Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning: Concepts and Cases 9780804781862

Citation preview

Advance Praise for Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning

“Comprehensive, focused, and instantly useful, Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning is an articulate, highly readable synthesis of past and current thinking on Action Learning that offers a framework for real work situations. This should be recommended reading for all leaders and human resource development professionals.” — Douglas Bryant, Director of Global Organizational Development, Honeywell International

“The problems facing organizations—now and into the future—require a dynamic, but extremely usable, approach to problem solving.  In my experience, action learning has proven to be a tried and true method for addressing the most vexing challenges.  And, in this book, Marquardt and Yeo bring the facets of successful action learning to life, while teaching readers how best to build capacity.” — Steve King, Vice President, Talent and Leadership Effectiveness, Allstate Insurance

“At last, we have a thinking person’s guide to action learning. Michael Marquardt and Roland Yeo have written a much-needed book that goes beyond conventional checklist thinking. Importantly, they examine  global case studies, pinpointing success factors and documenting organizational and economic impacts. This is an ambitious book—well researched, and deeply relevant to practitioners and academics.” — J. M. Ryan, Senior Fellow, Wharton Executive Education and President and Founder, True North Advisory Group

“Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning is like a compass that lets you know the specific ways to develop and implement successful action learning programs. If you read this book, you will experience the best theories, practices, and principles that guarantee the success of action learning in your organization.” — Taebok Lee, President, Paradigm Consulting Associates

“At long last, a book that presents a comprehensive view of action learning’s impact and its ability to build capacity for leading change and transformation.” — Chuck Appleby, Master Action Learning Coach and President, Appleby & Associates

“I’ve been fortunate enough to experience the breakthrough problem solving power of Action Learning countless times. The Action Learning coach, through questions, unlocks the full power and creativity of the team, leading to the truly breakthrough solutions. This book explores numerous examples of teams reaching this extraordinarily level of processing.” — Bea Carson, Director of Certification and Education, World Institute for Action Learning

“The authors have brilliantly highlighted the power of problem solving at work by providing a useful guide to implementing Action Learning. This book will enable organizations to adapt and thrive in today’s rapidly changing global environment.” — J. Mike Stice, Chief Executive Officer, Chesapeake Midstream Partners

“This is the most comprehensive guide to action learning—inclusive of theory, method, and a host of wonderfully rich exemplars that have been missing from earlier books on this approach. If you have only one book about action learning on your shelf, this should be it.” — Mohd Effendy Rajab, Executive Director, Singapore Scout Association

“Drs. Marquardt and Yeo have captured the essence of Action Learning in this book, and have been able to convert complex theory into practical business application. Their deep questions and case studies validate their extensive experience in the field of Action Learning.” — Billy Coop, Director, Business School Netherlands

“This book is a creative breakthrough, poetically capturing the approaches in over  highly successful action learning cases. The authors’ insights neatly illuminate how action learning unlocks mysteries and forges solutions.” — Francesco Sofo, Professor, University of Canberra

“Problem solving is one of the most needed assets in today’s leaders. The process of action learning and outstanding cases in this book will enable leaders to be most effective.” — Florence Ho, School of Professional Education and Executive Development, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Break through P r o b l e m S o lv i n g with Ac tion Learning

Break through P r o b l e m S o lv i n g with Ac tion Learning Concepts and Cases Michael J. Marquardt Roland K. Yeo

Stanford Business Books An Imprint of Stanford University Press Stanford, California

Stanford University Press Stanford, California ©2012 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system without the prior written permission of Stanford University Press. Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, archival-quality paper Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marquardt, Michael J., author. Breakthrough problem solving with action learning : concepts and cases / Michael J. Marquardt and Roland K. Yeo. pages cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-8047-7412-3 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Problem solving. 2. Action learning. 3. Organizational learning. 4. Problem solving—Case studies. 5. Action learning—Case studies. 6. Organizational learning—Case studies. I. Yeo, Roland K., author. II. Title hd30.29.m36 2012 658.4'03—dc23 2011036779 Typeset at Stanford University Press in 10/14 Minion

Contents



Acknowledgments



Introduction

xiii 1

Part I: Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century 1 2

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

9 30

Part II: Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning Overview 3

Sales and Marketing

63

4

Technology Applications

81

5

Environment and Sustainability

93

6

National and Community Development

112

7

Product and Services Innovation

128

viii Contents

8

Corporate Culture and Ethics

142

9

Talent Management and Development

154

10

Virtual Settings

171

11

Organizational Change and Learning

187

Part III: Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving 12

Action Learning Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

201



Bibliography

227



Index

235

Figures and Tables

Figures I.1 Framework for Understanding the Structure of the Book

3

Tables 1.1 Comparison of Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, and Legacy Problems 1.2 Problem-Solving Methods 2.1 Organizational Conditions and Systems Thinking II.1 An Overview of the Action Learning Cases 3.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Nationwide Insurance 3.2 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Lexus 3.3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Bristol-Myers Squibb 3.4 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at PepsiCo 4.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Goodrich 4.2 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Kirin 4.3 Krones Leadership Development Program 4.4 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Krones 5.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at DuPont 5.2 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs in the Caribbean 5.3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Downer

15 19 43 61 67 69 72 80 85 88 89 92 98 105 107

 Figures and Tables

5.4 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs by the United Nations Environment Programme 6.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs in the Cook Islands 6.2 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs in Maroochy Shire 6.3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Kenya HFG 6.4 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs in Wales 7.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs by Morgans Hotel Group 7.2 Toyota’s Application of Action Learning to New Product Development 7.3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Toyota 7.4 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Just Born Candy 8.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Panasonic 8.2 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Anglo American Mining 8.3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Union Church Hong Kong 9.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Microsoft 9.2 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at the National Bank of Dominica 9.3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Boeing 10.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Kanbay-Capgemini 10.2 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Hewlett-Packard 10.3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Virtual City 10.4 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at George Washington University 11.1 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Constellation Energy 11.2 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Deutsche Bank 11.3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Kentz Engineers & Constructors 12.1 How to Select and Address an Action Learning Problem 12.2 Questions and Reflection 12.3 Mindset, Value, and Attitudes of Action Learning Members 12.4 Skilled Coaching and Facilitation of the Action Learning Team

110 116 119 123 127 131 134 137 139 145 151 152 159 162 169 176 180 182 186 192 193 198 202 204 206 208

Figures and Tables

12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.11 12.12

Integration of Learning into Action Learning Projects Establishing and Enforcing Clear Norms Formulating Explicit Timelines and Expectations Allocating Power and Responsibility to the Action Learning Teams Diversity of Membership on Action Learning Teams Commitment and Support of Top Leadership Breakthrough Elements, Common Challenges, and Corrective Actions for Breakthrough Problem Solving Developing Breakthrough Problem Solving through Action Learning

xi

209 211 212 213 214 215 218 222

Acknowledgments

O

over the past twenty years have allowed us to interact with many of the giants and pioneers in the field; they have guided us along the path and have shared their insights. We are truly indebted to them for their wisdom and inspiration, most notably Lex Dilworth, Dick Gerdzen, Charles Margerison, Mike Pedler, Joe Raelin, Reg Revans, John Wicks, and Gordon Wills. A book containing  action learning cases would not be possible without the support and assistance of numerous people who were willing to share and/or gather the stories; namely, Ursula Nation (Nationwide Insurance), Garry Luxmoore (Downer Group), Fumiyo Seimiya (Lexus), Helen Goldson, (Goodrich), Shannon Banks (Microsoft), Frank McCosker (United Nations Environment Programme), Megumi Hayasaka (Kirin Brewery), Joerg Puma (Krones), Chad Holiday (DuPont), Suresh Vatsyayann (Cook Islands), Mathew Farmer (HIV-Free Generation Partnership Project and Virtual City–Kenya), Tammy Perrie, Kobus Bergh, and Liora Gross (Anglo American), Perry Lam (Hong Kong Community Church), Jasmine Liew and Seki Fuyuki (Panasonic), Vow Mourillon (National Bank of Dominica), Jim Eckels (Boeing), Rebecca Kraft (Bristol-Myers Squibb), Catherine Marsh (Kanbay-Capgemini), Frank Andracchi (Constellation Energy Group), Jayan Warrier (Hewlett-Packard), Deborah Waddill (George Washington University), and Eric Sandelands (Kentz Engineers & Constructors). u r e x p er ien c e s in ac t i o n l e a r nin g

xiv

Acknowledgments

We would also like to acknowledge our many colleagues at the World Institute for Action Learning (WIAL) who have encouraged and educated us over the years, especially Chuck Appleby, Bea Carson, Billy Coop, Arthur Freedman, Luiz Augusto Costa Leite, Skip Leonard, Peter Loan, Ron McLuckie Muhammed Mohan, John Sautelle, Ng Choon Seng, and Mike Stonier. Other colleagues we would like to recognize include Jeff Gold of the Leeds Business School, who inspired Roland to develop a rigorous approach to writing and rewriting. Roland would also like to acknowledge Bob Krone, now retired from the University of Southern California, who once told him that his work could make a difference to others. We are appreciative of the many folks who have given us the opportunity to bring breakthrough action learning into their organizations, notably Kathy Chalmers and Kamilah Mitchell at Sony Music, Deb Gmelin and Wendy Rodkey at Humana Health, Shannon Wallis at Microsoft, Nancy Stebbins at Boeing, Linda Raudenbush at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Carolyn Bostick and Sabrina Shroff at Intelsat. Special thanks to the editors at Stanford University Press, Margo Crouppen and Jessica Walsh, who encouraged, guided, and supported us at every stage in the development of this book. Finally, we both would like thank our families for the space, freedom, and support they give us in encouraging our writing and our efforts to build a better world.

Break through P r o b l e m S o lv i n g with Ac tion Learning

Introduction

A

was first developed in the s by physicist-turned-human relations director Reg Revans to solve the problems of productivity and morale in the coal mines of Wales and England. Instead of turning to outside consultants, Revans wisely and astutely determined that having the coal miners work on their own problems (with their own questions and from their own perspectives), would be a better approach. And it was! The coal mines for which Revans worked had  percent greater productivity and much higher morale than any of the adjoining mines. He recognized that humble people “sharing what they didn’t bloody know” and being willing to ask others “what does this look like to you?” would eventually lead to breakthrough problem solving. Later, when he was the head of emergency services in East London, Revans worked on problems in the hospitals of London, where he became interested in how nurses solved complex problems at work (Revans, ). Revans’s approach to action learning was driven by a problem-solving approach that identified underlying issues, conceptualized frames of reference for practice, and sought practical and lasting solutions to pressing issues. Over the years, the action learning principles and practices that Revans pioneered have evolved to even better address the ever more complex and difficult problems of the st century. Finding appropriate, sustainable c tion le arning



 Introduction

business solutions in today’s world requires insight, systems thinking, and creativity. Problem-solving strategies that may have worked in the past are no longer capable of developing the breakthrough ideas and solutions that will work in today’s environment, since neither the typical individual nor the traditional problem-solving groups have the capability to fully understand today’s problems, and they lack the team learning necessary to develop solutions that are powerful, sustainable, and cost-effective. In the  chapters that follow this introduction, Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning explores why and how action learning has been so successful. We briefly review the theories and research that undergird the effectiveness of action learning and point readers in the direction of related academic works that they may wish to explore. The narrative then turns to stories of how organizations have employed action learning in solving thorny and complex business problems. We use more than  cases to demonstrate how real-world models for how action learning can be successfully employed; we hope they provide inspiration and starting points for other businesses facing similarly difficult and complex problems.

Overview of the Book The characteristics of breakthrough thinking and action can be derived from the integration of complex problem solving with action learning. We first examine the theories and best practices of problem solving and then explore how action learning incorporates these theories and practices in  action learning cases from around the world and in nine different business areas. We conclude the book by identifying the key dynamics of action learning that lead to breakthrough problem solving (see Figure I.). Part I—Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century Part I describes the complexity and challenges of problem solving in the st century as well as best theories and principles. In Chapter , we note that the critical problems faced by organizations today are much more complicated and “wicked” than problems encountered – years ago. The st-century workplace’s wide array of rapidly changing socioeconomic trends and markets, overnight innovation by competitors, mergers

Introduction 

Part I: Problem Solving for the 21st Century Chapters 1–2 Identifying the need for and value of action learning in solving complex business problems

Part II: Action Learning Cases Chapters 3–11 31 stories of how action learning teams solved complex problems

Part III: Breakthrough Action Learning Practices Chapter 12 Identifying the factors for success in breakthrough problem solving with action learning

figure i.1 . Framework for Understanding the Structure of the Book

across disparate corporate cultures and industries, new distribution channels, and the globalization of business have generated problems that are ever more difficult to solve. Twentieth-century problems were more technical while st-century problems are adaptive in nature and context. Technical problems (for which the necessary knowledge to solve the problem already exists in a legitimized form or set of procedures) are being replaced by adaptive problems, for which a satisfactory response has yet to be developed and no amount of technical expertise is fully adequate. More and more of the st-century problems cannot be solved by a single person or leader—there is simply too much information to incorporate and too many implications to be considered. The imaginations, diverse perspectives, and talents of many people are needed in order to uncover the answers to today’s dilemmas. No one person, however prescient, will be able to fully understand the problem; nor can any group composed of people with similar backgrounds and perspectives generate the innovative answers that we need. In Chapter  we present the basic premises and roots of action learn-

 Introduction

ing. Action learning begins with the need to solve problems and builds on that imperative—the more complex and urgent, the better suited a conundrum is for action learning. The dynamic interactive process used in action learning allows the group to see problems in new ways and to gain fresh perspectives on how to resolve them. Questioning from multiple perspectives creates solid systems thinking in which the group sees the whole rather than parts, relationships rather than linear cause-and-effect patterns, underlying structures rather than events, and profiles of changes rather than snapshots. The action learning process enables the group to look for underlying causes and leveraged actions, rather than symptoms and short-term solutions. Action learning examines both macro and micro views, so as to discover when and how to best implement the proposed actions. Action learning, in a subtle, natural, and yet synergistic way, incorporates theories and principles from an array of disciplines, including psychology (behavior, cognitive, social, humanist, and constructivist), physics (quantum rather than Newtonian), management science (e.g., motivation and leadership theories), systems engineering, and sociology. Here, we connect ideas from these disciplines to the core tenets of action learning, as described in the first part of this chapter. These principles, disciplines, and theories are integrated through the intensive utilization of reflective inquiry at each stage of problem solving, be it the reframing of problems, the development of inspirational goals, the creation of alternative strategies, or the generation of breakthrough actions. Part II—Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning In the st century, action learning has enabled organizations around the world to achieve breakthrough solutions to a multitude of complex problems. In this section we examine nine types of problems that have been addressed with action learning. Thirty-one case studies are presented from European, African, Australian, Asian, and American companies—large as well as small, public as well as private. We explore why action learning was employed, how the action learning problem-solving teams were chosen, the critical moments during the problem-solving cycle

Introduction 

in which breakthrough thinking emerged, and the successful application of the action learning strategies. Lessons learned and suggested applications to other types of problems and organizations are also discussed. Chapter  examines how four organizations—Nationwide Insurance, Lexus-Toyota, PepsiCo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb—used action learning to solve problems related to marketing and sales. In Chapter  we describe how Goodrich, Kirin Brewery, and Krones employed action learning to expand and improve the power of technology for internal infrastructure and operations as well as external customer/client support. More and more organizations around the world have recognized the importance of being socially responsible and being concerned with not degrading and even improving the environment. Chapter  describes how DuPont used action learning in developing breakthrough strategies for “going green,” in both the development and the delivery of its products around the world. We also relate how several Caribbean countries used action learning to create a better environment through comprehensive water management, as well as how the Downer Group, an Australian mining company, developed a road analysis control system that resulted in significant reductions in wasted materials. Nations face tremendous challenges in responding to the economic, educational, and social needs of their people. Chapter  presents how action learning was used for the development of the health system in the Cook Islands, community development in Australia, and economic and social development in Wales and Kenya. Chapter  tells the stories of how three companies—Morgans Hotel Group, Toyota Motor Company, and Just Born Candies—used action learning to innovate and develop their products and services. In Chapter  we describe how four organizations—Panasonic, National Bank of Dominica, Anglo American Mining, and Union Church Hong Kong—changed their corporate cultures and ethical practices by incorporating action learning. Chapter  explores how three organizations— Microsoft, National Bank of Dominica, and Boeing—used action learning for talent management and leadership development. Action learning was determined by these companies to be the most powerful and effective way to develop both current and future leaders.

 Introduction

As more and more problem-solving teams work virtually, more and more organizations are employing the practices and principles of action learning to make these teams more effective and efficient. Chapter  describes how Hewlett-Packard, Kanbay-Capgemini, Virtual City–Kenya, and George Washington University are using action learning to improve virtual work and learning. Chapter , the final chapter of Part II, shares how three organizations on three different continents—Constellation Energy in North America, Deutsche Bank in Europe, and Kentz Engineers & Constructors in South Africa—used action learning to solve problems related to one or more of these forms of organizational learning and restructuring. Part III—Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning for Problem Solving In Chapter  we bring together the  elements that were found to be essential to the success of action learning in the cases described in Part II, in particular how the questions, the diversity of the groups, the learning, and the urgency of the problems resulted in breakthrough thinking, strategies, and actions. We also describe how learning while solving problems enables groups to become masters at solving complex problems. It has been said that the greatest and most significant learnings and achievements in history have occurred when individuals, teams, organizations, communities, and nations faced seemingly overwhelming problems and unreachable challenges. The action learning approach turns such problems and challenges into powerful learnings and actions. We encourage the readers of this book to test this approach in their own organizations. We are confident that action learning can help all organizations achieve great solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems.

1

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

For nearly  years, Nationwide Insurance had been searching for an equitable way to offer its associates a discount on insurance and financial services products. A few weeks after forming an action learning team the company developed a breakthrough strategy that is now being implemented nationwide. Although the problem appeared fairly simple on the surface, it had been challenging Constellation Energy for a number of years—namely, how to develop a work schedule to cover one of its power plants for six days a week,  hours a day. It was a challenge to design a system that would be fair to all the employees and still meet to the financial and legal constraints of the company. Remarkably, an action learning group, in less than eight hours, came up with a solution that had eluded Constellation for many years; it was a solution that met the approval of the plant workers and managers as well as the financial and legal people at Constellation. Design an energy-neutral building to house , employees? Impossible! But an action learning group did so. The building—the headquarters of the United Nations Environment Programme in Nairobi—was described by the UN secretary general as “a living model of our sustainable future” at opening ceremonies in March .



10

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

The Growing Complexity of 21st-Century Problems The critical problems faced by organizations in  are much more complex than problems encountered even five to ten years ago. The stcentury workplace is marked by an enormous amount of ambiguity that has arisen from a wide array of rapidly changing socioeconomic trends and markets, overnight innovation from competitors, mergers across disparate corporate cultures and industries, new distribution channels, and the globalization of business. As organizations evolve, they must maintain their strategic capability as they deal with internal and external complexities. Problem solving has thus become a way of life in challenging times. Organizational members, particularly leaders, are required to exercise discretion, take calculated risks, capitalize on the constraints of time and resources, analyze environmental uncertainties, make skillful decisions, and take considered action. As problems become increasingly complex—that is, they are not easily identifiable at first sight and are oftentimes subsumed within other issues—leaders are tasked with the responsibility of providing a way out so that, collectively, they take their organizations to the next level of competitive resilience.

Action Learning—21st Century’s Powerful Problem-Solving Tool Organizations around the world have discovered that action learning is a powerful way to solve complex problems and develop sustainable strategic actions (Boshyk and Dilworth, ; Marquardt, 1999, 2004a, b, b; Kramer, , Pedler, , , , ). A special issue of Business Week (2005) proclaimed that action learning is a key problem-solving tool for managers. And a  study by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) found that  percent of all executive programs used action learning for problem solving and leadership development. Action learning is increasingly seen as not only the best, but as the only problemsolving tool that can solve large, complex problems, a tool so critical in times of “whitewater” changes.



