConsulting & ProgramsCommunities & ConsortiaJoin SoLMember Access
Home > res (OLD) > chapter9.html
LLC: A Case Study of Org. Learning - The Implementation

LLC: A Case Study of Organizational Learning at EDS

Chapter Nine, The Implementation

"I'm Only Responsible for Changing Me!"

It was a beautiful fall day in September and it was the first day of the LLC program. Thirty-five EDS employees, Kofman and three other facilitators/coaches from the OLC, entered the room. As typical for some EDS employees, people set up their personal computers in front of themselves, ready for the days events. Little did these people know what was about to happen. Kofman told people to get comfortable and to put their computers in the corner; they wouldn't be needing them. With that, the experience of a lifetime began for the participants. Many of the participants we interviewed were significantly influenced during the eight month program. Perhaps all participants of the LLC program have changed but our research did not allow us to speak with all participants to verify that fact. We do believe however, based on the twelve participants that we interviewed and the stories they told us, that everyone that participated in the program was influenced to some degree.

Program Design

As described in Chapter Two, the LLC program was designed to cover an eight month period. During the eight months, participants were involved in three, five day training sessions, two, two-day clinics, homework assignments, study groups, business projects, discussions with coaches and meetings with their champions. Kofman was the lead facilitator of the program. Assisting him was one other facilitator and two coaches. The second facilitator was there to help create a learning environment and to develop a harmonious team. The coaches' role was to provide emotional and application support to the participants. The coaches were employed by Kofman and were well versed in the LLC subject matter. They reviewed and commented on the homework assignments. Each participant had periodic telephone conferences with their coach and the coaches attended the formal training sessions and clinics. The coach, at times, served as a sounding board for the participants or a practice field. They were a resource available to the participants. They were not to provide the answer to a problem or dilemma, but rather help the participant explore the various paths one could take or discuss the use of a new tool. Some participants indicated they used the coach to discuss issues that they felt uncomfortable surfacing in the group setting. At times the participants were struggling with what they were learning and needed these very private interactions to truly explore the depth of their thoughts and feelings. LLC transformational learning requires the individuals to reach within their emotional and spiritual being and to understand the basis of their mental models and relationships with other beings. The coaches provided the support and expertise to help the participants with this process.

The study teams were small groups of participants that got together once a week to discuss the homework assignments, their personal experiences or learnings regarding the LLC concepts and their attempts to implement or spread the LLC values and tools they were learning. The study teams were aligned based on strategic units. For example, all the participants that worked for the NAVP SBU formed one study team, and all the members from Corporate Strategy formed another study team. As there were ten Strategic Units that participated, there were ten study teams. The study team size ranged from three people to six people. Occasionally, a coach would participate in a study team session. It was reported, by the participants, that the study teams had varying degrees of success. Participants interviewed, indicated that teams met religiously each week and that at least one study team was not very effective. The coach of this particular study team participated in one of their group meetings in an attempt to improve the situation. One participant felt that the study group not only provided a support structure, but served more importantly as a first hand experience of deep relationship development. Another participant indicated their champion had wanted to be involved in the study group, however, due to the "...deep relationships and learning going on between the study group members..., ...it seemed inappropriate or perhaps even damaging to the synergy being created to include any outside members."

The champions were the leaders of the Strategic Units that were participating in LLC. The champions were funding the program and selected the individual participants from within the membership of their respective units (discussed in Chapter Seven). The champions served in a support and leadership capacity. Their basic function was to keep in touch with the participants and to provide continued reinforcement that "management" was interested in their progress and that LLC was the "right thing" to do for EDS. One champion held weekly conference calls with his team of LLC participants. This champion indicated he held these conferences to discuss with the team what was happening in their lives so they could share their experiences. These meetings served as a forum where they could talk about their attempts to practice the tools, the problems they were encountering and provided an opportunity to work together to identify potential solutions. They had an agenda for these meetings and they did check-ins and check-outs. One of this unit's participants shared with us how important this was to him as he rolled out LLC within his own group. He indicated he felt no hesitation in applying the LLC tools and values because he not only personally believed in them, but knew his direct supervisor, who was also an LLC participant, supported the LLC values and the SBU leader was personally showing his strong support of the program. We heard tales of champions that were not overly supportive, perhaps because they were not well versed in the principles of a learning organization or LLC, were unable to fully "connect" with the participants. It appears the most successful champion--participant relationships were those where the champion had an understanding of the principles, could talk in the new language and had the ability and capacity to become emotionally part of the participant's experience.

