The
presidents’ strong bias for action and problem
solving could, they fear, result in a project
that lacks critical attributes of a true learning
experience.
|
Over
the past few years, corporate training personnel
in this multibillion-dollar financial services
company have made several unsuccessful attempts
to interest senior management in sponsoring a
leadership development program. Senior management
remains uninterested, however, until a couple of
division presidents learn, on their own, of
efforts in other companies called “action
learning.” The presidents find this type of
developmental program appealing because of the
promise it holds for solving critical business
problems. Now
finding some support for development where none
had previously existed, the training team makes
efforts to strengthen this support. Five of the
division presidents soon agree to sponsor and
send participants to such a program, if it will
focus on solving a business problem. Clearly,
their primary interest lies in the action part of
action learning.
This message is
particularly strong from the division president
likely to benefit most from the effort. His
division has determined that it has an image
problem. The customer has changed, and the new
customer seems barely aware of the firm’s
presence in this market segment. All of the
sponsors agree that the assignment for
participants in the first program will be to
identify alternative solutions to this problem.
With this decision made regarding the
“action” assignment for the program,
the training team turns its attention to
designing the “learning” segments that
will not only support the assignment, but also
help ensure that the program’s outcomes
include individual and leadership development.
Their initial
design is a five-week, “task force”
approach during which participants are off their
jobs and totally immersed in the project. The
first eight days are to be spent in the
classroom, where external faculty will provide
input and perspectives concerning various aspects
of the assignment. At participants’ own
request, this segment also will include efforts
to help participants think, as they put it,
“out of the box.” Further, the initial
portion of the program will focus participants on
individual development issues, through a series
of feedback sessions and tools to help ensure the
ability to work together as a team. The remaining
four weeks are reserved for participants to
complete their assignment.
The division
presidents’ response to this design is that
it is too academic. They feel there is too much
emphasis on the classroom and the individual at
the expense of action. Sent back to the drawing
board, training team members express several
concerns. The presidents’ strong bias for
action and problem solving could, they fear,
result in a project that lacks critical
attributes of a true learning experience. Without
the challenges of external perspectives on ways
to define the problem and possible solutions,
this effort could become “just another task
force.”
Further, the
training team believes that the company as a
whole needs to strengthen its “critical
thinking” skills—a belief that is
echoed in participants’ request for help in
thinking “out of the box.” If the
presidents’ preference for action eclipses
potential learning activities, the training team
sees the loss of a valuable opportunity for
participants.
to enhance
critical thinking skills required not only for
solution of the image issues, but also to
strengthen the company’s overall
capabilities. Finally, the training team
recognizes that the emerging tension they are
experiencing, between action on a specific
problem and broader learning goals, is likely to
be felt even more strongly by program
participants who will be under considerable
pressure to produce a solution to the image
problem.
Careful
management of the balance between action and
learning becomes the guiding principle for
redesigning the program. Instead of being
clustered at the beginning of the five-week
effort, the classroom days are interspersed
throughout the five weeks. This approach provides
some early classroom work focused on challenging
participants’ initial assumptions about and
biases toward the image issue and its solution.
These new ways of thinking about the issue assist
in attempts to gather and analyze additional
information over the next few weeks. Throughout
this time, at points of confusion, frustration or
synthesis, additional classroom time with
external faculty is offered in a
“just-in-time” approach to learning.
The feedback and team-building components remain
but they, too, are interspersed throughout the
five weeks at points calculated to have maximum
impact.
The second design
is enthusiastically accepted by the division
presidents and later, when the program is over,
all agree that the design has proven very
successful. For the training team, three key
insights stand out. First, although the external
faculty did their jobs well, their sessions alone
were insufficient for building the desired level
of critical thinking. Throughout the project,
participants struggled to find effective ways to
analyze and synthesize information and issues.
Second, despite early opposition from the
division presidents, the training team’s
efforts to ensure individual development had paid
off. The program’s opportunities for
feedback and assistance on group dynamics and
leadership issues were quite well received by
participants.
Third, and
perhaps most important to them, the training team
had learned a valuable lesson. Instead of being
discouraged by the rejection of their early
designs, their persistence resulted in a
breakthrough design that ensured equal attention
was paid to both action and learning.
|