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

11

Why does action learning work so well in generating breakthrough strategies that solve complex problems? Because it was conceived, designed, and tested for the express purpose of solving problems. It has all of the elements that are necessary for group problem solving. It enables diverse groups to learn while they are solving problems and thus become smarter and better equipped to comprehend the root problems and issues, to explore multiple resources and options, and to creatively and systematically identify the best powerful and effective actions. The ability of action learning groups to learn while working (changing the tire while the car is moving, so to speak) and to fully employ the most powerful problem-solving tool available—i.e., the question—leads to consistent and remarkable breakthrough strategies. It is the inherent and spontaneous problem-solving nature of action learning that makes it such a powerful tool for enabling organizations to develop breakthrough strategies while working on critical and complex problems (Marquardt et al., ; Pedler, ). In Chapter  we explore how and why action learning is so powerful and successful, but first let us (a) examine why problems have become more complex and (b) the essential elements of breakthrough problem solving.

The Complexity of 21st-Century Problems Complex problems are those that are intricately connected to the roots of other problems. Normally, a complex problem is solved by carefully considering its individual layers and issues. However, given the organic structure of today’s organizations, in which inter-, intra-, and extra-organizational dynamics are changing so rapidly, complex problem solving has become a lot less straightforward. Organizational dynamics includes human relations as well as sophisticated team, organizational, and environmental structures. Complex problem solving, therefore, is not just about seeking solutions; it also entails the identification of new problems that could potentially emerge from each solution found. The complexity therefore lies in the uncovering of the more deeply rooted symptoms of a problem. Assume, for example, that a surgeon is performing a complex opera-

12

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

tion on a crucial organ of a patient. The surgeon is of course well aware of the intricate interconnectedness of all of the human body’s parts and system. The removal of one part may create complications for the functioning of another, just as it does in an organic organization. Leaders therefore need to be aware that approaching complex problems in organizational contexts requires a systematic yet exploratory approach in order to understand and manage each problem’s multiple facets. The defining characteristics of today’s complex problems, according to Bertolt Meyer and Wolfgang Scholl (), are based on the complexity, opaqueness, interconnectedness, dynamics, and polytely (multiple goals) of the situation. . Complexity is determined by the amount of information that needs processing, usually beyond the capability of human processing. Failure to absorb and make sense of all available information prevents the problem solver from making appropriate decisions and undertaking optimal action. . Opaqueness suggests the density of a problem’s root causes such that frequent, active, and updated information is required to unravel them. . Interconnectedness refers to the interdependence of issues and events that contribute to the intricacies of the problem properties such that a systemic (overall) perspective would be required in order to give the problem solvers a complete picture of the problem structure. . Dynamics suggests environmental influences on the shape and evolution of the problem over time. . Polytely refers to the different goals that are needed to satisfy the multiple and sometimes conflicting aspects of a complex problem. In the Caribbean Water Action Learning Project described in Chapter , the problem faced had all of these ingredients. The action learning teams needed to comprehend and integrate multiple sources of information with a wide array of communities to develop the insights needed to solve the problem. Connectivity and dynamics are two primary features of a complex problem (Funke, ). Changes in connectivity alter the structural properties of the sublayers of a problem and sprout to form new prob-



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

13

lem branches; situational dynamics transform the problem over time and interactions with environmental properties. As such, complex problem solving requires that the solver be highly aware of the situational requirements of the task, which include mental, emotional, communicative, social, and intellectual competences.

Technical and Adaptive Problems Rapid organizational change challenges managers to clearly identify the types of problems that they need to solve. Problem solvers need to understand each problem’s primary drivers, particularly the environmental factors that could help them make sense of the level of complexity. Problems can be based on existing knowledge or a lack of existing knowledge. For instance, Ronald Heifetz and Donald Laurie () distinguish between the problems that were more common to the th century (technical problems) and those that are (so far) most prevalent and important in the st century—that is, problems that are adaptive in nature and context. Technical problems are those in which the necessary knowledge to solve the problem already exists in a legitimized form or set of procedures. Solving these problems requires the efficient and rational acquisition and application of knowledge, a more Newtonian manner. Technical problems have a linear, logical way of being solved, with precedents within or outside the organization; they are somewhat like “puzzles,” with single right answers. Adaptive problems are those that may have no absolute answers or that require no technical expertise necessary to solve. In other words, adaptive problems are complex problems that surface in less recognizable forms. The nature of these problems often changes with circumstances and time, making them difficult to define and tackle. Complex organizations are more likely to give rise to such problems because they themselves must adapt to external competition and forces. People working to solve these kinds of problems will sometimes need to make uncomfortable adjustments—changes in attitude, work habits, basic assumptions, and expectations. They need to constantly generate new ideas, modify their strategies, and integrate other perspectives when responding to adaptive problems.

14

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

One immediate requirement is that they let go of entrenched habits by exploring alternatives and seeking opportunities to handle the problems. Solving adaptive problems may also require them to learn new skills and develop new knowledge to meet the demands. Needless to say, it is essential that people in organizational settings collectively apply their intelligence and competence to resolving these problems. Note, though, that technical problems are not unimportant or necessarily easier to solve than adaptive problems. They are called “technical” problems only because the information and knowledge needed to resolve them already exists; clear procedures and guidelines in organizations can be used to resolve technical problems. As organizations become more complex, however, strategic and operational problems will require more than a technical response. Problem-solving teams may therefore need to acquire more adaptive approaches to questioning, dialogue, feedback, and reflection (Ellstrõm, ).

Types of Complex Problems There are four broad types of problems that are related to organizational threats and their effects on problem-solving capabilities. These are characterized as universal exigencies in all forms of social systems; they present themselves as adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency or tension problems (see Table .). They interact with each other and affect the overall organizational system in complex ways. Complex problems can weaken the structure, systems, and strategy of an organization. These types of problems are intricately related to the behavioral aspects of organizational dynamics in the st century involving people, process, and purpose. Adaptation Problems Adaptation problems are different from adaptive problems. Adaptation problems are caused by misalignments of expectations within the subsystems of an organization, including culture, technology, people, and structure. They require problem solvers to incorporate a systems perspective on organizational interrelations. They need to understand the organization’s



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

15

 . Comparison of Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, and Legacy Problems Adaptation problems Goal attainment problems Integration problems Latency or tension problems

• Misalignment of expectations • Lack of overview of various subsystems • Failure to identify appropriate goals • Breakdown in the interactional dynamics between primary and latent goals • Inability to attain stability among subsystems • Failure to converge functions due to diverging business objectives and directions • Increase in value diversion and diffusion • Lack of shared values, which creates dissension and dissatisfaction

subsystems by recognizing that together they constitute one autonomous system, and be aware of the roles and independent agencies that drive these subsystems into a collaborative unit of operation. Unlike adaptive problems, adaptation problems can fully rely on existing knowledge and expertise to provide possible solutions. Adaptation problems frequently drive organizations to manage with limited resources while making the most of a situation. Individuals are expected to be resourceful in seeking opportunities for improvisation. This involves viewing the same situation from different angles and diverse perspectives and performing tasks in new ways, usually modifications of already triedand-tested methods. Adaptation problems exist when employees are myopic in their worldview at work, focusing on their narrow job scope without considering how the complexity and significance of their own work relates to other functions. To a large extent, adaptation problems trap employees in their comfort zones. Such employees restrict themselves to old ways of doing things and don’t take risks that might improve their performance (Maier and Hoffman, ). Goal Attainment Problems Goal attainment problems arise when an organization fails to identify the appropriate goals for its needs. Fragmented goals can also contribute to the failure of goal attainment. As complex systems, organizations function organically when individuals interact to express and achieve different types of goals to meet organizational needs. A complex system is one that

16

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

functions through mutually implicating elements, such as its people, subsystems, and processes, to reach common objectives. The interdependent functions of the elements all affect the others in significant ways. The complexity of a system depends on such interdependence such that when a goal within a subsystem is not achieved, the larger system (the organization) could be affected. The operational efficiency of a complex system is contingent on how tasks are integrated and the synergy they produce. Hence, in order for an organization to function strategically, it must translate core competencies into clear and achievable goals. When goal attainment problems occur, individuals usually need greater clarification of the goals and on the importance of goal setting as it operates at different levels of the organization. Sometimes those tasked with solving a problem interpret the goals differently. Goals will then become misaligned as everyone will have a different idea of what is to be achieved. When goals are misaligned at multiple levels, the organization will lose control over its strategic direction, including its competitive edge. Hence, a shared understanding of specific goals is imperative (Quiamzade et al., ). Integration Problems Integration problems are challenges that arise when the organization has difficulty maintaining stability among its departments and subsystems. This usually happens when employees of different departments do not see the big picture and operate in ways that do not consider the strategic direction of the organization; the result is conflict based on narrow expectations. The disruptive forces that prevent employees from converging on common objectives can prevent an organization from changing and developing. The lack of departmental integration and unnecessary competition among business units can have adverse consequences. Individuals need to develop a wider perspective on how individual objectives can be integrated into the strategic objectives of the organization and understand how collective objectives can influence the organization at the macro level. Understanding the overall strategic scheme can help people to refocus



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

17

on how their individual tasks affect that scheme and ultimately contribute to the organization’s competitive advantage. A lack of such understanding can lead to fragmented contributions and organizational dysfunction. Integration problems can reduce an organization’s responsiveness to external competition (Land, ). Latency or Tension Management Problems Latency or tension management problems are related to the integrity of a value system and its formalization in an organization. When the values are unclear, individuals become skeptical about policies, and the integrity of managerial decision making is challenged. The lack of a shared value system causes unnecessary tension that can lead to dissension and dissatisfaction in work-related and cross-functional issues. When an organization encounters latency management problems, top management should do their best to clarify and communicate the organization’s values to employees on all levels and then encourage the employees to align their own values with those of the organization through corporate citizenship. This requires that every employee experience a strong sense of ownership of the organization’s strategic purpose and values. Employees with a sense that the organization is underpinned by sound values will have a stronger connection to the organization’s strategic purpose as well as a higher level of commitment to it. A reevaluation of the vision and mission statements is a useful starting point for rebuilding the value system. Organizational restructuring, while preserving the core values of the organizational culture, can also help to reinforce the sustainability of the organization. When individuals disagree with or challenge the value system, they begin to question their loyalty and commitment to the organization. Organizations thus cannot remain ambivalent about their values or their quest for continuous growth and renewal. Over the long term, organizations without an internally accepted and consistently practiced value system will lose their corporate identity and suffer a decline in their image and reputation. For these reasons, latency or tension management problems must be resolved at the top management level (Lohman, ).

18

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

Approaches to Solving Complex Problems Complex problem solving is concerned with the way individuals approach, manage, and address an issue that is highly unpredictable. The process requires the problem solver to engage at a higher level of mental ability by drawing on multiple concepts and experiences. A key theoretical perspective that helps to explain how the human mind works at a higher and more complex level is metacognition. Human cognition is the way in which the mind makes a connection to the outside world when a signal is sent to the memory system. The mind searches for information, filters it, and identifies with certain external features of the existential world to link the incoming signal to a new state of being. From a socio-psychological perspective, human beings construct realities of their own experiences. The way they frame their experiences helps them interpret and attach meanings to different entities in their environment, which are in turn shaped by those experiences (Flavell, ). Put more simply, metacognition is thinking about thinking. It is a mental ability that enables humans to make sense of themselves and their environment by controlling and restructuring their own thoughts in the process of learning and problem solving. Metacognition is therefore a critical mental ability at different stages of problem solving. This ability helps problem solvers to understand the problem intensity and the definition of goals, to conceive of how the problem might present itself in different scenarios, and to develop an ultimate strategy for solving the problem (Guss and Wiley, ). This type of problem solving involves collecting the relevant information, predicting future actions and developments, planning, and evaluating possible solutions. The final decision is based on several conditions, such as the constraints encountered, the problem context, and how outcomes are evaluated. The conditions specified are not necessarily straightforward because problem solvers need to increase their capacity for sensemaking by being more perceptive of the environment and at the same time being realistic about the constraints that may prevent them from taking the necessary steps to tackle the problem. Sensemaking is a process through which individuals attach meanings to what they perceive to be true and how these



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

19

 . Problem-Solving Methods 1.  Incremental problem solving 2.  Reconstructive analysis 3.  Generating challenging ideas 4.  Managing the life-cycle of ideas 5.  New combinations of existing ideas 6.  Power of analogies 7.  Means-end analysis 8.  Sensemaking of the problem situation

meanings may influence their intended actions. Effective problem solving is important in meeting organizational needs because it increases an organization’s chance of achieving sustainable competitive advantage (Gibson and Earley, ). There are many approaches to complex problem solving, some of which are more popular than others. We have identified eight types of complex problem-solving approaches (see Table .) and discuss each type in the following paragraphs. . Incremental problem solving involves recognizing the extent of complexity based on how the problem can be structured and expressed. Problem solvers may analyze a problem using both objective and subjective measures to determine the spectrum of complexity—the time and resources needed. Subjective measures involve personal judgment based on past experience. When combined, both measures can help solve a problem incrementally. Problem solvers need to manage the problem-solving process systematically by identifying the problem’s components and the critical steps needed to solve it. By proceeding step by step, they will gain confidence incrementally in taking their problem-solving ability to the next level (Braye et al., ). This is the method the Toyota action learning teams used (see Chapter ). . Reconstructive analysis is a process by which problem solvers develop a divide-and-conquer strategy. They break down the complex problem into smaller units and regroup them as they make sense of the problem from a wider perspective. Deconstructing a problem requires problem solvers to interpret the components of a problem appropriately. They first need to know the nature of the problem they are addressing by

20

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

identifying its root causes and making the connections between these causes and the functions of the organization. They then determine the underlying patterns that disrupt certain organizational systems and processes as caused by the problem before taking specific actions. Deconstructing a problem requires a deeper level of mental engagement as problem solvers engage in rigorous sensemaking to apply the most appropriate concepts and/or experience to an immediate environment (Chevallier et al., ).  . Generating challenging ideas is a technique used to focus on ideas rather than on people or the organization. Too often, problem solvers focus on the human aspects associated with the problem rather than on critical issues than can help uncover its root causes. The important thing is to use the problem as a catalyst to generate as many ideas and scenarios as possible without prematurely judging the quality of each one. A wide pool of ideas to work with will always be more useful than a smaller pool, which may not provide sufficient information to solve the problem. Also, it is hard to breathe excitement into limited ideas if these ideas are poorly constructed. In order to increase idea generation, it is essential that problem solvers be given the spontaneity and freedom to do so at appropriate moments. A facilitator such as an action learning coach is needed to provide the direction as the group members develop their ideas through dynamic interaction (Braye et al., ). . Managing the life cycle of ideas is a process by which problem solvers examine an existing pool of ideas based on the current state of affairs. They need to analyze these ideas through an understanding of how they are relevant to the organization’s internal and external environments. Understanding these environments helps to determine the organization’s position based on existing and future business competition. When problem solvers see the relevance of various options, they can identify the organization’s needs more specifically, and thus turn existing deficiencies into opportunities for sustainable capability development. Managing the life cycle of ideas is an interventionist approach in which a timely diagnosis of problems and implementation of solutions is critical to organizational survival. The life cycle is largely determined by the stage at which a problem reaches maturity and



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

21

the time pressure needed to generate, adapt, and consolidate ideas. The overall process requires a readiness to accept new ideas and discard old ones (Guss and Wiley, ).  . New combinations of existing knowledge allow problem solvers to seek multiple sources of information in order to identify the problem structure and propose possible solutions. They also engage in a process of knowledge renewal and redevelopment by integrating different conceptual insights into core subject areas that constitute key knowledge resources. At times, cross-application of concepts could prove useful in inventing a solution for a completely different subject area. For instance, an engineering-based solution utilized in a different department or organization could be useful for a problem that deals with human capital issues. It is therefore not the technicality of the solution that matters but the development of new insights that rely on different perspectives and understandings of the problem. (The diversity of action learning groups enhances this type of problem solving.) The development of new knowledge combinations leads to the creation of new diagnostic tools, such as conceptual models for examining specific organizational relationships and checklists for evaluating situational discrepancies (Guss and Wiley, ). . The power of analogies involves the analysis of ideas by comparing and contrasting sets of organizational issues and scenarios. This is often done by examining two unrelated scenarios or problem types as a way of gathering alternative perspectives on underlying issues. The approach is useful for problem solvers who are comfortable with past solutions or tried-and-tested methods but unfamiliar with new approaches. Sometimes, this approach is useful when problem solvers encounter a mental block or are blinded by the predictability of the problem boundaries and potential solutions. The power of analogy allows problem solvers to focus on a familiar or common issue but with different characteristics. Their analysis of these characteristics forces them to consider wider connections and possibilities and helps them begin to generate ideas they have not thought of before. Often, familiarity with a problem obstructs rather than frees problem solvers’ creativity and innovation (Weick, ).

22

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

. Means-end analysis is a process by which problem solvers transform an undesired situation into a desired outcome through a cause-andeffect analysis of the problem. This is one of the most direct approaches to problem solving. It is concerned with causality and the probability of outcomes based on predetermined factors. Although linear in approach, the means-end analysis is an in-depth approach to understanding the symptoms of a problem from a diagnostic perspective. Problem solvers aim to establish direct links between symptoms and possible causes, and perform checks to verify these links in an objective manner. In doing so, they learn to identify possible patterns of relationships and examine the importance of each relationship according to primary and secondary data. Once the critical relationships have been determined, they proceed to predict the outcomes by examining the crucial steps through which these outcomes could be achieved. They further consider the potential obstacles and challenges in order to ensure that the solutions are realistically and successfully managed. Finally they determine the potential success of these outcomes in relation to particular organizational needs. A schedule with specific timelines often guides them in the implementation of their solutions. . Sensemaking of the problem situation is a mental exercise in which problem solvers share their interpretations of the problem with other group members based on their past, present, and perceived experiences. Past experience is an experience they are completely familiar with; present experience guides them in understanding the current dynamics and helps them maintain spontaneity in their interactions with others; perceived experience draws on the predictions of the external dynamics to determine how a situation might unfold. Simply, problem solvers use their experiences to exchange views that lead to the creation of new perspectives on the bigger picture. Based on the perceived experience, individuals and problem-solving teams attach different meanings to the social dynamics and external realities to help them make sense of their current and future situations in more concrete ways. The sensemaking process is enhanced when problem solvers encounter conflicting signals between a direct experi-



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

23

ence (past experience) and an indirect experience (a projection of what is to come) in the course of socialization. When individuals are mentally engaged in constructing possible scenarios and outcomes, they are driven to develop strategies that preserve current best practices and at the same time overcome potential obstacles that may follow. As such, sensemaking is one of the most powerful mental tools that can be used to understand complex problem structures (Weick, ). Sensemaking is the method the Anglo American Mining Action Learning team used (see Chapter ). Team members shared their interpretations of problems based upon the meanings they had derived from their individual experiences. It was their past experiences that formed the basis for dialogue and the building of new scenarios that led to metacognition and success.

Metacognition and Complex Problem Solving Metacognition is at the heart of this powerful cycle of sensemaking and reflective action, in which individuals generate and evaluate ideas through their participation in dynamic feedback loops. The ideas are worded as specifically as possible in order to get at the deeper issues related to a problem. This is the generative function of metacognition. As noted earlier, metacognition can thus be explained as thinking about thinking. Individuals need to be mindful that the ideas they generate must subsequently be translated into concrete plans. This is the adaptive function of metacognition, in which the selection and organization of ideas govern the evaluation process. Using their own knowledge and experience helps individuals to make sense of their current environment and events. The sensemaking process reinforces the role of metacognition and its relevance to problem solving. Group members attempt to associate different meanings with the environment according to their personal thought processes and their perceptual exchanges with other members. As we show in Chapter , action learning involves several components,

24

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

including problem identification, questioning, dialogue, feedback, and reflection, all of which form the basis of an iterative and powerful cycle of learning and action taking. This cycle facilitates the mental participation of group members as they engage in deep knowledge sharing and selfdirected learning. The generative and adaptive functions of action learning allow group members to conceptualize, observe, test, and experiment with their ideas in more concrete ways. These functions are characterized by the divergence and convergence of ideas. The participatory orientation of action learning promotes an interaction between perspectives and ideas that often leads to a productive knowledge exchange. As problem solving becomes more complex, the role of metacognition becomes more significant. Group members associate more closely and expand their thinking patterns to consider a wider range of alternatives. Above all, their confidence in their ability to solve complex problems is strengthened through feedback and dialogue in an open and trusting environment (Mitchum and Kelly, ).