The homework assignments served two purposes. One purpose was to ensure the participants were active in the learning process between formal training sessions and clinics. The second purpose was to help the participants in the transfer of LLC values and tools from the training sessions to the actual workplace. Homework assignments were turned into the coaches approximately every two weeks. This facilitated the timely recognition of difficulties and allowed for a prompt exploration of the issues involved. Homework assignments included reading assignments, daily entries in personal journals about the participant's experience in practicing the LLC tools and holding specific discussions about the LLC values and tools within the study group and with the participant's respective champion. The original design of the course intended to have the participants spend twenty-five percent of their work time devoted to homework assignments and business projects. 43

Business Projects

Business projects were used to provide practice fields for the participants and to ensure the values and tools were used in the EDS workplace. Project lists came about based on input from both the champions and the participants. In some SU's the champion and the study team brainstormed a list of projects which the champion then took to the champion meeting. In other SU's, the champion did not formally request input from his/her group of participants, but input their own ideas during the champion meeting. In another case, the interviewee indicated that the participants developed the list of projects and presented them to the champions.

The important point we took away from the variety of methods used is that the participants and champions worked together to develop a list of business projects for the participants to work on. The champions ultimately reduced the list to twelve projects that they felt were critical to EDS and would be appropriate efforts for the participants to focus on. The champions had developed criteria that stated each project must have clear objectives to enable the identification of the conclusion of the project. It was not necessary that the project be measured in a quantitative manner, but the champion needed to be able to determine that the project was completed. Once the project list was solidified, the participants then selected the project or projects they wanted to work on. The final project selection was a joint effort between the champion and the participant. One SBU team decided to work on the same project, Provide a Safe Environment which focused on psychological safety in the work place. The team along with their champion felt that a safe environment was critical to the future of EDS. The champion of the group strongly believes that the only way to open up people to change is to drive fear out of the organization. Several other LLC participants selected this project as well.

The business projects became part of the homework assignments. Each participant needed to be an active member of a business project team. This effort was over and above their normal work load responsibilities. Some participants told us of their original desire to participate in several projects, but could only carve out enough time in their already demanding schedules to participate in one. Other participants we interviewed found the time or made the time to be involved in two efforts. Some of the projects we heard about during our interviews were Providing a Safe Environment, Developing a Knowledge Network, Innovation Center, Cultural Diversity, Resolving Internal Conflict, Discontinuity Analysis and Working with a Troubled Customer. The business projects, as well as the homework and clinics were all practice fields for the participants.

To give the reader a better idea of the business projects as practice fields we will share with you a brief description of two of the projects as we learned of them from the participants. The Knowledge Network (K*Net) was an effort to design a system where information could be stored and made available and widely shared within the organization. Additionally, the system was to be designed to provide for interactive on-line discussions within its user base. The LLC participants working on this project used many of the LLC concepts in the K*Net design. They used dialogue versus discussion to define the requirements. Discussion is an exchange of information or ideas between people. Dialogue, however, focuses on enabling the group to reach a higher level of consciousness and creativity through the creation of a shared set of meanings and a "common" thinking process. Dialogue explores the complexities of "thinking and language" and aims to build a group that can think generatively. 44 They used the new tools they were learning on how to build relationships with the EDS employees who joined the team to do the coding of the program. The LLC participant told us, that as a result of their own new found openness, they looked at the K*Net very broadly and attempted to design the system to be open to new possibilities and to be capable of sharing knowledge and learning.

