Abstract
There are many obstacles to colleges and universities undergoing the kind of organizational transformation described, for example, by Peter Senge in his seminal work, The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, not the least of which is skepticism among faculty, staff, and administrators about the value of doing so. Many wonder how a paradigm that was embraced by commercial organizations as a strategy for staying competitive can be applied in a noncommercial environment in which the mission goes way beyond serving a customer and staying profitable. Indeed, although most people in higher education might see the value of staying competitive, most would agree that it can't be at the expense of the central mission to build knowledge in a variety of fields (not just the popular ones) and improve learning for all students (not just those who might be, in various ways, “the best customers”).
I would argue that even though these concerns are understandable, they grow more out of a lack of understanding about what it really means to be a learning organization than out of an informed evaluation of what the principles of learning organizations have to offer. In fact, what Marie Klugman and I discovered in our research was that, rather than undermine the mission of higher education, principles of organizational quality and learning can greatly enhance the ability of colleges and universities to fulfill their missions. To explore just what these principles have to offer higher education, it is first necessary to examine what learning organizations actually look like.
What a Learning Organization Looks Like
They discovered several timeless qualities of the exceptional companies:
They have core values. The core values form solid foundations that do not change because of current fads.
They are driven by more than making money. Although making money is one objective, it is not the primary objective.
They focus on continuous improvement. The companies focus on continually improving themselves rather than on beating the competition.
They learn from failures. They rely more on trial and error than on systematic strategic planning.
The companies that are committed to continuous improvement and organizational learning have core val-ues. They don't simply write a mission statement and hang it on the walls; they articulate their values and then use these values as guiding principles to shape daily actions. They stand for something besides making money and making a profit.
They also create a forgiving environment that encourages innovation and learning and allows for fail-ure. The importance of creating this kind of environment is reinforced by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton in their book The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. They explain how it is essential that people be encouraged to try things, even if they might fail. They warn organizations to be careful about emphasizing accountability because if people are held accountable for every mistake, they will take fewer risks. They emphasize improving processes and systems that are not working rather than blaming people for mistakes. Indeed, in a recent issue of Fortune, companies like Intel, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Enron, Charles Schwab, and Royal Dutch/Shell are described as admirable because they have created successful models for inspiring innovation and creativity, as well as attracting and retaining knowledge workers. They have created workplaces in which collaboration is encouraged, quality of thinking and power of vision is respected more than positions and titles, and low-risk experimentation is supported.
The learning that takes place in learning organizations happens on every level and involves constant scrutiny of not only what a company is doing but how and why. In “Building a Learning Organization,” an article in The Harvard Business Review, David Garvin defines a learning organization as one skilled at “creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” (p. 80). What this describes is an ongoing feedback loop in which new learning takes place about every aspect of the organization and then is applied to make necessary changes. Clearly, this means that not only does an organization have to give its people time and resources to learn about what they do—whether it be in the form of training, engaging in critical reflection, or gathering and considering data—but it must be flexible enough to allow for change. This may sound simple on the surface, but in reality it involves nothing less than a complete change in organizational culture. Clearly, this is not an easy charge for any organization, but it is especially difficult for institutions such as colleges and universities, where tradition is highly valued.
Higher Education Institutions are not Necessarily Learning Organizations
We say that we care about learning, yet we focus our efforts on independent teaching and research. Although research says that the lecture method is not the most effective way to engage students in the learning process, it is still the major mode of teaching.
Parker Palmer refers to one aspect of the culture of higher education as the “privatization of teaching” (p. 6) in his article, “Good Talk About Good Teaching.” He describes the “pain of disconnection” among faculty and the isolation that people feel even though we talk about being in a community of scholars. The point here is that in a learning organization, in addition to pursuing learning in a specialty—whether it be an academic field or a technical skill—members of the organization value and learn skills that help them work together to improve the way the organization works as a whole. In a college or university this might mean learning about everything from the latest approaches to pedagogy to how to engage in teamwork.
In a learning organization, people learn how to advance organizational learning through challenging assumptions and current patterns of behaviors. People anticipate change, learn to think systemically, and improve processes. They work together to make process improvements that benefit institutional stakeholders (for example, students, administrators, faculty, and staff). For example, the registration process for students or the evaluation process for faculty and staff might be streamlined so that everyone's time can be used more effectively. Steps that add no value are taken out of the process. The result is improved stakeholder satisfaction because the institution has become more efficient and less bureau-cratic. This involvement in making improvements also enhances communication across the institution.