Individual and Organizational Benefits of Solving Complex Problems A critical element in problem solving is changing the environment in which the strategy is to be implemented; otherwise the strategy is likely to be weaker than needed, or even rejected. Thus, complex problem solving is just one process in managing and leading organizational change and development. The solving of complex problems has seven significant benefits. . Complex problem solving energizes the desirability of learning; errors are viewed as a useful source of information that can predict the likelihood of an even messier situation (Schein, ). . Inherent in complex problem solving is the interaction of feedback loops, which determine how effectively a person learns individually and collaboratively. Learning in a problem context involves an active exchange of knowledge and perspectives necessary for meaning making and action taking. The role of feedback in problem solving helps



.

.

.

.

.

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

25

the learner modify his or her mental map to consider alternative perspectives that could lead to better solutions. Complex problems can turn unmotivated operations into results-oriented practices. For instance, complex problems are a sign of disruption and instability in organizational processes. People who take on such problems attract attention and trigger investigations that let them look beyond their routines and norms to seek new ways of learning and development. Complex problem solving allows employees to appreciate problems as a form of organizational mystery. Individuals have to actively work through the mystery by increasing their ability to learn. Learning begins when they undertake critical reflection and dialogue to make sense of the problem context and the wider environment. Complex problem solving helps individuals develop new thinking patterns and ideas that will benefit or bring value to others or the organization. Problem solvers must be sensitive to the potential clues in raw data that may help them analyze the facts, take risks, and make decisions (Denrell et al., ; Fang and Levinthal, ). Complex problem solving provides an opportunity for individuals to evaluate their self-own worth, particularly how they can influence group interaction and other organizational dynamics. Collaborative action builds self-confidence and team solidarity. Regular dialogue and feedback can produce an environment in which beliefs, problem issues, and project objectives are shared. Complex problem solving thrives on group dynamism and innovative sources of inquiry. Group diversity can provide the opportunity for creative problem solving as team members use their different backgrounds and experiences to work toward a common objective. Optimal group synergy can provide the motivation and power for them to turn potential problems into opportunities for learning and development. The experiential inquiry gained through complex problem solving can motivate them to take greater risks, operate with an innovative mindset, engage in reflective feedback, and take bolder steps in their actions (Argote et al., ).

26

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

Framework for Breakthrough Problem Solving Breakthrough problem solving is built on a framework that can be described as follows: • Breakthrough is an emergent yet identifiable process that arises from an integrated understanding of action learning based on certain driving forces. • Breakthrough is conceptualized as both a process and an outcome; it is also characterized by creative and unconventional ways of problem solving that can lead to ingenious, original, and revolutionary outcomes. • Breakthrough results are, in turn, measured against organizational performance and effectiveness according to specific solutions. • It is the interaction between the action-learning dynamics and the integration of these dynamics in dramatic moments in a problem context that triggers breakthrough thinking and behavior.

Action Learning as a Catalyst for Breakthrough Problem Solving Action learning is a powerful problem-solving tool that provides a structured yet spontaneous way of examining complex issues and offering concrete and useful solutions (Dijksterhuis and Meurs, ). The structured nature of action learning is necessary to create order in an environment of complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty. The structured experience will allow human dynamics (roles and power relations) and organizational systems (hierarchies, cultures, and policies) to interact spontaneously within boundaries of control. In turn, this dynamic learning process will enable group members to exercise their freedom of expression and choice to gain greater balance as unique problem solvers. Through powerful feedback and inquiry supported by individual and collective reflective experience, action learning can help eliminate organizational haphazardness by solving real-time and complex problems that threaten the organization. Breakthrough thinking and breakthrough action are two aspects of action learning that are concerned with process



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

27

and outcome. Action learning teams do not automatically accept assumptions and thus avoid becoming entrenched in old ways of thinking and doing things. Through group interaction, action learning can help generate refreshing ideas and strategies to solve a wide range of problems. Action learning is a dynamic approach to problem solving, with roots in cognitive, behavioral, constructivist, social, and humanist theories. It is a highly practical tool that is useful in volatile contexts. It is the intent of this book to approach breakthrough as a process that promotes common things done uncommonly well. Therefore, breakthrough refers to unique results that can make an impact on ordinary and complex people and organizations. Breakthrough ideas have emerged from the combination of routine issues and dramatic events, both expected and unexpected (Harvard Business Review, , ). A range of problems, including those related to technology, organizational operations, health care, finance, economics, biosciences, and sociopolitical events, provide the catalysts for scholars and practitioners to consider alternative perspectives in exploring breakthrough solutions. Breakthrough ideas have been developed from a combination of research rigor and practical insights. Our analysis of problem-solving methods and processes led us to the following nine insights on how to achieve breakthrough results. . Small input, huge impact. Individual input, when combined with collaborative strength, can have an extraordinary impact on the organization. . Radical change. Breakthrough problem solving is transformational, by involving an organization in a radical state of change for the achievement of long-term competitive advantage. . Identifying unfamiliar alternatives. Creative problem solving goes beyond tried-and-tested approaches; it incorporates rare and unusual solutions coupled with risk taking. . Starting from the basics. Breakthrough ideas begin with a fundamental understanding of existing constraints and challenges. It is important to have a thorough understanding of the existing conditions before taking further action. . Forcing oneself to see the obvious. Problem solvers should not let them-

28

.

.

.

.

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

selves get carried away by the magnitude of a problem’s complexity. It is far more important to recognize the plain underlying issues in the problem than to look all over the place for a more complex explanation. Protecting the Achilles’ heel. Problem solvers need to identify the organization’s weakest link and do all that they can to protect and strengthen it. Protecting the vulnerable organization is critical to the restoration of its stability and competitiveness. Beginning with the end in mind. Breakthroughs are frequently determined by desired outcomes; hence, it is important that problem solvers have a clear idea of the expected outcome before taking action. Although the process of problem solving is important, its outcome is far more visible and lasting. Looking through the eyes of the problem. When problem solvers lack focus, they cannot envision breakthrough results. This sometimes happens when a problem solver looks everywhere else for an answer except at the problem itself. A useful question to ask is: If I were the problem, how would I react? This question can provide clues about the possible shape of a solution. Courage to question the obvious. Unless problem solvers are able to see the surface of a problem, they will be unable to delve more deeply into it. Questioning is a critical component of action learning, and it is important that problem solvers ask bold questions as well as obvious questions. This allows basic assumptions to be clarified before further steps are taken.

These insights will help problem solvers combine logic with creativity as they work to develop breakthrough thinking and action.

Complex Problems as Catalysts for Action Learning Action learning revolves around the solving of problems, particularly complex problems that confront managers and threaten the functioning of the organization. Action learning teams identify and frame the underlying issues and challenges, how they are intertwined, and how a small but smart action can lead to remarkable results.



Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

29

Members of an action learning team are usually from different units within the organization or may be located in different geographic regions. Diversity adds dimension to the problem analysis. A diverse group can naturally develop an understanding of the systemic nature of problems based on their own working relationships. The collaborative questioning process of action learning benefits from open discussion and deep questioning by group members. They must examine the problem symptoms and relate them to possible root causes while also maintaining a broad view of the problem’s potential impact on the organization. The critical process of reflection, dialogue, and feedback increases the group members’ readiness to define and evaluate the problem to reach a solution with greater specificity (Rudolph et al., ). By combining theoretical relevance with practical insights, organizations can look forward to utilizing action learning as a powerful tool for generating breakthrough results that will benefit them in tangible and lasting ways. Chapter  presents the theoretical perspectives of action learning and how the dynamics of action learning can lead to breakthrough thinking and behavior. In Chapters –, we describe how many of the action learning teams in organizations around the world use complex and urgent problems as catalysts for problem solving. The more complex and urgent the problem, the more likely the teams will harness their power and energy to explore and develop breakthrough solutions using action learning processes. Other critical principles and elements that govern learning and action taking, are explored more deeply in Chapter .

2

Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

e

was first developed in the s in the coal mines of Wales, it has had as its primary purpose “the solving of real problems by real people in real time with real consequences.” From its beginnings, there was a recognition that learning while solving the problem was essential for developing breakthrough thinking and significant successes. In this chapter, we present how breakthrough thinking and action occur inherently and powerfully in action learning teams as they solve complex problems. Learning is not only embedded in the problem-solving process; it also serves as a catalyst allowing participants to discover hidden meanings and wider connections as they seek solutions. Through an iterative process of learning and taking action, participants are able, at the right moment, to capture the breakthrough ideas and solutions that will make an impact on the organization. These breakthrough moments help them to understand the importance of group dynamics in promoting creativity and generating opportunities for greater collaborative inquiry involving conceptualization, experimentation, and evaluation. All of these elements are byproducts of the action learning processes that combine continuous learning with effective action taking realized through reflection, dialogue, feedback, and concrete experience. Action

30

v er s in c e ac t i o n l e a r nin g



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

31

learning is, as a result, an amazing, highly effective problem-solving process that capitalizes on the power of human imagination and courage. The fact that action learning is driven by a challenging real problem makes learning immediate, useful, and multifaceted as participants integrate the diversity of their worldviews to solve problems collectively.

Systems and Action and Learning Action learning begins with understanding the problem and its context, including the people, process, systems, structure, and strategy with which the problem may have an intricate relationship. The context is the environment in which action learning teams operate and in which their interactions will lead to breakthrough thinking and behavior. As such, context reveals much about complex organizational phenomena, particularly how certain dynamics can unfold in unpredictable ways. Context is the environment in which individuals respond to external stimuli with different patterns of thought and action. The importance of context in relation to action learning can best be understood through Revans’s () Systems Alpha, Beta, and Gamma, which can be summarized as follows. System Alpha is a process of moving between the subjective and the objective, from personal values to external circumstances and internal resources. In this context, participants ask themselves the following questions: What should be happening? What is stopping it from happening? What can I do to remove the blockage? System Beta relates to a five-stage process that participants repeat over and over as they try to achieve their goals. These stages are (a) survey or observation, (b) hypothesis or theory in formulating courses of feasible action, (c) experiment or test, (d) audit or evaluation of what has happened, and (e) review or ratification in which comparisons between expectation and experience are made. System Gamma is the interaction between the participant and the situation he or she is trying to influence. Participants generate self-knowledge by questioning their own assumptions and intentions and seeking personal change. Important questions are: What were my motives in saying this? What am I missing or avoiding in this situation? What lessons could I learn from the mistake I made? Taken together, Systems Alpha, Beta, and

32

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

Gamma contextualize learning and action as one works on a specific problem.

Mental Models and Group Dynamism in Action Learning In further conceptualizing breakthrough thinking and action, Revans’s “system concept” is integrated into the interrelation of problem context, mental models, and group dynamism in the following ways: . The problem context provides participants with a platform for discovering specific organizational issues that lead them to reflect on their past and present experience and take the necessary action to solve the problem. Hence, problem solving and action learning offer participants two opposing yet complementary processes for achieving breakthrough results. Problem solving allows them to create order and certainty through solution seeking while action learning enables them to generate insights and alternatives through reflective learning and action taking (Flood and Jackson, ). . Mental models are deeply held assumptions and beliefs that determine the way participants respond to a situation based on a familiar experience. Mental models consist of ideas and concepts that can become practical knowledge when participants apply them in an actual context (Senge, ). Because action learning takes place in group settings, and participants exchange their perspectives and ideas through dialogue, these concepts can be modified and expanded to allow them to explore a variety of solutions to solve a complex problem (Yeo and Nation, ). . The problem context and mental models form an iterative and integrative mix to produce learning through socialization based on group dynamism. The opportunity to engage in active and passive feedback loops provides the space for participants to internalize external events. Feedback loops occur when there is a dynamic exchange of views and concepts between participants. They use amplifying (seeking alternatives) and restraining (seeking converging ideas) feedback loops to achieve equilibrium (realistic application) (Denrell et al., ).



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

33

The Unique Problem-Solving Power of Action Learning Action learning functions best with ill-structured, intractable, and complex problems, which promote double-loop learning. Double-loop learning entails verbalizing and clarifying assumptions with other individuals. Participants engage in a dynamic exchange of questions, issues, and perspectives in the form of feedback that serves to expand their thinking and at the same time helps them to focus on important ideas that can be applied in practice. Complex problems are common in organizational contexts, and the type of learning that occurs in the problem-solving process is often a precursor to an action that could make an impact on the learner and the environment. In this respect, both problem-based learning and action learning deal with problem intractability, yet the actions generated may be more adaptive for problem-based learning given the way learning is systematized. In contrast, action learning is a more spontaneous way of exploring a problem that allows learning to occur in less-structured conditions. In problem-based learning, the learner adapts to conflicting signals about an issue and draws on past experience to come up with a low-risk solution. Action learning, on the other hand, produces actions that are more generative in nature, allowing the problem-solver’s foresight to identify subsequent traps that may truncate learning. If action learning draws on concrete experience and critical reflection on that experience, it can be assumed that unlearning is the prerequisite for learning (Revans, ). Unlearning involves the reevaluation and rejection of obsolete and misguided knowledge in order for new ideas to develop. According to Cegarra-Navarro and Dewhurst (), individual unlearning requires participants to reflect on their performance in order to improve their actions. In the process, participants will recognize that knowledge and experience should not be taken for granted but can be challenged. Participants will treat their perceived problems as catalysts for altering activities that did not conform to earlier expectations. Unlearning removes the mental stumbling blocks and entrenched behaviors of par-

34

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

ticipants, allowing new thinking and action patterns to develop gradually, sometimes simultaneously. At this juncture, unlearning will lead to a state of “rupture,” allowing them to prepare for something new to come. Essentially, the rupturing process causes mental frames to operate in a state of chaos by creating a tension between familiar and unfamiliar expectations. The rupture also forces the individual to leap from single-loop learning to double-loop learning and engage in active feedback loops rather than relying on mere assumptions and limited understanding. They construct knowledge collaboratively by operating within multiple mental frames as they interact with others through dialogue. If experiences of unlearning do not lead to a greater need to relearn, it is assumed that such processes as reflection, intuition, and interpretation will not have had any effect. Successful unlearning often results in behavioral changes that include a readiness to accept new perspectives as well as acquire new knowledge and skills, a process characteristic of relearning. Although reflection is a common feature of a number of learning types, such as experiential learning (Kolb, ), behavioral learning (Skinner, ), organizational learning (Argyris and Schön, ), and problembased learning (Barell, ), reflection operates quite differently in action learning. Action learning specifically addresses the criticality of reflection. According to Reynolds (), reflection creates a deeper awareness of the social power in the collaborative inquiry; rather than just focusing on the self, individuals question assumptions and experience emancipation as they explore solutions. Emancipation is characterized by a freedom to be involved in an activity and performing it in an unrestricted manner without adhering to unnecessary norms and routines. Trehan and Pedler () attempted to further differentiate action learning by outlining the process of “critical action learning” and describing how critical reflection moves beyond immediate problems to consider emotional needs, anxieties, and political dimensions. Reflection and dialogue, the two key components of action learning, place learners within a wider context of organizing to analyze the various dimensions of power relations that either promote or truncate learning (Reynolds and Vince, ).



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

35

The idea is to situate learning in a specific organizational context by considering how individuals operate in collective processes both in terms of conceptualization and experience (practice). Learning that occurs here involves the questioning of problem and social structures, and of organizational practices, allowing individuals to engage in the active mental framing of ideas and concepts for translating knowledge into practice (Teece and Pisano, ). It is through the organizing of mental frames (conceptualization) that learning ultimately occurs through dynamic dialogue and feedback. Because knowledge resides in social relations, the existence of learning is also represented by the momentary performance of individuals as driven by their sensemaking of what they see, feel, and act within a particular setting. This condition occurs when an individual experiences the realization of some specific learnings through a timely or a temporarily bounded action (Brown and Duguid, ). It is no wonder that Revans (: ) argued that “there can be no learning without action and no action without learning.” Extending this perspective, Raelin () suggested that action learning promotes a learning-to-learn attitude that liberates a learner from the continuous questioning of practice without any form of concrete action. Simply, learning has a greater effect, with lessons learned from a specific action reinforcing the capture of learning from a momentary action, as discussed earlier. Learning involves the creation of knowledge through interaction and the utilization of knowledge through concrete action. Hence, for concepts to be regarded as knowledge, they must be applied in actual contexts with specific outcomes in mind.

How Action Learning Generates Metacognition and Complex Problem Solving There are five ways in which action learning can stimulate metacognition and propel complex problem solving. . The problem that drives the action learning activity is the stimulus for participants to set goals and objectives. The context of the problem is

36

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

important because it defines the magnitude and effects of the problem on organizational processes. An understanding of the internal and external environments helps participants use their experiences to generate appropriate ideas.  . Participants rely on references to past and similar problem occurrences to help them predict their future actions. Negotiation between triedand-tested methods and their proposed action strategies lead them through a series of experiential inquiries, including the four stages of learning: observing, conceptualizing, experimenting, and experiencing (Kolb, ). These action strategies govern actual behavior and operate on the assumptions of the self, others, and the environment (Argyris, ). . As participants interact in group settings, they build team dynamics, and stretch each other’s learning ability through active dialogue and feedback. Participants use a series of active and passive feedback loops to help each other interpret and understand their internal and external environments. The purpose of active feedback loops is to generate alternatives, to help others develop a wider perspective on the issues; the purpose of passive feedback loops is to generate convergence on key ideas that could be implemented in practice. The challenge for the group is to maintain balance between stages of divergence and convergence in order to work through a sufficient number of perspectives and develop realistic action strategies (Gibson and Earley, ). . The relationship between problem solving and action learning can be seen in the way participants use the complexity of a problem to discover more about the problem’s negative impact on the organization. Hence, problem solving and action learning are two sides of a coin, the former suggesting order and stability as participants seek to reduce chaos and uncertainty through the provision of appropriate solutions, and the latter suggesting divergence and spontaneity as they develop opportunities for learning through idea generation and knowledge creation. Combining these two processes allows participants to appreciate the importance of problem complexity as it provides the opportunity for them to engage in collaboration, dialogue, and feedback (Flood and Jackson, ).



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

37

. When integrated, action learning and problem solving increase the meaningful interaction between the way people think and the way they respond to external circumstances. For instance, participants may feel ambivalence as they seek to find a direction for problem solving, but through reflection and interaction with other group members they will learn to challenge and support each other’s perspectives and suggestions. Potential challenges such as scarce resources, time pressure, great need, and demanding tasks all influence participants’ readiness to respond to learning in tangible ways. In this case, tangibility does not refer to an action with a specific outcome but to an active process of participation (a type of action) in dialogue (knowledge sharing), feedback (information evaluation), and reflection (sensemaking) (Edmondson, ; Senge, ).

Problems as the Catalyst for Action Learning A problem can be a springboard to both learning and action, rather than being seen only as a source of chaos, trouble, and frustration. A solution provides order and stability but also reveals the interdependence of other functions and components related to the problem. Learning is, therefore, a precursor to action taking, which is determined by the time needed to organize the steps to be taken, mental preparation, and final execution. Learning also involves the anticipation of ambivalence triggered by multiple reactions to the same problem and an awareness of the contextual signals that enable participants to make sense of their roles, level of influence, and power to take action (Weick, ). Another way of understanding the interrelation between problem solving and action learning is to look at the source of learning, which is predominantly driven by a real-world problem, often urgent, messy, and complex. Participants must therefore be acquainted with the problem context and collaborate on the concrete steps necessary to solve it. As such, the “action” component of action learning can be likened to the outcome of problem solving but does not necessarily produce concrete results. Instead, the “action” embodies the integration of the way an individual thinks, reflects, and responds to a situation in both language and action.