Providing a safe environment was another project worked on by a team of participants. This particular project had a team of ten people. The project was started by doing some brainstorming within the group. One participant expressed concern that this was the traditional way to solve problems. He recommended that they approach it in a totally different way and suggested that they look at it as one would a personal issue at home. With that focus, he turned to one of the other participants and asked "...How would you tell your daughter not to be afraid?" The answer to this question really opened up new possibilities. After much dialogue and inquiry they decided that they needed to talk to people about this issue the way you talk to people you really care about. They felt by creating a formal program around elimination of fear, the organization might actually create a higher degree of fear. This group of participants discovered that through conversation, fear was eliminated. The project became a collection of stories about participants experiences in dealing with fear in the work place. These stories are on the K*Net and are available for others to learn from and use.

Personal Impact

The LLC program was a deeply personnel experience. The intensity and depth of the experience varied not only with each participant, but changed depending on the particular subject matter being explored. One participant indicated the depth of the experience and the profound learnings had to do with the individuals and what was going on in their lives. It was a program objective to bring the participants to a level of questioning their mental models. Kofman writes, "We live within the narrow confines of our socially filtered reality, stuck in our mental models. To regain a freedom of thought, we need to adopt a more fluid perspective. ...LLC is pragmatic. It disregards questions of ultimate truth. It cares about what works best rather than what is the ultimate answer. It holds that self is a narrative that lends coherence to human experience, a node in a web of meanings created by a community. And it holds that an organization is a space for meaningful interactions, a shared background where people coordinate actions and invent futures." 45 Another participant stated "LLC was based on significant personal impact, understanding others viewpoints with a focus on becoming a better human being." Yet another participant indicated "...some nights it was difficult to sleep because of the reflective thoughts and the emotions stirred during the sessions. Some of the concepts were surprising, such as the idea that there are no ultimate truths. One must get beyond that concept to be truly open. At some points it was almost troubling." Others stated LLC was about conversation, perspectives and sharing. Because LLC was so personal in nature, the program was designed to balance this very personal endeavor with business projects and interaction with the champions.

The implementation was as unique for each participant as was the learning. Some just "jumped in" and starting using the tools with their work group. They took the approach of first exposing the group to a tool and then explaining the philosophy behind the new actions and attitudes. Other participants took a more structured learning approach. They would present concepts and then the work group would practice. One participant told of how he was transferred to a new group halfway through the LLC program. He felt he needed to wait for about a month to let the people get to know him and gain credibility before he started sharing some of the new concepts he was learning. Another participant initially used a one on one approach. Another approach, told to us by a participant, used everyday work place events. She indicated she would see a situation and use that current event as the example to explain or practice an LLC value or tool and show how it was useful in that particular situation. She indicated she would do this when she was with small groups and the opportunity presented itself.

A major struggle, that surfaced in many of our interviews, was the participants' feeling of inadequacy in how to transfer this learning to 80,000 people within EDS. Participants said they finally realized that LLC was only about "themselves" and how they personally interact with the individuals they come in contact with. It is in the building and interacting within relationships that has the potential for making change in the organization. As one participant put it, "I'm only responsible for changing me." Another participant shared how they struggled for the first several months with the question, "What is my responsibility to implement? Do I teach these concepts to others?" She realized she was trying to spread transformational tools in the old traditional way and it would never work. Finally, she too came to the realization that if you just work on yourself things will happen around you. "All of a sudden you stop and realize that things are different, but it is difficult to analyze how did this happen." Someone else described it as a "...personal journey and exploration into how "I" think and react to others' thoughts in order to develop better relationships with people." Another participant said they "...quit looking for measurements but focused instead on how she felt in her relationships with people."