Historical practices in terms of traditions and rituals are important in creating memories that connect people to an institution. Yet historical processes and systems left unexamined are not necessarily the best way to get work done and to satisfy all stakeholders. One example is the learning cycle. Do all courses need to be a semester or a quarter in length? What number of credits should be required for graduation? To their credit, some institutions are beginning to ask such questions and challenge these kinds of deeply rooted assumptions, but they are few and far between.
In a learning organization people look for new and better ways of doing things. Learning becomes a new way of being and seeing. People who engage in this kind of learning describe it as an “awakening” because they perceive the organization and their place in it differently. People have a new awareness and deeper understanding of systems and interdependence. They question assumptions that may have appeared obvious in the past. Seeking out better ways to do things becomes contagious and nonthreatening once the institution creates a learning environment.
What a Learning Organization Looks like in Higher Education: A Case Study
One excellent example is Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee (www.belmont.com). Belmont has worked hard to institutionalize learning. In fact, I conducted a follow-up study on William Troutt, the president from 1982–1999, because I was so impressed with his effectiveness in leading the culture change. Since 1989, members at Belmont have been learning how to do their work differently.
After interviewing a variety of key members to gain a cross-functional perspective, it became clear that changing how people think, feel, and act has been a long and arduous process. Yet we also discovered that people at Belmont reflect the timeless qualities of exceptional organizations.
Belmont has institutionalized learning and changed the campus climate in five primary ways, through: (1) leadership, (2) training and development, (3) data-driven decision making, (4) process improvement, and (5) collaboration and involvement.
Leadership.
Troutt led by example. He talked about leadership, wrote about it, read about it, and practiced it. He spent a summer sabbatical shadowing some of the most recognized leaders of continuous improvement in business and industry—companies such as Herman Miller, Harley Davidson, and Ritz Carlton. According to Troutt in an interview for Quality Principles and Practices, this was a time “to examine organizations from which I thought I could learn something about changing cultures.”Another example of his commitment to learning and to supporting the learning of others is The Peer Learning Network—an organization that brings together CEOs of noncompeting organizations so they can learn from each other. The goals include sharing best practices, providing opportunities to partner, and pooling resources to bring nationally recognized speakers to Nashville.
Training and Development.
Under Troutt's leadership, other leaders were developed using their training and development center. Members were taught how to facilitate meetings, how to use process improvement tools, and how to function in a team. Book groups were started so that people could develop a common understanding and speak the same language about the newly desired behaviors. Members have learned to pilot test programs, collect data, and make decisions based on feedback. People in the training center are not part of the operating budget, but their financial support comes from training people in organizations throughout the Nashville community. This allows them to develop members of Belmont at little cost to the university.
Data-Driven Decision Making.
There are numerous examples of how Belmont systematically collects data and uses them to drive decisions across campus. In fact, several members indicated that meetings are much more productive and efficient because people come with data. For example, students must complete a satisfaction survey before registering every semester. Some of the questions are standard; others change, depending on the issues on which the college wants feedback. I was told that Troutt read every survey in order to know the major issues of the campus from the perspective of students.
In addition, Belmont systematically collects data from alumni, current students, and corporations—both profit and not-for-profit at which graduates might work—and uses this information to make improve-ments. The college surveys graduates three years out of college, as well as their employers, to find out what programmatic changes should take place so that graduates or future employees increasingly add more value. If institutions do not have these feedback systems in place, it is easy to do the “same old, same old.”
Process Improvement.
Belmont Central is the result of their student services streamlining team. This is one of the first examples of the one-stop office where students can request transcripts, complete financial aid forms, cash checks, and manage several administrative tasks. In the student surveys, students complained that routine tasks such as adding a class or filling out a financial aid form took too long. Students were tired of getting the runaround from administrative services. A team of administrators and business office employees held brainstorming sessions, visited other institutions, conducted student focus groups, and implemented the recommended process and structural changes. Belmont Central, launched in 1995, won the team the Rochester Institute of Technology/USA TODAY Quality Cup for education.
Collaboration and Involvement.
Pulling together action-oriented teams is common practice at Belmont. Again, members at all levels have been trained to work in teams and to operate team meetings. For example, an employee survey revealed that morale was not where the leaders wanted it to be. A cross-functional team was pulled together—the Lighten Up team—to implement some events that have since turned into traditions to create a place where people want to work. Because the name “Troutt” lends itself to a fish theme, the team came up with the idea of presenting a traveling bronze Big Fish award whenever they feel someone deserves recognition for their efforts. They organized a Fish Fest for Troutt's birthday that included games with fishing poles and fish cards, fish squirt gun contests, and contests for making the best fish. The team instituted “casual Friday” by using posters of Bill Troutt urging people to dress down that used a theme similar to this:“If I can do it, you can too.”Another popular event sponsored by the Lighten Up team is the July 4th Watermelon Seed Spit that has garnered local media attention.