38

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

Problem solving is, thus, a critical process of action learning that leads to plausible solutions that meet a specific need; it illuminates the power of action as both a psychological and a behavioral tool. For instance, a powerful decision is as much a psychological mechanism as an action. As a catalyst to action learning, the “problem” opens up a variety of opportunities for structured yet spontaneous learning. The problem further provides opportunities for learning to converge on clear and concrete solutions through specific steps. Hence, learning can be said to be the divergent dimension of problem solving while action taking is the convergent dimension. Put simply, learning implies a beginning of new possibilities while problem solving implies a means to an end. To a large extent, the significance of problem solving in action learning is captured in the learning (divergence) and action taking (convergence) process (Marquardt, b). Problem solving in organizational contexts relies on decision making at various levels through procedural, structural, systems, and strategic development. Relating this understanding to action learning has helped us to appreciate problem solving from a critical perspective. This perspective suggests that there are political and emotional dimensions of action learning that need to be considered before embarking on problem solving. These dimensions include role clarity, task specificity, and outcome expectations. Ultimately, it is learned action—the consideration of underlying assumptions surrounding a practice—that leads to successful organizational outcomes. Learned action is a carefully considered act of practice that is undertaken after the evaluation of available options and the possible consequences. Learned action is, therefore, viewed as a transformative device that increases an individual’s learning-to-learn attitude and leads him or her to produce new knowledge and actions (Raelin, ). Thus the underlying process of learning in action learning is fundamentally spontaneous in nature; it responds freely to situational dynamics and is often triggered by real problems and complex social relations. Because of this, action learning is regarded as a pragmatic approach that is concerned with the impact and relevance it can bring to organizational practice. Impact and relevance are largely determined by the urgency and complexity of problems that confront the organization.



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

39

Learning Theories and Principles of Action Learning Action learning and problem solving share theoretical bases. Action learning is a tool based on the theories, principles, and practices of the five schools of adult learning: the () behavioral, () cognitive, () humanist, () social learning, and () constructivist schools. Unlike most training programs, which tend to follow one approach to learning, action learning bridges the schools and builds a uniquely powerful learning opportunity for individuals, teams, and organizations. Let us examine how action learning applies the best practices of each school. Behavioral Learning Behaviorists such as Burrhus F. Skinner and Edward C. Tolman believe that creating the proper environment and stimuli will create the ideal conditions for maximizing learning or any other behavior. In action learning, there is a strong stimulus—that is, an urgent, critical problem that needs to be resolved as well as pressure on the group to develop effective solutions to the problem and to improve their individual, team, and organizational behaviors. There is also pressure from the group and their learning coach to observe norms. A group size of four to eight members is the optimal number for decision making and for involving all members. Group members are required to ask questions, which cause synapses to be open and prevent domination of any individual. The action learning coach ensures that there will be time for learning through reflective inquiry and reflection. The presence of the action learning coach also causes members to modify their behavior; for example, because of the power given to the coach, when he or she leans forward to intervene, the group stops what it is doing and listens intently to what the coach asks. Cognitive Learning Cognitive psychology and learning explore the mental process of individuals, particularly the way they perceive, think about, respond to, and react to situations. Going deeper, it is the understanding of the internal mental states that accounts for an individual’s belief, desire, and motivation as represented by their perspectives and actions. Cognitive learning theorists (Jerome Bruner, Chris Argyris, Donald Schön, and Jean Piag-

40

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

et, among others) are concerned primarily with how the brain processes information and experience, and then converts it into knowledge, skills, and values. Action learning incorporates key elements of cognitive psychology through its focus on (a) metacognition skills and learning how to learn, (b) the internal process of acquiring and retaining information, (c) using the problem as a trigger for the internal mental process of learning, (d) looking for patterns, insights, and understandings while reflecting, and (e) thinking about doing while doing. Humanist Learning Humanists such as Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Malcolm Knowles believe that everyone has untapped abilities to contribute, to learn, and to act. Humanistic psychology adopts a holistic approach to the understanding of human existence by means of examining meaning, values, freedom, responsibility, and human potential. This perspective is largely influenced by the philosophies of existentialism and phenomenology. Existentialism is concerned with the conditions of existence of an individual and how those conditions affect one’s emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts. Phenomenology refers to an understanding of one’s experience or state of being in relation to qualities such as directness and embodiment, which create the experience of being in the world. Learning requires support and caring among fellow group members so as to ensure their comfort and freedom to ask fresh questions. Learning to seek what is unique to each situation as well as what is significant for each individual is an essential function of humanist learning theory. This school also emphasizes that the best learning occurs when the whole person (affective, cognitive, and psychomotor dimensions) is involved. Everyone is responsible for his or her own as well as others’ learning. Each of these principles, including creativity and innovation, is inherent in action learning. Social Learning Social learning theorists (John Dewey, Albert Bandura, Jean Lave, and Etienne Wenger, among others) emphasize the social nature of learning, the importance of the context or environment in which learning occurs and that causes learning to occur. Learning requires social interaction and collaboration. Learners seek to connect past and present experiences, and



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

41

learning is facilitated through “communities of practice.” Building a social context to support and facilitate action and learning is important. Modeling competencies, skills, and learning is an effective way to learn. The individual makes sense of an experience by conceptualizing it and generalizing the replicable points, and plans for future actions based on the learning gathered. The individual’s actions are shaped through personal contemplation and the questioning insight of fellow group members. Constructivist Learning For constructivist learning theorists such as Karl Weick, Lev Vygotsky, Ivan Illich, Paulo Freire, and Jack Mezirow, knowledge and learning are bound by context. They are concerned with the act of knowing as the individual attaches meaning to an external entity that he/she regards as real. They understand the human mind as having the capability to engage in meaning making and signifying through an interactive response system. This suggests that individuals are capable of creating a mental system through which their perceptions and experiences are connected to the external world. The interpretation of what they think and see determines their response to reality (Shotter, ). Individuals and groups construct learning from the action or experience as well as norms and meaning. Being forced to deal with an unfamiliar problem or context requires people to seek the perspectives of others, thereby generating transformative learning and innovation. Finally, constructivists posit that optimal learning occurs through interactions with the environment in a problemanchored and learner-centered approach. Action learning’s focus on learning with real problems and real applications incorporates the key elements of constructivist learning theories.

Application of Learning to Problem Solving and Action Learning When applying these schools of learning to action learning, it can be seen that the underlying process of problem solving is governed by both internal and external conditions that determine the way people think and act. As action learning is a collaborative problem-solving process, the

42

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

direct and indirect experience of individuals form the basis upon which they make sense of their context and social relations. For instance, one individual’s perception of a problem and its effect on organizational systems and processes could be different from that of other members because all of them have different prior experiences and influences. The social dimension of problem solving in the action learning context provides the opportunity for mental frames to intersect as individuals construct different schemas largely represented by mental pictures, through questioning and reflection, to capture experiences that are familiar to them and those that may be unexpected. Hence, the process of cognitive participation (interaction of mental frames) is highly qualitative and exploratory; it provides divergent ways to solve problems and at the same time allows individuals to converge on meaningful concepts when they begin to socially construct meanings within their context. This is essentially a sensemaking process leading to some form of action (McLaughlin and Thorpe, ). Action learning allows for a more in-depth identification of problem issues, a wider discussion of problem-solving strategies, and a more innovative approach to seeking solutions. Whatever the situation, the more complex the problem, the better suited action learning is: complexity increases the socio-cognitive development of learning pertaining to social interaction and mental framing. This is when individuals actively engage in selfdirected learning and collaborative inquiry to determine an appropriate course of action. Among the processes of inquiry, questioning is one of the most powerful components of action learning. It involves framing problems into actionable questions to seek quick answers and carefully crafts broad but sufficiently specific problems into a wider perspective that promotes systems thinking, allowing participants to see the bigger picture. Questioning can be used to call out mental pictures that connect to a wide range of concepts. In practical terms, the questions asked should be coherent and probing to uncover the roots of a problem and provide relevance to specific contexts. In other words, the problem-solving emphasis in action learning enforces participants’ systems thinking ability, helping them to adopt a macro perspective on their environment rather than narrowly focusing on just the problem and their own group (Senge, ).



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

43

Systems Thinking According to Peter Senge (), systems thinking is the fifth discipline that catalyzes and facilitates the integration of other disciplines such as personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and shared vision. It is the process of understanding how organizational subsystems influence one another within a whole and a larger system. These subsystems include people, structures, and processes that work together to increase the optimal functioning of an organization. Thus, systems thinking is a holistic rather than a reductionist approach that captures the cognitive (mental) processes of organizing concepts into the required perspective and leads to responsive actions (Atwater et al., ). The relevance of systems thinking to problem solving is that it allows individuals to view problems as functions of a whole system where interrelations between some of these functions, although crucial, often complicate the problem-solving process. Hence, systems thinking does not encourage individuals to react merely to a specific function and neglect its overall impact on the wider system. In other words, systems thinking facilitates a more integrative than linear approach to problem solving. It involves a set of practices within a cognitive framework or a mental model that is based on the context of relationships between systemic entities such as the interlinking organizational functions. Ten organizational conditions explain the importance of systems thinking in problem solving (Skyttner, ) (see Table .).  . Organizational Conditions and Systems Thinking 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Interdependence of entities Holism Goal-driven outcomes Input-and-output orientation Disorder Regulation Hierarchy Differentiation Equifinality Multifinality

44

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

. The interdependence of entities and their attributes constitute an operating system that enables problem solvers to seek underlying relationships between entities rather than focusing on just one component of the problem. Problem solvers need to know the dynamics of the various subsystems in order to tackle the problem effectively. . Holism is the critical approach to defining problems with emergent properties, which cannot be determined easily through an analysis at face value. Problem solvers cannot lose sight of the big picture during problem solving. . Goal-driven outcomes encourage problem solvers to seek specific objectives at different stages of their problem-solving processes. Problem solvers need to be aware of goal setting and its impact on problem solving in order to achieve tangible outcomes. . Input-and-output orientation suggests that in an open system within an organization, inputs from the immediate and wider contexts determine the outputs, enabling specific goals to be met. Problem solvers need to be sensitive to emerging inputs that could reshape problemsolving goals. . When disorder or messiness disrupts organizational systems, problem solvers need to adopt a systems thinking approach to actively examine the whole rather than its fragmented parts. Problem solvers need to stand back and organize the mess and complexity through an integrated perspective. . Regulation is a form of constant feedback that enables an organizational system to operate optimally. Problem solvers use active feedback loops to understand the intricacies of organizational systems and how they are interconnected to gain a better understanding of the problem’s complexity. . A hierarchy characterizes the complexity of the various functions of an organizational system. Problem solvers need to be aware of the structure of this system in order to understand the relationship among the functions that promote or hinder the problem-solving process. . Differentiation, wherein specific units perform specialized functions, allows systems thinkers to use organizational design as a means of



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

45

structuring their problem-solving strategies. Problem solvers can capitalize on the organizational structure by examining the chain of command and span of control to explore optimal solutions. . Equifinality suggests a state of convergence in which different alternatives are available for achieving the same objectives. The process requires the organizing and selection of ideas. Problem solvers are expected to exercise critical thinking in evaluating options. . Multifinality suggests a state of divergence in which the same inputs or resources may be used to achieve alternative objectives. Problem solvers are expected to exercise creative thinking in exploring alternatives and directions through the generation of wild and wide-ranging ideas within known constraints.

Reflective Inquiry and Problem Solving Another concept that links action learning, problem solving, and systems thinking is reflective inquiry. Participants use reflective inquiry to frame problems, develop specific goals, create alternative strategies, and generate breakthrough actions. Reflective inquiry is a participatory action-learning intervention that uses both intrapersonal and interpersonal dialogue to gain an insightful perspective of the problem issues. Such a dialogue is achieved through an interplay of assumptions, direct and indirect experiences, and the use of data by participants. An iterative feedback cycle, which encourages participants to sharpen their conceptualization and experimentation, is the core component of dynamic dialogue in group settings (Schön, 8). This process allows groups to test and verify assumptions and mental frames through trial and error. The idea is to bring individual and tacit assumptions as well as perspectives to the fore for group critique in the form of meaningful dialogue before actual implementation. Reflective inquiry is a process similar to watching oneself in an organizational mirror: participants watch themselves as they “enact” an organization. In other words, reflective inquiry is a sensemaking process that helps shape organizational experiences by creating an identity for individ-

46

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

uals that allows them to feel that they are part of the organization (Keating et al., ). The four stages of reflective inquiry are generative, integration, resolution, and formulation. The Generative Stage of Reflective Inquiry In the generative stage group members come together to identify the focal area of an actual organizational problem. This focal area further leads to a theorization (conceptualization) process in which participants ask questions to help illuminate the scope and depth of the problem, followed by sharing alternative perspectives based on their tacit understanding of the underlying issues. The questions and views generated at this stage help the group to formulate feedback loops that serve as amplifying and restraining forces. An amplifying force generates discussion of more possibilities, widening the dimension of the problem. In contrast, a restraining force, which is more apparent in the second stage than the first stage of reflective inquiry, is limiting; participants exercise control and caution over the varied perspectives by establishing criteria and boundaries within which to evaluate each individual idea or cluster of ideas. This process of theorization is built on question after question with hypothesized outcomes and scenarios. It is supported by an in-depth conversation (dialogue) that induces a spontaneous “rupture” (enlightenment) in the way ideas are constructed and connected, leading to breakthrough thinking. An expected outcome of this stage is the generation of a set of key statements that document the critical issues of the problem (Rigano and Edwards, ). The Integration Stage of Reflective Inquiry In the integration stage group members begin to collaboratively make sense of the data and perspectives generated and discussed earlier. They begin to assess the accuracy of their data and perspectives by viewing them through multiple lenses by adjusting or repositioning their frames of reference (mental models) as they seek to classify the richness of their dialogue into meaningful units. The classification process, which is a crucial aspect of the integration stage, is facilitated by a constant organizing of information through fur-



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

47

ther questioning and feedback in an iterative cycle that includes negotiation until an understanding of the underlying issues is reached. This process is highly dynamic in the sense that participants allow each other’s mental models to be challenged through the dialogic inquiry to produce multiple streams of perspectives that operate at both the micro and macro levels. A great deal of clarification is involved here, similar to the restraining process in the first stage. Participants are required to fundamentally challenge and question existing assumptions and ambiguities. The classification process is further facilitated by critical feedback loops that help to consolidate the richness of information into meaningful units of reference, which ultimately contribute to action-oriented outcomes. These references are developed by identifying the criteria for evaluating categorical and conceptual boundaries based on the potential applications (Schwandt, ). The Resolution Stage of Reflective Inquiry The resolution stage deals with potential conflicts that have arisen from contradictory perspectives and data. Conflict need not be either positive or negative; instead it provides the opportunity for unconventional ideas to be challenged. The colliding and opposing forces that help shape existing ideas need to be managed appropriately to allow repetitive and obsolete ideas to be temporarily discarded. This will make room for new connections and combinations of ideas to emerge and increase the chances for breakthrough solutions. Resolution, as the word implies, builds on the complementariness of ideas that must first be evaluated in the first two stages of reflective inquiry. Only then can a common understanding of conceptual boundaries propel participants to work toward achieving shared objectives based on agreed values and expectations. This is a critical process of resolution in problem solving, in which participants are given the flexibility to explore ideas within a confined space and suggesting that their spontaneity in responding to emerging issues is not restricted to agreed boundaries. Resolution also suggests that gaps may exist between personal beliefs and organizational rhetoric and actions, which may obstruct effective problem solving. It is therefore important that participants do not shy

48

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

away from acknowledging personal conflicts because deep-seated issues, if allowed to surface, could provide the driving force toward reaching appropriate decisions for the group or organization. Resolution is a process that engages participants in collaborative inquiry based on their cognitive participation in the exchange of concepts and perspectives about organizational dynamics (Vince, ). The Formulation Stage of Reflective Inquiry The formulation stage involves making action plans and roadmaps for the future. Participants must have a clear understanding of the breadth and depth of the problem because it will determine the way potential actions are to be developed. These actions should also be geared toward achieving predicted outcomes and a predicted impact on other organizational functions. The formulation stage is largely concerned with the quality of decisions and actions, particularly their specificity and their likelihood of succeeding during implementation. Although these decisions and actions should be timely and measurable, they need to be tested before they are implemented, in order to increase their chances for success. Testing allows participants to build on their ideas and actions to produce new configurations for subsequent experimentation. They must be mentally prepared to alter their strategies as they go along and not resist seeing new possibilities. They should be prepared for the continuous modification of their plans until one plan emerges as having the most potential for success. Participants will also need to deal with conflicting signals and threats from both the internal and external environments. These include issues pertaining to resources, support, contingencies, and how participants respond to change, as well as unpredictable social and systems dynamics. All of these will enrich the problem-solving process (Rigano and Edwards, ).

Reflective Inquiry in Action Learning Groups Reflective inquiry is a process by which action learning members engage in a cyclical sequence of perception, conception, deliberation, and action. Applying the four stages of reflective inquiry to this cyclical sequence, it



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

49

can be seen that: () perception is a cognitive state in which individuals generate multiple frames of reference to make sense of the reality; () conception can be associated with the integration stage, in which individuals integrate their mental models to make sense of their perceptual data such that it can “theorized” (conceptualized) into an inquiry for practice; () deliberation occurs in the resolution stage, where individuals modify their mental models to seek convergence of their perceptual strategies in practical ways; and () action is intimately linked to the formulation stage, where it is the final outcome of reflective inquiry. Taken together, it can be seen that specific action plans are put to the test in actual contexts through experimentation and concrete experience. However, it is important to note that the four stages of reflective inquiry do not necessarily operate linearly; in fact, they are interdependent in such a way that the underlying processes function cyclically until something extraordinary happens. This is when a rupture occurs, leading to breakthrough thinking and action.

Structured Experiences and Action Learning Another striking feature of action learning from a problem-solving perspective is that the richness of learning occurs in structured experiences. As explained, the process of reflective inquiry, although cyclical in nature, is structured around particular sets of activities, which incorporate conceptualization or theorization, application, experience, and meaning making and signifying (sensemaking). The purpose of structured action learning, however, is not simply to create a hierarchical and systematic learning model; instead, the purpose is to create a set space in which individuals can exercise power and control over their thought process through questioning and feedback. Within this space is a series of spontaneous involvements through which cognitive interactions (exchanges of mental frames) occur dynamically to make it possible for participants to discover new information and new ways of experimentation (Kur and Pedler, ). The structure within an experience also creates a fundamental order to complex problem solving, particularly when the context is ambivalent and uncertain. Goal setting is one of the measures for enforcing a struc-

50

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

ture within a learning and problem-solving context. Because each structured experience is controlled by time, well-defined objectives or goals will reduce the chances of losing control over learning and problem solving. Participants will strive for tangible outcomes during each structured experience as governed by specific objectives (Daniels et al., ).

