Strategic Learning in Organisations

Learning Issues

What is needed today is a stance which recognises that learning issues are at the heart of organisational survival. And, for success, learning needs to be accelerated. As PPP healthcare puts it (as part of their value statement) 'We grow by learning'. But such learning needs to go beyond day-to-day operational issues. It needs to be strategic.

The problem is that too much training and education activity is disconnected from the real needs of managers and their organisations. What is needed is a more strategic approach to learning. This must include the recognition that most effective learning takes place in live work situations and that training is at best a support for such learning. (At worst it can be counter to the needs of the organisation)

Strategic Learning

I will elaborate twelve criteria, or factors, that indicate that a strategic approach is different from others. First, though, I will give a brief outline of other approaches.

From research we conducted on a range of small, medium and large organisations, in the public and private sectors, we identified four main organisational approaches to management learning, development and training. 

Apathetic / Antagonistic

These organisations were especially characterised by top management apathy or outright antagonism to supporting and resourcing learning and development.  Many small firms fell into this category. The boss was clear that funding and giving time to such activity was either a waste or down right harmful. The latter position was taken by those who felt that supporting training and development would lead people to learn things which would make them more marketable (especially if they obtained qualifications) or raise their sights to look elsewhere for a job. The apathetic (the larger group) tended not to see learning as a priority. They felt that in difficult economic times their business survival was linked to other activities (for example, more aggressive selling) than to their employees learning new skills and abilities through organised development activity.

Organisations in this category not only didn't sponsor people for courses, they also didn't foster a learning environment. There was minimal coaching and mentoring; induction of new employees was haphazard and there were no rewards for learning.

Reactive

These organisations did provide support for learning, but purely (or mainly) on a reactive basis. If employees pushed their managers they might get funding for an external course. If individuals took initiatives they might find someone to coach them, or at the very least share knowledge and expertise. At one extreme Reactive organisations are close to Apathetic. At the other extreme, they could be quite supportive of individual learning. 

However there was no strategic imperative guiding learning, and little or no evidence of attempts to evaluate courses or other developmental activity. Learning was hit-and-miss with no systematic planning (though there might be a designated training budget in the better examples of this type).

Beurocratic

These organisations (typically relatively large) did have a training budget and either ran internal training courses or sent people on external courses (or both).  Internal courses were highly standardised and often linked to particular grades or levels in the organisation.  In many organisations people had to go through a particular course when they reached (or were about to reach) a particular level in the hierarchy.

The main overt commitment to learning in these organisations was through training.  People were sent on courses if learning needs were identified (for example in an appraisal interview). There was usually little emphasis on job-based learning (projects, secondments, mentoring, etc) - though this would often go on informally.  In large organisations with regional offices, we found considerable resentment towards head office driven training. The training department would carry out a mechanistic questionnaire-based training needs analysis and then design courses for the whole company based on an averaging of the identified needs. Managers outside head offices usually felt that the standardised offerings that resulted were unresponsive to their needs, and provided little value added to the business (and were certainly not cost effective). However the bureaucracy required that they conform to head office systems. 

Strategic

These were the minority.  They encompassed small, medium and large sized companies and they were characterised by board level commitment to learning and development.  In the medium and large companies there was an active personnel/HR/management development function which had access to the CEO.  The people in HR/development were typically energetic, able, committed people who cared deeply about the business and its success.  Senior managers respected them and their expertise was regularly called upon.  They sometimes directly supported line managers in coaching and counselling their staff.  They were good networkers, well connected inside the organisation and outside.  They could readily access external sources of expertise as needed and they were knowledgeable about current thinking on management, organisations and learning. 

In taking a strategic approach to learning, these organisations would look for direct linkage between business needs and learning activity.  They would pragmatically support learning methods that met specific needs. They were flexible and responsive to the differing needs of different parts of the organisation.

A Case of Strategic Learning

An example of an organisation that I want to mention here is J. Sainsbury. This 129-year-old food retailer realised that it needed to make changes from the bureaucratic to the strategic in its personnel function. This change was in keeping with the need in the company in general to be less bureaucratic and move towards creating more of a learning culture. The company went through a business process re-engineering project and this required the personnel function to work in a multi functional mode where the personnel professionals operated more like internal consultants and less like narrow specialist personnel administrators. Judith Evans, at the time their Director of Personnel Policy, picks up the story here.

“We decided to use a Self Managed Learning approach. In this way people would have to take responsibility for what they learnt and how they learnt it...

After an introductory workshop, individuals worked in learning groups of around six people. From [a 360-degree assessment] they developed a learning contract that covered their objectives for the next six months. This was agreed with their colleagues in the learning group and with their manager. Each group had a [group adviser], a personnel manager who was at the same time a member of their own learning group. This was modelled from the top of the organisation. The Retail Personnel Director and I had our own little learning group of two with an external adviser; and we each had our own learning group which we were an adviser to.

In the learning group in which I was an adviser, the initial assessments were very frank and honest, and it was easy for people to identify the areas they wanted to develop. The early learning came from sharing experiences and ideas with each other. What Bill found difficult, Jane found easy. The procedure Jane was trying to design, Kate had a manual for. 