Tales of Implementation

One individual was able to almost immediately use the new learnings. The participant was leading some training sessions and was quickly able to incorporate many of the new tools. She used the left-hand, right-hand exercise and music to alter or enhance the mood of the session. She used a lot of advocacy, inquiry and request and complaint methods. The majority of the individuals, we interviewed, moved much slower in their implementation. Numerous participants waited for several months into the program before they started any formal training within their respective work groups. For most participants this waiting period was caused by their own feelings of inability to properly share the information or train others. As their comfort and expertise with the concepts increased they started to transfer the material to their work groups.

A manager in the NAVP SBU used his staff meetings to transfer the knowledge. He started to use the tools such as check-in and check-out. (Refer to Chapter Two for a list of the tools.) The reactions from the work group varied. After each foray into new LLC learning, he would explain to the group why the concept was important and they, the work group, would practice it. Members of his work group indicated a desire to learn more, so he devoted a four hour session to LLC training. They yearned for more, so he held two additional four hour meetings. Members of this work group told us that initially there was a mixed reaction from the group. Many thought it was very interesting and on target and others felt it was a waste of time. The two members of this work group, we interviewed, indicated the changes took place over time. In their words "It was a metamorphosis." They said "there was a turning point when the group started to endorse the tools. They spent a lot of time on communication issues; really looking at each others' viewpoints and exchanging ideas." Another member of the group indicated the whole demeanor of the account changed. The concepts that were tried in the staff meetings have mushroomed out into the operational and business development meetings. These meetings have been opened to all employees in this manager's organization. Agenda's are posted and employees can attend if they desire. The LLC participant also started a study and group discussion of the book, The Fifth Discipline, during his staff meeting. The group talked about the principles presented in the book and then discussed the application as it pertained to EDS or to their specific work group.

Another approach to implementation was led by the champion of one of the SBU's. One of the LLC participants on his staff, we will call Chris, was charged with the responsibility to help the staff in the transformational process and to strategize how to move the organizational learning concepts out into the organization. This SBU devoted one and a half to two hours per staff meeting to LLC training. This amounted to approximately twenty-five percent of the staff's time together. Chris was trying to recreate the LLC experience for the staff. The other LLC participants provided a critical mass within the staff group and helped immensely in the training process. Initially, according to the SBU leader, some of the non-LLC members resisted the training and started "pushing back". The SBU leader recognized that it was taking a long time to get buy in from the non-LLC members so he and Chris made the decision to slow the process down. He was willing to be patient and allow the training to take place over a longer period of time. Chris told us how time consuming it is to ensure that the group has a common, shared understanding of the concepts before the group takes action. She struggled with "how much time can you really afford to spend teaching and practicing these concepts", yet knew that unless the learnings were embedded in the group, the maximum benefit would not be achieved. The staff learned the check-in and check-out process, dialogue and inquiry versus advocacy to name a few of the tools. The singing bowl was introduced to the group and is used when the conversation turns into a debate or a heated discussion. The singing bowl is rung to bring the group back to focus on the fact that there are many different viewpoints and each team member needs to be open to others' perspectives. The staff has a designated bowl ringer. The rules are that if the bowl is rung, all members must remain quiet, breathe deeply and relax for as long as you can hear the bowl reverberate. The conversation can then resume in a focused manner. We were told that the intervention normally has a favorable impact on the meeting.