Need for Action in Generating Breakthrough Thinking Action learning helps solve problems through its focus on the power of action. While reflective inquiry focuses primarily on cognition (mental functioning) through an interplay of other psychological dimensions (humanist, behavioral, social, and constructivist), the action component of action learning emphasizes behavior by bringing all of the other dimensions into an integrated and coherent experience. In particular, the action learning process enables the group to look for underlying causes and leveraged actions rather than symptoms and short-term solutions. It examines both micro and macro views so as to discover when and how best to implement the proposed actions. Hence, action learning promotes action-oriented problem solving and is particularly useful under time pressure, where an action created could trigger a series of other actions with the potential to improve performance in an organization. Action-oriented problem solving is an organizing process through which individuals collectively engage in interpretation and choice making even though they may have an insufficient understanding of the problem and its impact on their surroundings. In such a circumstance, an action could be to gather the relevant information that would help further develop concrete actions to change a situation. As individuals pursue solutions collaboratively, they diagnose the problem and decide on action plans by relying on feedback to guide them in their sensemaking and decision making (Rudolph et al., ). As a consequence, “action” leads to new information, and “action-oriented problem solving” promotes reflective inquiry as participants engage in multiple levels of interpretation about their internal and external environments. The power of action is not only to solve problems for the benefit of the



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

51

organization; it also refers to the type of learning and knowledge that could be gained by taking action. It is the learned action that emerges from understanding an ambiguous context that gives rise to the power of action. The action is learned in that participants consider the potential consequences of the action in a particular context and how it could affect other actions to create greater power—for instance, through collective action taking. There are four primary conditions that give rise to learned actions. . As individuals or problem solvers struggle with what they do not know about the environment, they usually turn to past actions to help them determine their subsequent actions. They may establish a general course of action and then gradually adopt methods that are more specific to the problem context. As they begin to identify and develop the skills required for more in-depth problem solving, they further adjust their behaviors and actions according to the shifting conditions. The ability to modify their actions based on the enhancement of competence during problem solving is a type of learned action that is critical in changing environments. Through the process, they become aware of the need to capture the key lessons learned so that these can be used to develop further learned actions (Morgan and Ramirez, ). . When individuals are challenged by an influx of information from multiple sources, they begin to develop an ability to handle information overload, which is a precursor to formulating learned actions. But first, they need to convert the information they receive into knowledge. Knowledge is derived from the internalization of information in an actual context through a concrete experience. In other words, knowledge can be said to be the application of information that involves an action. Further, knowledge can be made more meaningful through reflective inquiry when the received information is mentally processed with a specific purpose of utilization based on clear objectives (Argote, ). As such, action learning is a process by which raw information is interpreted through rigorous sensemaking and leads to some form of concrete action. This requires evaluating information from the perspective of problem solving, and prioritizing the use of it based on critical areas relevant to the organization.

52

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

. When individuals are constrained by time and resources, even the lack of opportunity for relearning, they can draw on the repository of knowledge captured by the organization in the form of publications and records. When knowledge is distributed through best practices and solutions, individuals involved in its utilization for a specific purpose will have demonstrated learned action. Learned actions can also uncover other tacit knowledge that resides in the organization for further exposure through subsequent actions. This way, no matter how tacit the knowledge is, recognizing that it exists and turning it into explicit knowledge could promote a deeper level of learning through collaborative inquiry and reflective action (Baird et al., ). Hence, it is through the sharing of experiences and knowledge application that tacit knowledge can be made more explicit. . As learned action is developed over time, it is essential for individuals to be aware of the time it takes for something to be learned and applied in an actual context. The time needed to develop a learned action is determined by the urgency of a specific situation. The greater the urgency, the less time one takes to learn and apply the action. From a problem-solving perspective, critical lessons can be obtained when learning is applied promptly at the point of the most urgent and dramatic need. The timely application unleashes the learner’s competence and unique response to complex situations, helping him or her to gain greater experience through the learned action. Hence, the final type of learned action is characterized by the transfer of learning in a timely and tangible manner, one that can be critically reflected upon for the further improvement of individual and organizational competence (Nielsen, ). A learned action is not an impulsive or forced response to a problematic situation; rather, it is developed through a combination of self- and collaborative inquiry utilizing questioning, feedback, and reflection to facilitate its use in practice. It is the accumulation of knowledge and experience that prompts an individual or a group to unleash a learned action. In other words, learned actions are derived from reflective action taking based on prior actions and the critical lessons learned. As mentioned, information must first be trans-



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

53

ferred as knowledge that can be documented, stored, and shared in order to produce greater explicit knowledge for future application. From a problem-solving perspective, it is the response to negative information that is critical to the shaping of a learned action. An individual responding to negative information can avoid creating a messy situation by avoiding one action rather than focusing on what needs to be done. In this scenario, avoidance is part of pruning a learned action; the recognition of possible detrimental consequences helps the learner, the group, or the organization to not do the wrong things. Avoidance can sometimes lead to a change of direction and to the realization of other learned actions. Note, however, that this observation runs contrary to the learning curve theory, which posits that when one persists in a course of action, one learns to perform better (Van de Ven and Polley, ). Changing a course of action to avoid a potential obstacle, however, resets the learning curve to the beginning, gives the learner a fresh perspective on a new learning curve, and takes him or her to a higher level of action and learning. On this basis, learned actions can actually trigger breakthrough actions if learners leap from one learning curve to another rather than moving along one curve. Individuals involved in action learning must, therefore, be fully engaged in the challenging yet meaningful process of problem solving through active cognitive participation. They need to be responsive to the social construction of meanings through the interpretive process of mental framing (through sensemaking), which ultimately leads to systems thinking, strategizing, and innovating. Through these underlying processes, individuals will gain a metacognitive awareness of the interrelation between action and learning in more meaningful ways (Laroche, ). When they finally encounter breakthrough moments through specific outcomes, they will have integrated knowledge, learning, and action into unique solutions that will have a direct impact on the group or the organization. As an extension of the earlier concepts—systems thinking, reflective inquiry, and structured experience—concepts such as exploitation and exploration, creativity, and strategic thinking can help illuminate breakthrough insights, strategies, and solutions in clearer terms.

54

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

Exploration and Exploitation to Generate Breakthrough Strategies Exploration and exploitation are concepts that are concerned with the way individuals use their experience and competence to handle a challenging task based on their intention and motivation. These concepts are relevant to action learning in many ways as they deal with the structured yet spontaneous (interpretive) process of learning and action taking. Exploration and exploitation, similar to certain aspects of reflective inquiry, operate by means of divergent (amplifying effects) and convergent (restraining effects) processes. On the one hand, individuals involved in exploration often engage in search, experimentation, and variation, suggesting divergent process. On the other hand, exploitation involves the convergent processes of choice, execution, and variance reduction to enhance productivity and efficiency (March, ). Applying these concepts to the knowledge transformation aspect of action learning and problem solving, exploration is the pursuit of new knowledge whereas exploitation is the application of existing knowledge to things already known. Specific to action learning, the reflective inquiry process provides the space for individuals to engage in knowledge expansion and reduction until concrete actions are developed that can be further modified to produce learned actions (actions with an impact). Through rigorous exploration and exploitation, breakthrough thinking and results are likely to develop. Achieving breakthrough results is not without its tradeoffs, which may include sacrificing resource allocation and other organizational needs. In other words, exploitation and exploration are two potential breakthrough processes that, when combined with action learning, can produce unique results for a specific rather than a generic purpose. Breakthrough thinking may be achieved either by minimizing tradeoffs or by capitalizing on them, both for the purpose of producing greater positive effects for the organization. Organizations should encourage exploration and exploitation based on an understanding of the scarcity of their resources and the conflicting needs that could disrupt exploring and exploiting certain resources. They should decide whether to focus on



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

55

short-term productivity or long-term development of innovative products for increasing their market share. Either way, organizations cannot avoid the challenge of searching for new knowledge to create opportunities for product development and of leveraging current resources to increase their productivity. Both exploration and exploitation processes thus offer organizations the choice of maintaining a balance between flexibility and stability as well as between change and adaptability. This balancing act can spark breakthrough ideas and solutions to meet pressing challenges. Often the level of certainty is harder to predict for activities associated with exploration (a divergent process) than with exploitation (a convergent process). Individuals engaged in these two processes are challenged with deciding how to weigh the pros and cons of exploring and exploiting the available resources, and the action needed to bring about the right results. (Li et al., ). To do so, individuals build up their breakthrough capability by assessing the value of the knowledge they have. They then internalize the knowledge in such a way that it can be applied directly to a context for a specific outcome. This usually involves applying a series of learned actions to obtain the desired results and impact on the group or the organization. In order for organizations to promote exploration and exploitation, they need to be aware that organizational history, size, resources, structure, and culture all influence these processes and their impact on breakthrough thinking and action (Levinthal and March, ). Sometimes these processes may not function well because people resist them, for reasons of power, social relations, and politics. For breakthrough problem solving to happen in organizations, the top management must first be committed to building an organization that is adaptable, flexible, and innovative. Only then will the employees be motivated to develop new ways of thinking and performing on a daily basis.

Action Learning and Creativity Creativity in action learning and problem solving is associated with the production of ideas that are both novel and useful. It is important to view

56

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

creativity as both a process and an outcome that is evaluated on the basis of its potential to create value. The value created should benefit the organization for both the short term and the long term and lead to sustainable competitive advantage. As a process, creativity (thinking, learning, and problem solving) is the precursor to innovation (action and result) based on the successful implementation of original ideas. As an outcome, creativity (sometimes referred to as innovation) is directly linked to its positive effect on work processes in organizational contexts. Creative or innovative outcomes can be seen most often in work procedures, products, services, and organizational structures (Van Looy et al., ). Creative processes and outcomes thus provide the platform for breakthrough thinking and results to occur as organizations undergo change, either incrementally or radically. Breakthrough processes catalyze organizations to transform themselves by moving processes and systems away from the status quo. Breakthrough problem solving is a creative process that can help organizations develop new ideas and experiment with different practices that would add value. These alternatives could include examining options, exploring relationships, and seeking radical combinations and connections in order to produce a rupture in decision making and action taking. Building these strategies into action learning allows participants to experience more of the rupture, which is characterized by an outburst of fresh ideas normally resulting from rigorous dialogue, feedback, and reflection. These action learning processes can be complemented by exploration and exploitation. In combination, these breakthrough processes and ideas will lead to optimal organizational improvement and success (Cohen and Levinthal, ). Creativity was a critical success factor in the action learning projects undertaken at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lexus, National Bank of Dominica, and Constellation Energy, as discussed in later chapters.

Action Learning and Strategic Thinking Strategic thinking can be broadly defined as a mental process that engages organizational members in creative dialogue for the development of unique opportunities that will optimize value for the organization. It



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

57

motivates individuals to question assumptions about the organization’s value proposition and challenge conventional thinking about the driving forces of business. Several competencies are associated with strategic thinking, as identified by Jeanne Liedtka (). The first competency is a systems perspective: individuals must have an all-encompassing view of the value creation system and their roles in it so as to understand the potential implications of their strategic actions. The second is intent focus: individuals need to resist distraction and concentrate on achieving their goals no matter how long it takes. The third is thinking in time: individuals must consider the past, present, and future simultaneously by creating mental scenarios to guide them in their implementation. The fourth is being hypothesis-driven: individuals must be motivated to seek causal relationships by incorporating scientific justification into strategic thinking. The final competency is intelligent opportunism: individuals must respond to good opportunities by not losing sight of strategies that could be applied more effectively in different contexts. In addition to the competencies, there are several process considerations associated with strategic thinking, as identified by Michael Porter () and Henry Mintzberg (). The first is that the strategy must be factbased: a good strategy must be supported by real data in order to enhance the logic of the strategy. Second, it must include broad thinking: strategic choices must include a wide range of alternatives and scenarios. Third, it must be engaging: resources for strategy development must be used in productive and meaningful ways. Fourth, the strategy must be adaptive: it needs to incorporate learning into experimentation and thoughtful adjustment. Finally, it must be implementable: it must state explicitly how tasks are to be carried out and how decisions are to be made. Above all, strategic thinking considers both internal and external factors, such as the competencies and skills of all employees, all products and services offered by the organization, the environment and industry, markets, and customers, as well as competitors and substitutes. Strategic thinking therefore creates opportunities to uncover alternatives for creating optimal value for the organization based on the interaction of mental models. Strategic thinking is a core managerial competence that cannot be undertaken superficially. Far too often, organizations rely on strategies

58

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

that worked well for them in the past. Employees thus become entrenched in a situation of bounded rationality, doing things the old way and often seeking quick-fix solutions. Commitment to mediocre thinking and common practices therefore escalates, preventing them from considering other aspects of thinking and practice. Adding strategic thinking as a critical dimension to breakthrough problem solving is one way of encouraging a more sustainable and longterm approach to learning and action taking. This can be done by first identifying the driving forces for change and then mapping them into a strategic change and development framework. Employees must be committed to the change strategy and able to apply the necessary competencies, as outlined earlier, to achieve breakthrough results (Christen, ). Breakthrough thinking is often the result of persistent questioning of the threats and opportunities surrounding a problem as well as the internal and external environments that characterize the problem. This process is similar to reflective inquiry, as discussed, and begins with a fundamental curiosity about what is happening around the individual and linking them to the organization through a strategic perspective. When individuals begin to question the past, present, and future with the organization in mind, they are, quite simply, thinking strategically. Several approaches can be adopted to encourage strategic thinking at the micro level. These include adopting a competitive mindset, being mindful of time limitations, cost effectiveness, and resource allocation, and facing the unknown future with courage and boldness. At the macro level, strategic thinking should be combined with problem solving in order to examine and explore underlying relationships that will affect the organization’s value, identity, and sustainability. Only then will the breakthrough results make a difference to organizational performance and success in the long run (Grant and Baden-Fuller, ).

Problem Solving Requires Questions and Courage Action learning is a breakthrough problem-solving tool that capitalizes on the power of human imagination and draws on human courage through experimentation to achieve extraordinary outcomes. The fact



Action Learning and Breakthrough Problem Solving

59

that action learning is driven by challenging real-world problems makes learning immediate, useful, and multifaceted. Both questioning and courage are critical enablers in for action learning participants. It is the realization that questioning is the source of understanding complexity that gives participants the courage to be keen inquirers rather than passive learners. The courage to go beyond doubt and the obvious often opens up opportunities for questioning the surrounding phenomena. With a critical eye for detail and sharp questioning, participants will be able to uncover different aspects of a problem by breaking it down into smaller units. Soon, participants will no longer be blinded by the complexity of the problem; rather, they will know how to tackle each of these units more systematically. Courageous and persistent inquiry will uncover new ways of approaching problem complexity and increase participants’ confidence in dealing with it. The action learning team at Nationwide Insurance, for example (see Chapter ), successfully solved a complex problem through their persistent questioning and challenging of corporate assumptions.

Learning While Solving Problems— The Key to Achieving Breakthrough Strategies The purpose, process, and performance of action learning are intertwined. Without understanding the purpose of the action learning project, the team will not be able to appreciate the process of questioning, reflection, dialogue, and feedback to perform the right action. This intertwining of purpose, process, and performance is what makes action learning such a powerful problem-solving approach. This assertion is supported by psychological research suggesting that successful problem solving is influenced by the way problem solvers think, feel, and act, as well as the values they place on themselves in their decision making and action taking (Maier and Hoffman, ). These theoretical underpinnings have further led to the discussion of the relevance of systems thinking in mediating and facilitating the stages of reflective inquiry, encouraging individuals to view their organizations as complex systems governed by interlocking functions.

60

Problem Complexity and Problem Solving in the 21st Century

Reflective inquiry guides individuals as they develop a course of action for addressing a specific problem. In many ways, the conception of knowledge is in fact an active action: individuals take active steps in formulating an idea that may lead to a concrete action. However, knowledge and action do not necessarily lead to breakthrough results. Breakthrough thinking is a timely and radical approach to solving a complex organizational problem. As reinforced in this chapter, breakthrough thinking and action can result from a synergistic balance between exploration and exploitation, where ideas are evaluated based on their potential application and results in real contexts. A fundamental awareness of the underlying interrelational dynamics that govern organizational systems, structures, and processes will help individuals to manage the tension between learning and action. Understanding this tension will further help them to focus on areas that matter most to the survival, renewal, and growth of the organization. Hence, the continual development of breakthrough thinking and action are of utmost importance to organizational revival and sustainability. In this perspective, breakthrough ideas and solutions involve behavioral modifications at every level to collectively ensure a transformation. Every employee must adopt a shared vision and strategic thinking as features of organizational life. When combined with action learning, strategic thinking can ensure the breakthrough results necessary to sustain an organization’s competitive advantage and ultimate success.

3

Sales and Marketing

T

of global competition and consumer power force companies to develop sales strategies that enable them to concentrate their resources on the best opportunities to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Creative breakthrough thinking throughout the business chain is essential to achieve the necessary understanding and ideas for new marketing and sales strategies. More and more organizations are discovering the power of diverse action learning teams to generate better products and services for customers. In this chapter, we explore how four organizations—Nationwide Insurance, Lexus-Toyota, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and PepsiCo—have used action learning to identify breakthrough strategies for improving marketing and sales. h e d u a l p r e ss u r e s

Nationwide Insurance Nationwide Insurance, based in Columbus, Ohio, is one of the largest diversified insurance and financial services organizations in the world, with more than $ billion in assets. In , Nationwide ranked number  on the Fortune  list. The company provides a full range of insurance and financial services, including auto, motorcycle, boat, homeowners’, life, farm, and commercial insurance; administrative services; annui-



63

64 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

ties; mortgages; mutual funds; pensions; and long-term savings plans. Nationwide began using action learning in  and has continued to use it extensively to solve major complex problems within the company. Its “Leaders in Action” program for mid-level managers selects  employees annually at the administrative vice president (AVP)/director level to participate in classroom learning, personal assessments, and an action learning team assignment. Each action learning team consists of eight or nine members, an executive sponsor, and a team coach. The action learning groups are formed as part of a leader development program for leaders at the entry executive level. The participants are drawn from different functions and business units across the organization. A problem is given to each action learning group by the chief strategy officer. His role is to provide the action learning groups with issues facing Nationwide that are important and need to be seen from several different perspectives so as to create a viable solution. All the assigned team project topics are approved by Nationwide’s CEO and his team members. The action learning team activities include a “kickoff” session with the executive sponsor, the action learning team members, and the action learning coach. Meeting at least once a month, the teams have approximately five months to complete their projects in tandem with their “day jobs.” At the end of the program, each team creatively presents its recommendations, findings, or results to more than  of the company’s leaders, including the CEO and his team (Yeo and Nation, ). The Complex Problem One of the challenges undertaken by an action learning group was: “How can we increase growth of market share at Nationwide?” The company wanted to increase both the number of customers and the number of products each customer, or household, held. The action learning group decided to look at affinity groups as targets of their sales and marketing efforts and to consider offering a discount to members of specific affinity groups. To narrow the scope of the project, the action learning team decided to classify the Nationwide associates as an affinity group and target them for sales. The company already offered a small discount to Nationwide associates, but it was not exclusive, and obtaining the discount was



Sales and Marketing

65

not convenient for the associates. The action learning group decided that the solution would be to offer a convenient, exclusive associate discount on insurance, financial services, and other products that would attract Nationwide associates and build brand loyalty. The Breakthrough The breakthrough strategy the action learning group generated was to offer Nationwide associates up to a  percent discount on insurance and financial services products. According to Ursula Nation, a senior manager at Nationwide, “this was a breakthrough for several reasons—number one, this was a goal we had been trying to accomplish for the past  years and it had never gotten off the ground!” However, as Nation recounts, “there were so many real obstacles to making this happen, a primary one being that it was so difficult to develop a system for paying agent commissions if associates purchased their products directly on the Internet rather than through an agent. Agents were unlikely to favor such a system. Another obstacle was around the issue of filing the forms with all the various states that Nationwide does business in—it would be expensive and time laden. For these reasons it was not a popular strategy with several of the senior leadership team at Nationwide.” The action learning team and sponsor decided that it was worth addressing these challenges. The group treated the challenge as the “elephant in the room” because of the perceived unpopularity of the idea. They compared the associate discount with that offered by several other companies as an employee benefit. The team acknowledged that implementation would be difficult, but was able to present a strong rationale for the strategy as well as additional steps to make implementation simpler. All the necessary actions were taken to enact this solution. A convenient process was developed for giving associates a  percent discount. Nationwide increased the number of associates using their products by educating them about the benefits of being an associate-policy holder/customer, and made it easy to sign up via new associate orientation (for new associates) on an intranet site exclusively for this benefit.

66 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Why the Action Learning Team Was Successful The reason the team was successful, according to Nation, was that the group “challenged basic assumptions within the company. The group kept asking, ‘Why can’t we do this today? Other organizations offer their associates significant discounts to own or participate in their products or services—why not Nationwide?’” Another reason this action learning group succeeded was the way the group worked with its executive sponsor. The team was respectful of the sponsor’s + years of insurance experience, approaching the idea as a way of “breaking new ground.” The group asked lots of “what if ” questions and played out scenarios with the sponsor. They asked questions that helped him feel involved and invited him to ask questions as well. They trusted the action learning coach and the process. Finally, according to Nation, “the action learning group was not afraid to put their ideas out there knowing that this was not going to be a popular recommendation.” Since , Nationwide has had several other successful action learning team projects. One of the most successful was the creation of a new company called “Nationwide Better Health.” Here is how the Nationwide Better Health website describes the development of this product via action learning: The story of Nationwide Better Health begins within Nationwide itself, where a group of individuals were contemplating several health care trends that were negatively affecting employers, as well as employees.… Nationwide’s big idea was simple: bring all the pieces of a health and productivity solution under one roof by leveraging its own best practice programs as well as those of its partners. Finally, employers would be able to deal with one partner, one eligibility file, one reporting structure and one outcome.