But there were bigger issues people were struggling with: ‘Why am I here?’ ‘What am I supposed to be doing?’ ‘What do I really want out of life?’. There was some deeper self-analysis and struggling with personal choices. ‘Do I want to move location to further my career, or do I want to stay here and spend more time with my family?’

Everyone has discovered more about themselves; what they want out of life, what their strengths and limitations are and who they can call on for support. Discussing where they stand has given them greater confidence to tackle situations, to learn new skills and to take on the full remit of their new roles.

So Self Managed Learning has given us much more than a traditional training course. As well as people with more skills, it has given us more confident and able individuals who have the courage to tackle the many tough issues brought about by a changing organisation.”

Some points that are important to raise here include:

1. The learning was strategic for the individual and for the organisation. People comment that Self Managed Learning helps them become more strategic in their careers through exploring some fundamental questions in depth and over time.

2. The development was holistic. Judith Evans quotes people becoming more courageous, for instance. ‘Developing courage’ isn’t usually part of a business school curriculum but there is no doubt that it is important in working in changing environments.

What Judith Evans did not say was that this SML programme went right through the 700 professional staff in the personnel function, and evaluations of the programme have shown significant benefits not only to individuals but also to the business.

Criteria for Strategic Learning

In order, though, to exemplify further this strategic approach I will suggest twelve criteria by which to judge if an organisation is taking a strategic view.

1. Organisation wide commitment 

Learning needs to be high profile, centrally resourced, and across-the-board.  There should be no sense of it being a marginal or peripheral 'extra'. (Sainsbury's conducted their programme across all 700 personnel professionals).

2. Top management giving demonstrable support

CEO's and Directors especially need to show that they are continually learning. (This was an important feature in Sainsbury's).

3. Linked to strategic direction and cultural change

A learning approach should be directly integrated into the change process at all levels. (Sainsbury's were clear that they needed a learning based approach to help people move into a new mode of working).

4. Large scale development

It is not a case of picking a few managers to go off on a course, but rather an integrated, strategic initiative. (In Sainsbury's we were clear that piecemeal development would not work - everyone had to be involved).

5. Development of organisational capability

Developing coaches and mentors is often a start point for widespread development of organisational capability to support and foster learning.  With the growth of flatter organisations (and the concomitant reduction in time that leaders can spend with people who report to them) peer group support for learning is starting to loom larger as a priority in Strategic Learning.

6. Multi-functional development

There is enormous value in bringing together people from different functions in the organisation to address learning issues.  In a learning group (in Self Managed Learning) people get to know each other in depth and learn how to support learning across different departments and disciplines.  This encourages an integrated approach to learning across the organisation through networking.  This isn't just a spin-off from a programme (as is often the case on training courses).  Self Managed Learning encourages the open exploration of live issues.  This is infinitely superior to telling 'war stories' in the bar between sessions on a training course as a way of getting to know people in other departments.

A strategic approach to learning has to encompass the development of a learning culture across the whole organisation.  It may seem paradoxical to focus on the personal learning needs of individuals, but when people in a learning group start to see the similarities of some of their problems this enhances the in-depth development of a learning culture.  People feel less isolated and more able to be open with colleagues.

7. Long term not quick fix

Firstly, Self Managed Learning programmes usually need to last at least 4 or 5 months to show real, significant benefits.  But as most of the time is doing the normal work this is not an insuperable intrusion into people's jobs.  However by continually looping between live action, and then reflection and analysis in learning groups, people's learning is greatly enhanced.  This is different from the 'quick-fix', go to a two day seminar and learn all you need to know about X (X can equal TQM, Performance Management, or any technique you care to mention).  Someone on an SML programme may go to such a two-day seminar.  But they will do it as part of an agreed learning contract with agreed learning goals, and a report back to their learning group afterwards on what they have learned.

8. Cascading down the organisation

Strategic Learning means involving everyone in appropriate learning.  SML approaches need to cascade down the organisation involving other staff. Strategic Learning does not stop with managers (though it usually needs to start there).

9. Part of the organisation’s competitive advantage

Strategic Learning is becoming a key part of organisations' competitive advantage.  Top managers are realising that unless their organisation is learning better and faster than ever before, they will be at a disadvantage.  Organisations are starting to make this more explicit.

10. Visibility

Strategic Learning is being made visible outside as well as inside the organisation.  It is recognised as part of the strategic direction of an organisation, and is something organisations feel proud of.

11. Integrating strategy and tactics

Strategic visions and missions are unhelpful without a link to tactical action.  The long term and the short term need to be synchronised.  Motivation to stick with long term goals can come from short-term pay-off (which is seen as part of a bigger picture).

Summary & Conclusion

Organisations need to accept that any change they initiate - no matter how small - will require people to learn. If the change is minor (a new form to fill in) the learning might be quite simple. If the change is large (developing a new culture) the learning will be complex and long term. And organisations will need to commit ever-increasing resources to learning as the complexity of changes in the environment increases. 

In this article I have made a case for a Strategic Learning approach and indicated how the use of Self Managed Learning (SML) is part of this stance. Self Managed Learning is not an easy option - but the evidence is that it can play a powerful role in supporting organisational change.

Ian Cunningham

February 1999

Published in 't' magazine 2000.