Kathryn Baugher, dean of enrollment services at Bel-mont, said that at the beginning of the quality journey, people thought that using quality principles and practices was adding more work for them to do. Now people view these practices as a new way to do their work. Baugher added, “While institutions that never began the journey think that continuous improvement is a program that has gone away, we are doing ‘quality’ work without even thinking about it.” Because learning often involves change, people need to learn to be comfortable with change. At Belmont, several people described their commitment to embrace change as having “continuous improvement in their bloodstream” because they are always looking for better ways to do things.
After interviewing members of the faculty, administration, and staff at Belmont, we concluded that they are committed to continuously improving themselves and their institution. They welcome change and embrace it because they are focused on developing improved processes and systems. Baugher summed up her institutional culture by saying, “We eat change for breakfast.” This transformation usually comes from a culture that encourages personal learning and sustains organizational learning because of its ability to adapt to change.
At Belmont, where the culture shifted to emphasize learning, several members have become scholars in continuous improvement by giving national presentations, publishing articles, and writing chapters in books because of their knowledge and experience with looking for better ways to accomplish their mission. Clearly, the journey has not been easy, and people have left who were not comfortable being so involved in decision making. But the people who remain at Belmont appear to be aligned to a strong sense of vision, mission, and values.
One aspect of being a learning organization is finding out what does not work. Belmont began the continuous improvement journey by revising their mission statement. With the help of a consultant, the new mission statement was rolled out for faculty and staff, and feedback was collected. People reacted so negatively to the process that after months of work Troutt decided to start all over. This time the process was internally driven and facilitated by members within the institution. This was the beginning of the mentality of Plan Do Check and Act (PDCA). At Belmont they have a pilot test phi-losophy. They make changes, collect data, and decide what the next step should be, based on those data. This allows them to take risks, innovate, and not blame people when things go wrong.
Getting Started
The first step for leaders is to examine their own behaviors critically and then change them. Troutt admitted he had undergone a major personal transformation from being a person who wanted control to one who involves others by sharing responsibilities. This was reinforced in interviews with his direct reports, among others. He continually emphasized how he reflects on his work and encourages others to be reflective. He created an environment in which people could learn, and they realized that learning through taking risks and experimenting was important. This president had a personal mission of creating a place where people wanted to work. When leaders like Troutt think differently, they act and behave differently also. Having leaders who set this positive tone for learning is critical; such leaders are role models for others.
In the institutions where learning systems were part of the culture, learning appeared to take on a life of its own: the more they learned about continuous change and improvement, the more they sought out additional information, the more they emphasized learning rather than knowing. Although leadership is critical to the culture, one person said it best:“Senior leaders come and go; unless you get continuous improvement into your culture, it will blow away.” Two examples illustrate this point. Since our study, two of the presidents in our sample of institutions have left for other positions;Troutt was one of them. Both presidents were champions for learning. According to administrators who are still at Belmont, the transition period was smooth when Troutt left for another presidency because he left a strong team of senior leaders in place who kept the institution moving forward. In fact, the trustees charged the team to write a strategic plan without a president.
After the president left the other institution, an administrator commented that he actually felt like he grieved for nine months because the quality culture (involvement, process improvement, proactivity) went with the president. In fact, he said that so many administrators had left that he was the only one who remembered how it was under the previous president. Now the institution was back to the way it was before the quality culture (command and control, bureaucratic, reactive). He said he was the only one who knew how good it once was. It became clear that a new way of thinking and being was not embedded in the culture of the institution. Therefore, the key to maintaining the culture is to make sure that the learning culture has taken hold throughout the organization and has penetrated all systems. Everyone has to be committed, not simply the president.
The litmus test to determine whether a higher education institution is a learning organization is to assess how people feel about change. Ask these questions:
Do people view change as a challenge that presents opportunities for the institution and for themselves?
Are members encouraged to use their creativity and imagination to take risks in developing new programs to meet the changing needs of constituencies?
Are people given opportunities to enhance their knowledge and skills about how to function in a rapidly changing environment?
The answers to these questions depend on the people who make up the institution and who often reflect the values and behaviors of their leaders. If the goal is to create a culture for continuous improvement that is truly continuous, then people will be able to continue to learn how to learn. In the business community it has been said, “Those who don't shift, will get shifted.”The same could be true for higher education. It is worth repeating that organizations change when people change. In their article “Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations,” Fred Kofman and Peter Senge quote the late Dr. W. Edwards Deming, who said that nothing happens without “personal transformation” (p. 5). Let the journey begin.