Another Nationwide action learning team success was the development of an organizational change called “Change Leadership” that was rolled out to the entire organization starting in May . It included an adopted philosophy, “How to be a Successful Change Consultant” training for human relations (HR) reps, and tools and classroom training for leaders executing a major organizational change. Two action learning team



Sales and Marketing

67

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Nationwide Insurance • • • • •

Systematic analysis of problems from a variety of perspectives Courage of groups to challenge assumptions and take risks Skilled action learning coaches Urgent, complex, companywide problems Support of top management in providing important problems to the action learning group to solve, committing to action, and providing resources and time for groups to meet • Carefully selected diverse teams • Continuous reframing of the problem • Persistent, systematic questioning, including many “what if” questions

members are currently serving on the senior leadership team for Nationwide Better Health. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Nationwide, see Table ..

Lexus (Toyota Motor Corporation) Lexus is part of the luxury vehicle division of Japanese automaker Toyota Motor Corporation. First introduced in  in the United States, Lexus is now sold globally and has become Japan’s largest-selling brand of premium cars in the world. In , Lexus vehicles were officially marketed in more than  countries and territories worldwide. The Lexus “Marque” has ranked among the ten largest Japanese global brands in market value. The division’s world headquarters are located in Toyota, Aichi, Japan, with operational centers in Brussels, Belgium, and Torrance, California, in the United States. The Complex Problem Although Toyota had enjoyed tremendous success and sales outside of Japan, Lexus automobiles were not being sold in Japan. German automobile manufacturers dominated the luxury car market in Japan. In late , Toyota decided to promote Lexus as the “global brand” in the luxurious car market of Japan (separate from the Toyota brand), with sales to begin in August . Before introducing Lexus to Japanese buyers, Lexus decided to set up a large-scale action learning project to develop the launching of Lexus sales

68 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

in Japan, with an emphasis on both the automobile and the concept of Lexus as the best in class for Japanese customers. Lexus believed that the key to success would be the ability of general managers (GMs) to market and demonstrate a high-class brand and to provide superb service. A total of  Toyota GMs from throughout Japan were selected by the distributors to participate in the Lexus action learning launch. Action learning projects began in September  and continued until April . They emphasized establishing the Lexus concept and developing the marketing strategy, as well as developing the leadership competencies of the GMs. In addition to developing a comprehensive marketing strategy for the Lexus, the action learning was also designed to create a new style of leadership within the Lexus business: instead of being directive bosses they would become participative, team-oriented leaders. The Successful Results The Lexus action learning program led to a number of successes: . Sales within the first few months exceeded expectations, and by  the HS h became the top-selling sedan in Japan. . Lexus Japan’s network of  new dealerships became profitable in . . The GMs obtained a deep and insightful understanding of the Lexus brand. . The GMs developed a new and more powerful style of leadership. . The GMs created and communicated a brand concept for Lexus that enabled Lexus to successfully enter the Japanese marketplace. . Under the guidance of the GMs, strong Toyota teams were developed throughout Japan. Why the Action Learning Teams Were Successful Twenty teams of eight GMs participated in action learning projects for five days each month over a six-month period. Coaches certified by the Japan Institute for Action Learning (JIAL) facilitated the work and learning of the groups. The action learning teams learned how to be creative collectively and to integrate the knowledge and experiences of each group



Sales and Marketing

69

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Lexus • Complex problem with high need as well as benefits if successfully solved • Commitment of top management to devoting sufficient resources and employees to developing strategies • Access to people with the knowledge and power needed to solve the problem • Creative and systematic analysis and decision making • Skilled, full-time action learning coaches • Improved capability of teams in metacognition and problem solving • Integration of best ideas and practices from other organizations • Excellent communication among and within teams during and between action learning sessions

member. They were also presented with other leadership development and strategic opportunities, including learning about customer service from the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, driving the Lexus, and a trip to the United States to see how the Lexus had been successfully marketed there. A Lexus blog was also set up to enable the GMs to communicate with each other and to receive action learning support virtually from the action learning coaches. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Lexus, see Table ..

Bristol-Myers Squibb Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) is a research-based, diversified health care company of , employees with worldwide sales of $ billion. Its products are marketed in nearly  countries with manufacturing operations in more than  countries. The vision of BMS is to extend and enhance human life by providing the highest quality health and personal care products. Bristol-Myers Squibb manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals in several therapeutic areas, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hepatitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psychiatric disorders. The  merger of Bristol-Myers and Squibb made the new company one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. The company’s products are in four industry segments: . pharmaceutical products—prescription medicines, mainly cardiovascular, anti-cancer, and anti-infective drugs . nonprescription health products—infant formulas (Enfamil) and other

70 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

nutritional products as well as analgesics (Excedrin, Bufferin, Nuprin), cough/cold remedies (Comtrex), and skin care products (Keri)  . medical devices (orthopedic implants—hip and knee replacements, ostomy and wound care products, surgical instruments, and other medical devices . toiletries and beauty aids—hair coloring and hair care products (Clairol) and deodorants (Ban), antiperspirants, and other toiletries and beauty aids Through the use of numerous action learning programs, problems at BMS are being solved in much more innovative and systematic ways than previous approaches used by the company. Four action learning projects are described briefly below: Action Learning Project 1—Building Synergistic Cross-Divisional Marketing and Brand Support Programs This project focused on exploring marketing synergy between the prescription products division and the over-the-counter consumer products division, as well as marketing approaches related to professional customer relationships and retail customer relationships. The project identified both opportunities and constraints. Jon Nosek, director of consumer sales, summarized his experience with the project as follows: The goal of our project was to develop a single BMS corporate customer interface by creating a multifunctional business team selling to key retail and wholesale trade customers. I considered three ideas before pursuing the above project. The project selected includes the characteristics of a “breakthrough” project as defined by Robert Davies. I think this was particularly true in the areas of core competencies (sales force effectiveness) and in the benefits to trade customers (value-added services). I took my knowledge and learnings from participating in the creation of the BMS Consumer Sales Organization and applied those to the action learning project. I maintain that if you approach trade customers with a multifunctional business team representing the three BMS consumer companies, it could also be done corporately—with even greater results of productivity, profitability, and customer focus. I learned significantly more about the BMS Pharmaceutical Divisions (Apothecon, Westwood, Managed Care) and their sales and customer support approaches to the trade. I did



Sales and Marketing

71

this through established contacts within the company, and my sponsor. I believe the company will ultimately adopt or embrace a variation of the strategy developed in the action learning project, since it provides a sustainable competitive advantage.

Action Learning Project 2— Multifunctional Corporate Business Team This action learning team focused on defining the current market dynamics, the market assessment/opportunity, and possible recommendations for a multifunctional corporate business team. The stated business challenge was to develop a sales approach that would provide competitive advantage for this preeminent customer-focused organization, driving growth and productivity. The recommendations included increasing customer support by providing a single point of contact between a customer and the company, regardless of the product being marketed. Action Learning Project 3— Business and Manufacturing Strategies This action learning project examined the company’s overall business strategy and manufacturing strategy and then considered the question “Does a plant closure fit the firm’s current business strategy?” Plant closures usually require significant commitments of cash to fund employee terminations and benefits, disposition of equipment and facilities, inventory buildups, and other related costs. The reasons for a plant closure are many: to reduce manufacturing overhead, to eliminate redundant facilities, to consolidate and take advantage of economies of scale or new technologies, to concentrate manufacturing in tax-advantaged areas, or some combination. For example, an existing network of plants may have been established when significant trade barriers between countries forced firms to produce locally to avoid tariff and nontariff trade barriers. This action learning team examined the current model for analyzing plant closures and then developed recommendations for a new risk-based decision model for analyzing plant closures. Action Learning Project 4—Reduced Pricing Strategy on Nuprin This action learning project focused on the development and implementation of a reduced pricing strategy on Nuprin. The new learning envi-

72 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Bristol-Myers Squibb • Commitment to innovative and systematic problem solving • Creative search for breakthrough strategies • Knowledge and learning during the action learning sessions immediately utilized to solve problems • Focus on value-creation potential of the actions for other aspects of the business • Diversity of teams and leveraging of each other’s experiences and expertise • Complex problems whose resolution would provide substantial benefits to the organization

ronment produced solid results for participants such as Kirsten Detrick, director of the Worldwide Medicines Group. The project developed new measurement techniques, such as an evaluation of the number of accounts that implemented the strategy, the effect on the brand, and sales results by class of trade. According to Rebecca Kraft, a senior manager at Bristol-Myers Squibb, “Employees have quickly learned the concept of action learning and applied it to real-time business problems. Working in action learning teams is clearly seen as a key tool for . . . increased productivity and creativity at BMS.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Bristol-Myers Squibb, see Table ..

PepsiCo PepsiCo, Inc., is a Fortune  global corporation headquartered in Purchase, New York, with interests in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of grain-based snack foods, carbonated and noncarbonated beverages, and other products. PepsiCo was formed in  with the merger of the Pepsi-Cola Company and Frito-Lay and has since expanded to a broader range of food and beverage brands, the largest of which include the acquisition of Tropicana in  and a merger with Quaker Oats in . The company reported  revenues of $ billion and has over , employees worldwide. Action learning has been extensively used at Pepsi, particularly for solving problems and building leaders. In , Pepsi needed to develop its sales managers, but recognized that taking them off line for any length



Sales and Marketing

73

of time for training would meet with strong resistance. An additional challenge was that the sales function operated in a variety of structures aligned across brands, geography, divisions, and customers; thus one type of training would not fit. Michael Woodard, senior manager with PepsiCo’s Customer Management University (CMU) partnered with Jay Cone of Interactive Associates to design a comprehensive sales leaders program called the Strategic Customer Leadership Forum (SCLF) in which action learning would be the key strategy. Sales leaders would learn to apply new concepts and behaviors from the classroom portion of the program to find solutions to real business problems and issues facing PepsiCo customers. PepsiCo sales executives were engaged early in the action learning process to help identify action learning projects that would benefit their customers. Woodard and Cone recognized that focusing the SCLF learning on getting real work done and producing meaningful results for the company’s customers would go a long way in persuading sales executives to put their sales leaders into the program. The benefit of action learning for participants was that it would increase the relevance and visibility of the SCLF, as well as reinforce their senior leaders’ expectations for new thinking on current customer challenges. The action earning component became a strong selling point for building sustained executive commitment and generated enthusiasm and energy among actual and potential participants (Cone and Woodard, ). The action learning program was designed using a framework of five markers called “The Learning Pathway.” While it was not necessary to start at the same marker on the pathway and proceed in a consistent order every time, each marker answered a key question about the concept or idea being taught: • • • • •

Definition Marker: What is the meaning of the concept or idea? Validation Marker: Why is the concept or idea important? Assimilation Marker: What does it feel like to use the concept or idea? Integration Marker: How does the concept apply to my life or work? Transition Marker: What is the connection between this concept and others that we have learned?

74 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Cone and Woodard wanted to ensure that for every concept presented, each marker on the Learning Pathway was addressed somewhere in the learning process, and in a way that took into account different learning styles among the participants. Interactive Associates conducted a series of stakeholder interviews with participants selected for an SCLF pilot, their sponsors, and other influential leaders within PepsiCo. The interviews provided a needs analysis that was utilized to determine learning process objectives and to give the design team insights into the culture of the PepsiCo sales function, the participants’ learning styles, and the kinds of issues they faced in their jobs. The stakeholder interviews also functioned as a communication mechanism to ensure that key leaders and influencers understood why the program was being developed and could get consistent answers to questions and concerns from a neutral third party (Cone and Woodard, ). Through the interviews, sales leaders revealed the pressures they faced in the job and their strong “bottom line” orientation. As a group they were cordial and engaging, but quickly lost patience with indirect questions or too much speculation about why certain conditions or structures existed. From the standpoint of instructional design, it was clear that the training, if it were to engage the participants, would need to be fast paced and oriented toward action rather than theory. The sales leaders also defined their job success in terms of their “numbers” and how their sales team’s numbers compared with those of other teams. The learning process could leverage this motivation and drive, without overtly focusing on competition, by including opportunities for participants to produce and compare results among themselves. Garnering Executive Support for Action Learning Woodard and the Interactive Associates design team made an early commitment to identify and involve high-profile senior sales leaders in the development process. A key to these executives’ involvement was asking them to propose specific action learning projects that put SCLF participants to work on priorities for which the executives had made annual operating plan commitments to the organization. Given the size and span of PepsiCo’s sales function, this was also important for ensuring that the projects represented the diversity of issues facing sales leaders.



Sales and Marketing

75

Woodard also invited each sales executive to sponsor the SCLF team assigned to that executive’s action learning project. The fact that the Pepsi project sponsor continued to work with the action learning teams in organizational settings reinforced the importance of the link between a team’s sponsor and the eventual success of the team. Woodard held meetings with key senior sales leaders to enlist their support for the SCLF. He made the case for their involvement by helping them see the connection between getting meaningful work accomplished and supporting the development of leadership skills that mattered to the CEO. Overview of the Strategic Customer Leadership Forum The Strategic Customer Leadership Forum was piloted in the autumn of  as a five-phase learning process. Phase : Preparation. Woodard enrolled the executive sponsors and educated them about their role with the action learning teams. Senior sales leaders from across the organization selected participants from among the high-potential individuals on the sales and category management teams that work with strategic customers, which represent PepsiCo’s largest and most important distribution channels. Woodard also met with the participants’ managers to educate them about the purpose and content of the forum; and participants then met with their managers to clarify expectations. Participants completed a questionnaire and an online innovation skills assessment—the Creative Problem Style assessment. Phase : SCLF Workshop. During the three-day off-site workshop, participants • worked in teams on a computer-based business simulation to enhance business acumen and practice innovation (one day) • received the results of their pre-work innovation assessment • received training in innovation, including models, tools, and processes for generating and commercializing innovations (one day) • learned skills related to teamwork, team communication, collaboration, and strategic thinking (one day) Working with a computer-based business simulation developed by Insight Experience, teams of participants became the general managers of a simulated technology company with specific business goals to meet. In

76 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

the simulation, each team ran the company for three financial quarters, making decisions about every aspect of the business based in part on their analysis of the financials. During the second quarter of the simulation, the teams were asked to develop a new product or service innovation, which they presented to the design council of the parent company. In a sense, the teams were rehearsing in a feedback-rich classroom setting for their work on action learning teams in Phase  (Cone and Woodard, ). Because PepsiCo sales leaders are action- and results-oriented, the workshop leaders opted to spend less time on comprehensive explanations and discussions and more time allowing participants to apply the models and concepts. This meant coaching participants “in the moment” on the nuances of the models and concepts, and teaching feedback skills so that participants could coach one another. In the final workshop agenda item, participants were assigned to their action learning teams and received the action learning projects that had been selected by PepsiCo sales executives. Initially the Phase  workshop concluded with an action learning team charter session in order to take advantage of having everyone in the same place at the same time, but learners were fatigued at the end of three intense days of development and had not taken the time to fully review the expectations of being assigned to an action learning team. As a result, more time during Phase  was spent orienting participants to the complete SCLF learning process. At this time, team sponsors chose a date and time for a charter session and were provided with tools and an agenda to conduct the charter meeting to ensure that the action learning teams were set up for success. Phase : Action Learning. Teams developed a project plan for their action learning assignment and met with their executive sponsor to finalize the charter and project deliverables. Over the next six months or so, the teams worked independently on their action learning projects. Midway through the project, the teams met for a day with Woodard and an Interactive Associates consultant for a check-in and to receive coaching and a template for their business case presentation. The teams also worked directly with customers as appropriate. The role of the executives who volunteered to serve as action learning team sponsors in Phase  was critical both for team success and for sustaining executive buy-in to the SCLF reminders and handouts at different



Sales and Marketing

77

points in Phase —the right concept and tool at the right time. A committed in-house coordinator like Woodard became an important lifeline to the teams, providing just-in-time templates and gentle reminders about material they already had at their disposal. Sponsors were kept informed throughout the early stages of the learning process. SCLF facilitators set milestones leading up to a high-profile team report-out (Phase ). The timeline and high-stakes nature of the final report ensured that the sponsors had “skin in the game” and kept tabs on their teams. One formal midcourse coaching session checked on each team’s progress and provided them with a business case template for their presentations. Phase : Presentation Sponsors and other key executives were invited to an action learning team report-out and graduation at PepsiCo headquarters in New York. Teams made presentations and received feedback on the spot. Sponsors made decisions based on the presentations about how the team’s solutions would be implemented. These real-time, real-work action learning teams were invited to present their solutions and results to an executive panel at PepsiCo headquarters in New York. The executives evaluated the presentations and provided feedback to the teams. At this session the participants formally graduated from the SCLF. Specific action learning team leaders were selected and invited to be mentors or coaches to new leaders about to go through the SCLF. Phase : Implementation. In this phase, the executive panel selected particular action learning projects to fund and moved them into implementation, appointing a sponsor for each project who then created the implementation team, drawing primarily from among the SCLF participants. Replicating the action learning process in Phase , the implementation project teams rechartered themselves, developed a timeline, and proceeded with implementation. In this way the best learnings of the SCLF teams were propagated “in the field” to have a beneficial impact on PepsiCo customers. Phase : Organizational learning. A final meeting between implementation teams and executives was held to discuss and capture key learnings, which would then be published and used, as appropriate, to update and modify the SCLF for future groups of participants.

78 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

The Complex Problem Tony True, then PepsiCo’s vice president of Pepsi Cola North America for Wal-Mart, was invited to sponsor an action learning team. True expressed an interest in having a diverse group of sales leaders in the SCLF answer the question, “How can we create and use tools and processes that minimize the importance of price and maximize the PepsiCo services that the customer sees as valuable?” How the Action Learning Team Solved the Problem The team True sponsored began with an application of the strategic thinking skills learned in Phase . To narrow the scope of the project, the team looked at a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis of PepsiCo’s current relationship with Wal-Mart and identified a key opportunity in marketing directly to the Hispanic community, which forms a significant portion of Wal-Mart’s customer base throughout the United States. From their review of existing research on consumer trends within the Hispanic community, team members concluded that Hispanics were more brand-loyal and less price-sensitive than other customer groups. For example,  percent of Hispanic respondents in a survey indicated agreement with the statement, “I always buy my favorite brand regardless of what’s on sale.” The Breakthrough The team believed that by test-marketing displays of PepsiCo products attractive to Hispanic consumers, they could boost sales to this market segment, which would increase margins while creating loyalty and frequency for the retailer. Wal-Mart chose a test store in northwestern Arkansas to work with the team in creating an eight-foot display of PepsiCo products that traditionally test well with Hispanics. The team hosted sampling events and worked with Wal-Mart managers on other in-store promotions during Hispanic Heritage month. After a seven-week trial, the results were resoundingly positive: • A  percent increase in the store’s net profits over the same period the prior year for Frito Lay products.



Sales and Marketing

79

• A  percent growth in store sales of eight-ounce Pepsi Cola brand soda products. • A  percent increase in the store’s net profits for Quaker, Tropicana, and Gatorade products. The Strategic Customer Leadership Forum has gained a reputation within PepsiCo as highly challenging, and the action learning projects, which have been an extraordinarily effective learning device, in many instances have generated measurable success and positive impact for the customer and PepsiCo. Numerous action learning projects and their large-scale implementation have involved the direct participation of PepsiCo customers, providing opportunities for the team members to develop and strengthen relationships with managers in the customer’s organization; deepen their insights into the customer’s business and issues; and collaborate on initiatives that have generated real value for the customer; and, according to PepsiCo senior executives, millions of dollars (Cone and Woodard, ). Why the Action Learning Team Was Successful PepsiCo identified a number of elements that enabled their action learning projects to be successful. • Engage the executives early and often throughout the process. Involve them in proposing action learning projects derived from their own business unit. • Think beyond the stakeholder in the classroom and find out who the customer’s customers are and what success looks like for them. Each action learning project requires participants to interact with their customers to solve a problem for the retailer while simultaneously solving a problem for PepsiCo. Executive level commitment and involvement would not have occurred if the program’s value had not been framed in terms of the benefits to the retailers that the learning participants serve. • Seek out partnerships with other performance improvement experts that specialize in some aspect of the design. Although the up-front coordination becomes more complex, participants will have a much more robust and engaging experience.