During the eight month program implementation a rift developed within some of the staffs between the LLC participants and the non-LLC members. One group described it as an insider-outsider split. Other comments were much stronger and indicated that observers felt the behavior of the participants was cult like. One interviewee shared his opinion that the non-LLC folks felt left out. At first it was very difficult for the LLC participants to talk about the experience and explain the concepts. The non-LLC staff members felt the participants were hiding special knowledge so they could know more and be better managers. One leader confronted the issue head on and talked about this alienation between the two groups. For example, the participants learned a new language, things like advocacy, dialogue, ladders of inference, unconditional love, dignity and transformation. The SBU leader, as a champion, could relate to this language, but the non-LLC participants on his staff could not. One of the participants who was a member of the staff, where this issue surfaced, indicated that if he were not a participant he would have felt disadvantaged by not having been directly involved in LLC when others in his peer group had. There were many attempts to share information, yet peers still felt left out. Another participant indicated her peer group was skeptical of the new learnings and expressed jealousy. These unfavorable reactions caused her to be very careful with her efforts to share the learnings. For her, sharing was done on a one-on-one basis. A non-LLC member told that he became skeptical because it seemed to be an exclusive clique that was forming. He used the term cult or cultish to describe the LLC group. The group was swathed in secrecy and he felt he was an outsider to the inner circle. On the other side of the spectrum, however, were non-LLC peers from other units or locations who indicated they did not feel threatened and were eager to pull the new learning from the participants.

The work load of the participants came up in many of our conversations as an implementation issue. EDS was aware that the work load associated with LLC was heavy and could consume anywhere from twenty-five percent to fifty percent of the employees time. One individual indicated, prior to LLC, he was spending sixty to seventy hours per week at work. When he would come back from an LLC session he was so far behind he would work all week end to catch up. He could not neglect his other responsibilities and LLC is not something "... you can just slam into place..." He was spending more and more time at the office trying to do everything. "I finally stopped this insanity after awhile", he told us. "I created back-ups. As I let go of more and more, the team picked it up. Unfortunately, you have to choose between LLC work and the regular job." He further indicated that some folks choose the regular job. Another story, however, was told by a participant who went to his champion and re-negotiated his work load. The champion had actually increased the participants work load during the course of the LLC program. This re-negotiation, from the participants perspective, was a direct application of the LLC learnings. LLC taught about personal responsibility and how everyone needed to live up to their commitments and how to converse with individuals that did not perform in this manner. LLC further expounds that it is "OK" to ask for help and that there must be a balance between personal life and work life.

A very interesting implementation process dealt with a participant, we will call Scott, who was totally immersed in the LLC concepts. Individuals that worked with Scott, indicated he was exuberant with what he was learning. He was filled with different ideas and different perspectives. When Scott first returned from the LLC meetings he wanted to challenge the way the organization was being run. Many people did not originally see the applicability of the concepts or did not know how to deal with them, so they wanted to distance themselves from Scott. The membership of Scott's peer group were split on their acceptance of and desire to learn more about LLC. One embedded pragmatic leader in this group and Scott, with his new management style, ran a collision course. The manager wanted to come to the site management meeting, get the facts, make a decision and get on with life. Scott, on the other hand, came to the meetings and wanted to think about everything and explore all the possibilities. This turned into such a conflict for the two, that Scott quit coming to the meeting and sent a replacement instead.

A subordinate of Scott's indicated Scott brought things back from the LLC program and freely shared them with his work group. From the beginning, it was obvious that things were different and it was not the same old paradigm. The subordinate explained that "...when the group would meet, they would sit in a circle and use music. No one in the group was adverse to the LLC values and tools. All of us in the group trusted Scott and had a good relationship with him. Each person internalized LLC in a different way." Scott spread the learnings through staff meetings, one on one interactions and in formal training sessions. Scott started to lead many of the meetings at the EDS site where he was located. He helped many people understand the concepts and how people impact each other and use mental models. One peer indicated he spent many hours in discussions with Scott regarding the concepts. He, the peer, was eager to learn and Scott was eager to share. As time went on, the peer felt he served an important coaching role of helping Scott see things from the perspective of the non-LLC participant. Scott shared with us his original expectation that everyone would love and embrace LLC. The reality, however, was that not everyone does. The coaching mechanism built into the program was a big asset in helping Scott understand and deal with the fact that not everyone would have the same opinion about the benefits of LLC.

The LLC program ended in April of 1994, however, we doubt that any of the participants would tell you that the implementation has ended.

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

Copyright © 1995 Diane M. Fries and Robert A. Kruse Jr.
All rights reserved.

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.