80 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at PepsiCo • • • • • • • •

Integration of leadership development with problem solving and team building Urgent problems connected to business goals Deep and insightful understanding of the problem Corporate support for teams and corporate commitment to implementing strategies developed by teams Building on existing knowledge and capabilities Training in problem solving, metacognition, creativity, and strategic thinking Systematic analysis of problem and interactions with potential beneficiaries Search for outside-the-box solutions

• Put the education in the background and organizational results in the foreground. Giving participants real and substantial work to accomplish as part of their learning experience increases the relevance and effectiveness of the training and delivers immediate value to the organization. • Sharing responsibility for success leads to the richest learning experience for everyone involved (Cone and Woodard, ). For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at PepsiCo, see Table ..

Breakthrough Problem Solving in Sales and Marketing Action learning has the power to lead to increased market share, better global branding, new marketing and business strategies, defined market dynamics, lower costs, and better service. The problem-solving successes in sales and marketing that Nationwide Insurance, Lexus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and PepsiCo have enjoyed as a result of action learning have been experienced by numerous other organizations around the world—Sony Music, GE, and Samsung, to name just a few. Through the specific strategies and processes that are embedded in action learning, these companies have achieved breakthrough results in operations, model conceptualizations, market research, and product experimentation. In Chapter  we share the success stories of organizations that have used action learning to achieve breakthrough problem solving in the area of technology.

4

Technology Applications

O

continuously seeking more effective ways to capitalize on the power of technology—be it to increase production, decrease costs, expand knowledge, adapt successes, or incorporate companywide resources. Technology has significant impact on the structure, management, and functioning of every organization. It demands new patterns of work organization and affects individual jobs, the formation and structure of groups, as well as the nature of supervision and managerial roles. The adoption of a new technology can result in changes to lines of command and authority, and can make it necessary for a firm to reorganize and redesign jobs. Computer-based information and decision support systems influence choices in the construction of production and service activities, hierarchical structures, and the organization of support staff. Technology also influences the centralization and decentralization of decision making and control systems. New technology has likewise resulted in a flatter organizational pyramid with fewer levels of management required (Waddill and Marquardt, ). Action learning projects have assisted numerous organizations in harnessing the power of technology to maximize both their internal and their external operations. In this chapter, we present three such stories—from Goodrich in Charlotte, North Carolina; Kirin Brewery in Japan; and Krones Bottling in Germany.

r g a n i z at i o n s a r e

81

82 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Goodrich Corporation Goodrich Corporation is a leading global supplier of systems and services to the aerospace and defense industry. With  revenues of $ billion, Goodrich employs over , people in  countries. Today’s Goodrich is dramatically different from the company Benjamin Franklin Goodrich created in . Once known as one of the world’s largest and most respected manufacturers of rubber products, the tire portion of the company was sold to Michelin in . Over the next two decades the company made over  acquisitions to transform itself into an aerospace and defense company. In  Goodrich dropped the “BF” from its name, sold its chemicals and performance materials businesses, and became Goodrich Corporation—focused entirely on aerospace and defense, playing a significant role on new aircraft like the Boeing , the Airbus A, and the Lockheed Martin F- Lightning II. Innovation is what has driven the company to its current and future success. Goodrich continues to acquire new businesses and to expand its position in areas for new growth in the industry, including the Middle East and Asia. Action learning became an integral part of leadership development and problem solving at the company in  when Goodrich elected to utilize action learning in its first enterprise executive leadership development program—Executive Development for Global Excellence (EDGE). The program was developed through a series of strategic workshops in which current leaders and their teams assessed and predicted the qualities and skills future Goodrich leaders would need to possess. This engagement of existing leaders in linking future leader requirements directly to the anticipated business strategy has been a key success factor for the EDGE program. EDGE participants utilize action learning as they work on real, urgent, important, enterprise business issues. The  participants are split into four teams, each of which is presented with a problem, selected by the CEO but presented to them by a project sponsor (problem presenter), a current senior leader who will play a “consultative role” during the life of the action learning project team. The team members continue in their “day jobs” while over the next three months they formulate a project plan to deliver to the executive leadership. Typically, the team members are

Technology Applications

83

from different functions and business units, and are always in different geographic locations. The Challenging Problem Helen Goldson, vice president of talent management at Goodrich, describes one action learning success at the company: A critical problem recently tackled by one action learning group was: How, when, and where might Goodrich implement the plan for a corporate Electronics Center? Goodrich has  business units, some of which have electronics capability and others that do not. Changing market conditions and an increasing trend in the aerospace industry toward more electronic aircraft meant that in the company’s nonelectronic businesses there was a need to buy electronics capability from other sources, which would lessen its control of intellectual property. Goodrich’s businesses had historically been standalone and independent, providing very different technologies and products to commercial aerospace and defense customers. There had been little collaboration across divisions or segments. Therefore creating and operating an enterprise “shared service” to provide electronics design and manufacturing capability to Goodrich’s “nonelectronic” business units could be the solution to a critical strategic business imperative.

How the Action Learning Team Solved the Problem The action learning team was introduced to this problem by their project sponsor at Goodrich’s annual leadership conference in January . The team members, selected randomly from a cohort of  people, spent their first action learning session trying to establish a collective understanding of the problem, the scope of the problem, and how their own skills and experience around the issue might play out as they worked together. Another issue for the action learning team was how they would work together remotely and across time zones with their action learning coach. According to Goldson, the action learning team quickly developed a comprehensive project plan working backwards from their deliverable deadline. They identified a list of stakeholders and a list of questions for each one to answer. A large concern for the action learning team was the fact that a decision had been approved to proceed with establishing a Goodrich Electronics System Center in Phoenix, utilizing newly created space in an existing business that was close to a source of newly available talent. The action

84 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

learning project team thus needed to quickly refocus and rescope their project and redefine their problem statement. The Breakthrough The “aha” moment for the action learning team came when they were considering how best to add value to the existing work and what new deliverables would accelerate progress and ensure the success of the new venture. This pivotal moment occurred when the team had been working together virtually for nearly six weeks. The depth and breadth of their questioning led them to identify some key strategic deliverables. After establishing where to focus their efforts and what to “go after” in making their recommendations, the team met with their project sponsor, the local business unit president, who would be a major customer of the new Electronic Systems Center. The key breakthrough was identifying how they could add maximum value to the work already being undertaken. The action learning team realized through their questioning of each other that what was missing, and what would be essential to success, was an accurate “in-load” plan of the type/volume/timing of work that Electronic Systems Center would be getting. (An “in-load” plan is a hierarchy of steps that can be executed systematically.) In addition, they agreed that it was important to establish criteria for managing relationships and expectations around customer service, as well as communication and accounting strategies. The result was that the action learning team developed a comprehensive plan that provided the incoming leader of the new Electronic Systems Center with a robust schedule on which to base his hiring and equipment requirements. The team also developed solid recommendations for the center’s working practices and cost structure. The team’s biggest success, according to Goldson, was the part they played in preparing the organization to be more accepting of the change. The Electronic Systems Center was formally launched in February  and by December  employed over  people in Phoenix and in Bengaluru, India. Goodrich has successfully engaged in full certification of flight-critical equipment, in support of product transfers to best-cost countries, and in targeted research and development for full manufacturing production.

Technology Applications

85

Why the Action Learning Team Was Successful Goldson believes that what made the action learning team successful was its continuous review and refinement of the problem statement in line with changing business needs. The team adapted its approach and remained future-focused in order to deliver value to the stakeholders and ultimately therefore, to seek the best outcome for Goodrich. The team members stayed in close contact with all stakeholders and became a valuable resource for the new Electronic Systems Center leader and his leadership team as it was formed. Back in their own businesses, the team members assisted in driving the communications that helped develop awareness and understanding among their colleagues of the changes those business units were going through. The team members used their expertise and influence to help drive the change, and were highly engaged and totally committed to solving the problem. Goldson reports that Goodrich’s internal, full-time action learning coaches have guided numerous other successful action learning projects. Lessons learned and ideas developed from each of these projects are shared among the action learning teams and throughout Goodrich. Goodrich has recognized that “its dynamic increase in technological innovation and productivity is a result of the problem-solving capabilities of their action learning teams.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Goodrich, see Table ..  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Goodrich • Persistence in identifying the real, root problem • Utilization of a number of problem-solving strategies such as reconstructive analysis, power of analogies, and root-cause means-end analysis • Depth and breadth of questions asked • Collaboration across teams • Willingness of organization to change • Commitment of top management to implementing the strategies selected • Expertise and experiences of group members • Full-time action learning coaches dedicated to developing the metacognitive capabilities of team members • Systems thinking • Willingness to challenge assumptions

86 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Kirin Brewery The Kirin Group is one of the leading food and beverage companies in the Asia-Oceania region, with products that include alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, foods, and pharmaceuticals. Kirin Brewery was founded in  and has held the top market share in Japan for most of its plus years of existence. In  sales topped . million yen. Over , employees worldwide work for Kirin Brewery. Ms. Megumi Hayasaka, a Kirin HR director, describes how and why action learning was introduced into the company: Recently, a Japanese competitor overtook Kirin in sales in the Asia-Oceania region, and the company began to explore ways to recapture its leadership in the marketplace and to strength its corporate climate. The tool they chose was action learning, and we immediately decided to establish a strong internal capability in action learning. With help from the Japan Institute for Action Learning (JIAL), we developed an in-house action learning program which trained over  action learning coaches who coordinated over  action learning projects throughout the factories, logistics and sales departments of Kirin.

As of early , more than  Kirin employees had participated in the action learning program. According to Hayasaka, action learning has “greatly improved the communications, the overall corporate culture, and the productivity of Kirin Brewery, and we see huge improvement in personal growth and team power.” Action Learning Project 1—Changing the Kirin Can Kirin Brewery was having trouble with the quality of its cans, a problem that began affecting sales and relationship with customers. An action learning team was formed with members from four business units—customer service, sales, manufacturing, and quality control. These business units had not worked together in the past. In the action learning sessions, the members developed a series of survey questions to ask the company’s customers. Among the problems identified by the customers was the thinness of the cans, which, although inexpensive to produce, occasionally malfunctioned.

Technology Applications

87

The action learning team developed a strategy for producing a higher-quality can. The technology needed to redesign the can was relatively simple, and the resulting can not only took less time to manufacture, but also was less costly and received fewer customer complaints. Not only did the action learning team develop breakthrough ideas for Kirin, but action learning helped to develop new and creative teamwork and communications among departments that had never worked together before. Action Learning Project 2— Changing the Kirin Corporate Culture—V10 and Action Learning Since , Kirin Brewery Company has been working on reforming the organizational climate in an effort to become “a company where all are heroes and heroines.” According to Hayasaka: The culture did not change easily. Prior to the organization climate improvement program, we tried to set our focus on building customers, a battle we were losing. Our competitors expanded and we were even further left behind. Communications and utilization of technology within and outside the organization was not effective. That is how the V project got kicked off, its motto being the “creation of corporate climate where each employee think and act on his own.” We wanted to create a culture and communications system where the front-line opinions were speedily reflected to the top management.

After three years using other tools and methodologies without much success, Kirin Brewery brought in action learning. The company quickly discovered the power of action learning “to increase team power and to improve organizational power in developing the Balanced Score Card.” Why the Action Learning Teams Were Successful Hayasaka notes, poetically, that “when we see a tree growing strongly, we know that this tree needs to grow roots to absorb water and nutrients. When it comes to a company, the veins of the tree are its vision and the brand values. If the soil is too hard, the root cannot grow—so the soil needs to be softened. At Kirin, the internal action learning coaches acted as the ‘worms’ to connect active personal networks, and action learning softened the soil. Kirin is now a company which works across and among the departments so well that we are now ‘internally borderless.’”

88 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Kirin • • • • • • • •

Commitment to determining clear goals Use of reconstructive analysis in solving problem Fresh, open questions Diverse teams Urgent, business-related problem Excellent communications and strong teamwork Skilled action learning coaches Linking learning on leadership skills, problem solving, and creative thinking with the group’s actions and in post-group implementation of strategies

Kirin has successfully deployed action learning and continues to expand the use of action learning all across the organization. Hayasaka reports that “Thanks to action learning, there has been huge improvements at the individual, team and organizational levels, both with people and with technology. Action learning has dramatically improved our performance and helped us to regain our market leadership in the Asia-Oceania market.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Kirin, see Table ..

Krones Krones, a German-based machinery manufacturer, was founded by the innovator Hermann Kronseder in  in the brewing region of Bavaria. Its first machine was a fully automatic labeler for the small local breweries. Krones is currently the world market leader for bottling equipment and services: labelers, fillers, inspectors of brewhouse equipment, as well as IT systems, logistics, and services. In , Krones created the Krones Academy to develop the leadership capabilities of its customer firms (which included Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Heineken, SAB, and Nestlé), as well as to assist them in operating and maintaining their equipment, improving product quality, and reducing production costs. In  action learning became an integral part of the academy. Managers were asked to bring urgent problems to their leadership development program. Teams composed of managers from various companies assist each other in solving problems and searching for breakthrough strategies. The problems raised by the managers were related to

Technology Applications

89

price fluctuations, cost pressure from supermarket chains, and the shortage of competent employees, especially in developing countries where the bottling industry is growing most quickly. Action Learning/Leadership Program The Krones Leadership Program is built around problem solving. The managers meet in multiple action learning groups during their participation in the three modules of the Leadership Program. Managers meet in small groups to share their experiences and ask each other questions about their experiences, ideas, and strategies. A brief synopsis of the three modules is provided in Table .. The Complex Problem and the Breakthrough Strategy A common challenge faced by managers of bottling plants is raising line efficiency. The machines to fill, label, and pack water, fruit juice, beer, and soft drinks have an output capability of , to , bottles per hour. If the machines are well maintained, the plants run the machines at  to  percent line efficiency. Often, however, efficiency is only  to  percent, which can reduce the return on investment (ROI) by approximately $ million per year. In , the manager of a German brewery with  employees achieved a breakthrough strategy using action learning. His brewery increased line  . Krones Leadership Development Program Module 1, Problem Analysis. This module provides management with a summary of line efficiency tools and methods, such as how to measure overall equipment effectiveness, primary areas for losses of efficiency and ways to identify them, and “Quick Check” hand-out used to identify areas for improvement. This step of action learning helps the managers to analyze and develop their personal strategy for tackling a complex challenge. Module 2, Project Improvement. After approximately two months, the same teams meet again. Topics include how to enlist organizational support for the improvement of operations,  how to improve the efficiency of routine tasks, conflict management, employee motivation, leadership, problem solving, and strategic thinking. Module 3, Total Project Management (TPM) and Sustainable Change. Twelve months later the action learning groups meet again. This time the focus is on how to make a change sustainable by stabilizing the culture of the organization. Best practices and lessons learned from successful projects, success factors for achieving sustainable change, and the role of a manager in TPM are the main topics. The participant’s attitude now is focused on long-term success factors.

90 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

efficiency by  percent over a three-year period, from  hectoliters/hour to nearly  hectoliters/hour. At the same time, the need for employees to work overtime was reduced, which improved the work-life balance of his operators. How did action learning help this manager to reach this target? Here is how the manager describes the successful experience: I joined an action learning group in the Krones Academy management training program shortly after I took over the responsibility to run this German brewery. After a turbulent time with interim managers, the staff was very unmotivated, the line efficiency was below  percent, and the production cost per case was extremely high. With the help of the questions from my peers in the action learning group, I gained confidence that I could solve the problems. I truly believed that I could influence the production of my plant. I set a breakthrough target that I knew was very ambitious—improvement in line efficiency by  percent over the next two years. During the action learning session, I identified the weak aspects of my production line—namely, the cleaning unit for the empty bottles and the labeler were old and not well maintained. As a result of the action learning session during module one, I decided upon three actions: () in the case of the labeler, the action was an overhaul by a professional external engineer, () the bottle washer was replaced by a new machine with the additional advantage of a reduction of energy consumption of  percent, and () to facilitate easier and better maintenance for operators and engineers, the necessary tools were placed near the respective machines. I noted that my employees were skeptical about the ideas of the ambitious new boss: “Does the change require more work? Will it change the working habits I am now used to?” To overcome these questions and the resistance of the workers, I found the second module of the Krones Academy very helpful. I gained many new insights about leadership, how to handle conflict, how to enable employees to accept change, how to solve problems, how to think strategically. During the second module, my action learning team helped me to collect additional ideas for improvement and gave me ideas about how to build trust with my employees. Two ideas that proved to be most helpful to me: () improve communication by holding short daily, weekly, and monthly meetings with a clear structure, and () establish regular contact between management and the shop floor during which problems can be discussed and solved at the specific place where they occurred. Now the change process began flowing well. Improvements in machine

Technology Applications

91

technology and maintenance were showing results. The line efficiency rose in the first year by more than  percent, the maintenance engineers had to do less “fire-fighting” and could do more planned maintenance, and the operators could complete more of the work in normal hours and had less unplanned overtime. In the third Krones Academy module, the focus was on changing structures, processes, and collaboration so as to sustain the improvements in the bottling plant. Our action learning group concentrated on how to use the methods of total project management (TPM) so as to stabilize the improvements. Again, the action learning group helped me to identify clear actions that would benefit the brewery operations—namely, gain expertise in TPM in order to continuously improve the processes, develop a project structure for improving project flow, and build better leadership and problem-solving capabilities among my employees. Today, I smile and am grateful for how action learning helped me solve a complex problem and successfully sustain the results. While at the beginning I had to tell everyone what to do, today my employees see problems themselves and act to make the necessary changes. I have more time now and my employees are happy, as we can do our work during normal working hours. Our maintenance and operational procedures are much clearer. I am happy that I experienced the help of action learning at the Krones Academy so that I could begin asking the right questions and focusing on the right actions. The results of breakthrough strategy via action learning are clearly visible in our productivity and profitability figures. Our brewery over the recent three years increased the line efficiency by  percent, from about  percent ( hl/hour to nearly) to  percent ( hl/hour). At the same time the work-life balance of the operators has significantly improved. Overtime work during summer has been dramatically reduced. And today we are among the most profitable plants in our group of breweries.

For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Krones, see Table . on page 92.

Breakthrough Problem Solving through the Application of Technology As described in this chapter, Goodrich Corporation, Krones, and Kirin Brewery have used action learning to capitalize on technology and discov-

92 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Krones • • • • • • • •

Integration of leadership development and problem solving Diverse group membership in action learning teams Commitment to breakthrough thinking Time and resources devoted to solving the problem Questions from diverse perspectives Openness to new ideas Urgent, challenging problem Systemic and sustainable application of strategies and actions

er breakthrough applications. Action learning helped them achieve strategic alignment, higher productivity, and better quality. A growing number of other companies, including Nokia, NEC, Cathay Pacific, and Samsung, have also employed action learning to better utilize new technologies and thereby expand their production capacity, reach more customers, improve products, and better manage the work of their employees. In Chapter  we explore how organizations are using action learning to develop environmentally sound products as well as create sustainable environments.

5

Environment and Sustainability

O

are trying to “go green” as well as let their customers know that they are socially responsible and care about saving the environment. Such commitments may be both good public relations and good business. According to an article in the June , , Wall Street Journal, a study of more than  companies found that a company’s commitment to social and environmental conditions can be the key to maximizing its profits and operational growth (Siegel, ). The companies most engaged in social and environmental sustainability are also the most profitable. On the production side, according to the study, companies that are able to maximize their use of recycled or renewable raw materials in environmentally friendly energy supplies are also the most successful. Thus there are benefits for activities such as designing production lines to use water and energy efficiently, replacing obsolete machinery, and continuously looking for opportunities to reduce waste, and minimizing harmful emissions into the air and water. The most successful companies enforce safety standards strictly as well as improve them over time. Finally, companies that support local communities with initiatives in education, health care, environmental protection, and agricultural development have more long-term success in the countries in which they operate. As a result, they end up with better employees, more efficient production,

r g a niz at i o ns a r o u nd t he wo rl d

93

94 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

smoother relationships with authorities, and better coordination with suppliers. With all these advantages of being socially and environmentally responsible, one would expect more companies to search for strategies and actions that could attain a positive triple bottom line: profits, employee satisfaction, and environmental benefit. Achieving the triple bottom line is very difficult, and most organizations lack the organizational competence to do so. This chapter describes how DuPont used action learning in developing breakthrough strategies for “going green,” in both the development and delivery of its products around the world. We also tell the story of how several Caribbean countries used action learning to improve the environment through better water management. Finally, we describe how action learning was used by the UN Environment Programme to design and build an energy-neutral headquarters in Nairobi and by the Downer Group to develop a Road Analysis Control (RAC) system to reduce waste.

DuPont DuPont is an American chemical company that was founded in July  as a gunpowder mill by Eleuthère Irénée du Pont. It is the world’s third largest chemical company with revenues of $. billion in . With nearly , employees, DuPont operates in more than  countries and offers a wide range of products and services, including agriculture, nutrition, electronics, communications, safety and protection, home and construction, transportation, and apparel. Research and development (R&D) is critical to DuPont’s success; the company operates more than  R&D and customer services labs in  countries (DuPont, ). Action learning has been an integral part of the DuPont culture since the early s. Chad Holliday, while CEO of DuPont, turned his Monday morning meetings with his senior vice presidents into mini–action learning sessions. Each meeting included an opportunity for a designated vice president to present a major problem or challenge affecting his or her business. Holliday and the other VPs would then ask questions to help clarify the problem and suggest strategies for addressing it (Marquardt, ).

Environment and Sustainability

95

Holliday went on to become chairman of the Council on Competitiveness and the Business Roundtable’s Task Force for Environment, Technology and Economy; previously he was chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. At DuPont he encouraged senior leaders to use action learning to create “sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere.” These leaders were involved in the action learning projects both as group members and as corporate sponsors. DuPont customers, as well as DuPont staff, were also enlisted to serve on action learning teams. New as well as existing products were reviewed and improved using action learning as a way to ensure environmental and corporate sustainability. DuPont’s Commitment to the Environment In the s, DuPont became one of the first companies to publicly establish environmental goals. The company’s initial focus was on reducing emissions into the environment, and its goals and commitments to social responsibility relative to the environment have continued to evolve. In , DuPont expanded its sustainability commitments beyond footprint reduction to include market-driven targets for both revenue and research and development investment. DuPont’s vision is to “put science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere.” And it is to span all operations from research and development to manufacturing and marketing. DuPont ties its environmental goals directly to business growth, believing that its ability to adapt to change, to be innovative, and to solve complex problems continually are critical to its success. Ellen Kullman, current CEO and chair of the board, stated in a letter written in  to stockholders and staff: At DuPont, we are responding to specific megatrends—driven by global population growth—and determining how we, as a company, can make a difference. These megatrends include increasing food production, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels, protecting lives and the environment, and meeting emerging market demand for value-added, science based solutions. Because these challenges are complex and beyond the capacity of any one organization to solve, we are bringing the power of DuPont science together with partners around the world.

96 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

The Complex Challenges Faced by DuPont Top leaders in DuPont serve as executive sponsors or operational sponsors for action learning projects. Action learning teams include members from all parts of the organization. Projects focus on high-growth business with targeted markets, products, competitive environment, and revenue milestones. Action learning has been utilized in all the key product areas of DuPont with the idea of producing corporate benefits related to environment and social responsibility. DuPont faces challenges and opportunities in each of the following areas: . Agriculture and nutrition—to improve grower productivity and creating innovative food sources, feed ingredients, and energy materials . Safety and protection—to provide solutions that make life safer and healthier, and achieve a safer, more environmentally responsible, and operationally superior workplace . Performance materials—to support the sustainability efforts of the food, beverage, and glass container industry by reducing the number of scrap bottles, subsequently reducing the carbon dioxide (CO) emissions per container . Performance chemicals—to create product renewal innovations such as next-generation refrigerants Action Learning Project 1. Corian®— The Path to Zero Landfill of Manufacturing Waste A cross-function action learning team at the DuPont Yerkes plant in Buffalo, New York, sought to prove that “the goal of zero” manufacturing waste is possible. They have successfully implemented a number of programs to reuse, reduce, and recycle Corian (a material used to construct countertops, for example) byproducts, significantly reducing the environmental footprint. As a result of these efforts, manufacturing waste has been reduced by more than  percent (DuPont, ). This action learning team has also found recycling opportunities for casting film, off-specification sheets, and wood pallets that saved millions of dollars per year with no capital investment. In , the team found a creative way to repurpose excess material to create a new premium offer-

Environment and Sustainability

97

ing called the Terra Collection, which achieved strong initial sales for DuPont in  and continues to gain market share. The Terra Collection product line contributes to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credits, a green building certification that is increasingly sought by architects and designers in building products. In another action learning initiative, Corian sheets that otherwise would have been sent to landfill were donated for construction of interactive children’s hospital playrooms. This was a win-win idea that helped the hospitals and promoted the health care value of Corian with hospital administrators, architects, and general contractors. Through connections within the local community and working closely with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the team identified a concrete recycling facility that successfully tested the usefulness of ground Corian as a construction material. Diverting Corian byproducts into this application reduced trucking mileage to landfills by  percent, thus also reducing the transportation carbon footprint. In addition to the cost savings and new sales revenue, the recycling initiatives of the Yerkes team have been recognized in the news media and have increased employee pride in DuPont as a responsible corporate citizen. The Yerkes team’s efforts have also helped establish DuPont as a leader in sustainability among architects and designers, enabling Corian to compete globally in a market increasingly focused on “green” building materials. The solutions developed by the team are now being leveraged across other manufacturing sites in Canada, Korea, Japan, and China (DuPont, ). DuPont Action Learning Project 2. Sabine River Works Another successful action learning project undertaken at DuPont involved the Sabine River Works Project. The Sabine River Works consumes a large amount of energy but the efficiency achievements have set an example for the entire DuPont Company. Since , CO emissions have dropped by  percent, BTUs consumed per pound of production decreased by  percent, and production increased by  percent. In  the energy savings were $ million dollars. The plant achieved savings by improving burner efficiency and converting waste streams into fuel. “Our

98 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at DuPont • Organizational commitment to continuous improvement and breakthrough thinking • Diverse membership on action learning teams • Urgent, business-related problems • Challenging questioning • Commitment to achieve environmental and business successes • Culture of continuous improvement and quality • Creative, systems-oriented problem solving • Top management support for action learning

teams did outstanding work in making meaningful and sustainable changes in our energy usage by assessing our opportunities for improvement and implementing a variety of creative solutions,” said Bobby Laughlin, Sabine’s site manager (DuPont, ). For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at DuPont, see Table ..

Caribbean Water Project The question “Who pays for water?” guided the Caribbean component of a global project sponsored by a number of organizations, including the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). The purpose of the global project was to increase understanding of the potential role of market mechanisms in promoting the provision of watershed services for improving livelihoods in developing countries, and included activities in India, Indonesia, South Africa, China, and Bolivia, in addition to the Caribbean. The Caribbean project focused primarily on strengthening the capacity of regional and national institutions to evaluate the potential of economic instruments (specifically payments for watershed services) to improve the quality and delivery of watershed services and local livelihoods (McIntosh et al., ). Each country adopted an action learning approach that involved a different set of actors. Each group had its own context-specific knowledge about watershed management, as well as its own set of questions and reflections. In the Caribbean, strong emphasis was placed throughout the project on both the process of action learning and the adaptive management of the projects. The Caribbean project needed to overcome the

Environment and Sustainability

99

unique challenge of implementing the project in and sharing information between five different countries with different institutional structures and covering a geographic territory spanning the island chain from Jamaica in the north to Trinidad and Tobago in the south. The Caribbean action learning process included the following actors and components:

•

•

•

•

•

•

a -person multi-stakeholder regional action learning group with representatives from all the project countries, plus at least one IIED representative and one Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) representative who took part in meetings of the global project steering group. This action learning group met at six-month intervals, rotating among the five project countries. two national multi-stakeholder learning groups in the main project countries, Jamaica and Saint Lucia, which met as needed to review project findings or adapt the project approach three sectoral action learning meetings, with participation from the members of the action learning group and additional representatives of the three main sectors upon which these meetings were based (water, tourism, and agriculture), especially those with potential to act as buyers and/or sellers of watershed services a study visit to Costa Rica to examine institutional arrangements for markets for environmental services, which involved a subset of the regional action learning group training workshops for the action learning group and national learning group members on economic valuation, land use and hydrology assessment, and participatory resource mapping analysis by CANARI of a range of case studies of incipient or potential payment for watershed services (PWS) schemes that were then shared with the action learning group and national learning group members

The Water Challenges The primary objective of the action learning project was to “build a community of change agents prepared to adapt and shape new watershed market initiatives and disseminate learning from the project in their countries and sectors” (McIntosh et al., ). The regional action learn-

100 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

ing group also served as a project steering committee, helping to adapt the design of individual project components to overcome challenges (e.g., the passage of Hurricane Ivan and the unavailability of anticipated data), respond to new project findings (e.g., the limited potential of tourism certification schemes as the basis for payment mechanisms), identify new research priorities that emerged from regional and national action learning group discussions and case study analyses (e.g., analysis of the impact of agricultural policy incentives on watershed practice), and identify new project case studies (e.g., a fledgling payment for a watershed services scheme in Saint Vincent). Work of the Action Learning Team The action learning team included representatives of government forestry departments, water resource management agencies, and environmental planning and management agencies, plus two representatives from academia and nongovernmental organizations. This diverse membership produced valuable and differing perspectives and contributions. Later, members with expertise in tourism, land use planning, the private sector, and public utilities were added to the team. All action learning activities were conducted in an informal setting, designed to facilitate experiential learning and stimulate participation from all stakeholders. This structure facilitated open dialogue between members, whose opportunities to interact with other sectors, either within their own countries or in the wider region, had, in the past, been limited to formal meetings. Meetings were rotated among participating islands (McIntosh et al., ). Numerous field trips to case study sites were conducted over the duration of the action learning project. Panel discussions between action learning group members and local stakeholders from nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and other government agencies provided a rich exchange of ideas. Diagnostic studies of incentive regimes were conducted in all the project countries except St. Vincent and the Grenadines before the inception of the project. These informed the initial design of the project, which was subsequently refined through consultations between action learn-

Environment and Sustainability

101

ing group members at the regional and national level. Both the conceptual framework and the selection of sites and case studies for the research relied heavily on the collective knowledge of action learning group members and the rich exchanges on issues such as (a) the level of national or local concern about the degradation of watersheds and watershed services and/or the increasing costs of watershed management and water supply; (b) whether the country had or was in the process of privatizing water supply or introducing metering for water; (c) the potential to build on existing “experiments” or incentive schemes that had the dual objective of improving watershed services and contributing to livelihoods; (d) the availability of relevant hydrological and economic data; (e) the willingness of the agencies with formal responsibility for watershed management (usually the Forestry Department) to collaborate on the project; (f) the potential to leverage additional resources provided by externally funded projects; and (g) the existence of economic actors (e.g., tourism, water, and agriculture sectors) who were clear beneficiaries of watershed services but were perceived not to be paying the full costs (McIntosh et al., ). The Breakthroughs Members of the regional and national action learning groups were able to draw on their existing networks of contacts in the countries. They were also able to catalyze knowledge sharing with other key stakeholders in their countries. The five project countries shared many common watershed management issues but proved to have different capacities and diverse policy, legal, and institutional frameworks. These differences added to learning between countries but also compounded the complexity of regional analysis and conclusions. For example, some of the institutional models being tried in Jamaica, which initially seemed of interest to the other countries, were determined to be less appropriate for a different geographic scale or political systems with weaker local governance. The action learning groups at the national level in Jamaica and Saint Lucia proved to be very valuable in bringing together different stakeholder perspectives and refining the characterization of the watershed management challenges and consequently the potential or otherwise for marketbased solutions. For example, in Saint Lucia it rapidly became clear that a

102 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

key stakeholder and potential buyer of services, the Water and Sewerage Company, remained unconvinced of the impact of the community-based Water Catchment Group’s activities on the water quantity and quality. In Jamaica, a member of the Coffee Board changed the local action learning group’s initial perception that Blue Mountain coffee growers would not shift to shade-grown coffee because the economic incentives were insufficient. Instead, he pointed out that there was already an adequate premium attached to shade-grown coffee but that clear-cutting continued because it is the only identified way of preventing American leaf spot fungus. In the end, the Jamaican group was able to conclude that other land use management practices could be implemented by coffee growers to reduce soil erosion and chemical contamination of the watercourses (McIntosh et al., ). Challenges Faced by the Action Learning Team Adaptive learning in the face of challenges and emerging issues was a feature of the project implementation at the regional, national, and project management levels. For example, in both main pilot sites some of the preconditions for a market-based scheme were absent (e.g., identification of a willing buyer and preconditions such as the availability of data to demonstrate effectiveness of interventions, systematic monitoring, and evaluation). Similarly, it was determined that the potential of tourism certification schemes to stimulate or promote market-based mechanisms was limited within the project time frame. The action learning group uncovered a number of key constraints to the implementation of PWS in the Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS), namely: • a fragmented policy and institutional framework in which independently developed and often conflicting laws and incentives from different sectors militate against an integrated approach to watershed management • informal land occupancy and/or lack of tenure security for key groups within the upper watershed, which complicates any formal contractual arrangements • a policy environment anchored more in concepts of social justice than market efficiency

Environment and Sustainability

103

• subsidized water pricing, particularly for certain economic sectors such as agriculture, and a resistance from both politicians and consumers to full-cost pricing • scarcity of willing downstream buyers on a scale that matched the extent of upstream remedial action required • high transaction costs relative to the small scale of the watersheds and the value of the services secured • data gaps and, in many cases, insufficient human capacity within national institutions to identify critical problems for watershed services, design desirable land use interventions and quantify their hydrological impacts, and conduct economic analyses to determine the potential of payment schemes to address the problems (McIntosh et al., ) Benefits Accrued from Action Learning These analyses undertaken by the action learning team contributed significantly to an improved regional understanding of the prerequisites for selecting potential PWS sites. They also provided a greater understanding of the alternatives, including ideas as to what constitutes effective incentive and community-based watershed management programs. Among the key lessons learned from the Caribbean action learning project were: • PWS cannot substitute for effective land use planning or poverty reduction strategies, particularly in restricted geographic areas. In many Caribbean islands there is no comprehensive or up-to-date land use plan, and legislation is often conflicting and/or unenforced. Development for housing or tourism is a major contributor to watershed degradation, yet incentive schemes designed to secure watershed services are targeted mainly at small-scale farmers. • An effective integrated institutional structure for watershed management must have a legal basis for power, clear authority, and the ability to devolve power and authority to well-funded and technically competent local watershed institutions. • The tools and methods that underpin PWS, such as the valuation of watershed services, hydrological assessments, the design of appropriate land use interventions, and participatory resource mapping, can be

104 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

• •

• •

•

useful in determining what is the most effective approach to watershed management in a specific context. The water, tourism, and agricultural sectors offer the greatest potential to become “buyers” of enhanced watershed services in the Caribbean. Progress toward PWS needs to be underpinned by a valuation of sectoral contributions to and benefits from watershed services and an assessment of the efficacy and equity of existing tax regimes. Sectoral policies must reflect the importance of watershed services (as is the case with the new agricultural incentives regime in Saint Lucia). PWS needs to develop appropriate and attractive incentives and remove perverse incentives or subsidies (e.g., those that encourage the use of pesticides). Direct benefits are not the only motivation for buyers. For example, many of the incentives and rewards identified in the case of Fondes Amandes, Trinidad, came not from direct beneficiaries but from organizations and agencies with no direct stake in the protection of the watershed (McIntosh et al., ).

As noted earlier, action learning in this project was not restricted to the Caribbean. It also took place at the international level through meetings involving the entire IIED project team, external advisers, and project leaders from all the countries. In addition, IIED staff attended action learning meetings and acted as a channel for knowledge sharing between the global and regional projects. Although there were few obvious points of comparison between the Caribbean project countries, with their small and micro-watersheds and more centralized forms of government, and the other much larger countries, the exchanges with the other countries were useful in terms of (a) exposing Caribbean staff to contexts in which the prerequisites for PWS actually existed (e.g., in South Africa where watershed problems are acute, data abundant, and tenurial arrangements secure); (b) validating and/or comparing approaches (e.g., the selection of test sites for PWS); (c) providing a broader global context to the conceptual frameworks adopted in the Caribbean (e.g., developing thinking about prerequisites for PWS); (d) updating the Caribbean project team on the latest thinking on watershed

Environment and Sustainability

105

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs in the Caribbean • Wide diversity of team members—nationalities, disciplines, and levels • Openness to different values and ideas • Analysis led to understanding of the complexity, opaqueness, interconnectedness, dynamics, and polytely of the problem • Recognition and understanding of the adaptive, continuously changing problem • Reflection and dialogue • Intensive problem analysis • Use of variety of problem-solving strategies, including incremental problem solving, reconstructive analysis, managing life cycle, generation of challenging ideas, use of analogies, and root-cause analysis • Strong team cohesiveness • Connections to the wider community and use of external resources and ideas

management and PWS (e.g., definition of criteria by which PWS might be distinguished from other approaches), and (e) deriving some common lessons on the application of PWS at local levels (McIntosh et al., ). The members of the action learning groups and the participants in the sectoral meetings, as well as those consulted and involved in the local case studies, all found the action learning process valuable for exchanging knowledge between countries, between sectors, and between potential buyers and sellers of watershed services. They noted in the evaluations at the end of the sectoral meeting and the final action learning group meeting that the project had facilitated the development or reinforcement of relationships between formal managers, informal managers, and beneficiaries of watershed services, including opportunities for both traditional and scientific knowledge to contribute to a more widespread valuing of the range of services that watersheds provide (McIntosh et al., ). For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs in the Caribbean, see Table ..

Downer Group The Downer Group is a leading supplier of services to the infrastructure, mining, metals, and energy sectors in New Zealand, Australia, the Asia-Pacific region, and the United Kingdom. With over , employees worldwide, Downer provides a comprehensive range of services to its clients throughout the life cycle of their physical infrastructure assets, from “front end” consulting and design through the creation, operation, maintenance,

106 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

upgrade/expansion, and final decommissioning. Downer has evolved from simply providing skills and products to its clients to developing and delivering client-focused service solutions, and ultimately to working with clients to redefine the company’s market position and coverage. In recent years, the Downer Group has made a strong commitment to sustainable development and preserving the environment. Downer’s goal is: to reduce our ecological footprint, increase the sustainability of our products and services, and have a positive influence on the local communities in which we participate through our day-to-day operations. We are committed to the development of robust environmental management systems and resource efficiency programs that will sustain our natural environment for future generations. We continue to identify business opportunities through climate change solutions and develop our capability in key sustainability service offerings such as low energy products, renewable energy, and sustainable transport. We are committed to lowering our fuel and energy consumption in order to further reduce our carbon footprint.

The Fuel Burn Problem A  action learning project was built around the issue of the rate of fuel burn before and after road haul improvement at one of the company’s sites. (Fuel burn refers to the rate at which fuel is consumed by a vehicle, and road haul refers to the condition of a road that is built to carry heavy trucks at good speed.) Low fuel burn could be caused by poor road haul conditions, by dump trucks not reaching their maximum speed, or by low payloads. Upon analysis, it was discovered that trucks were not carrying the maximum density weight of loose material. However, it was also evident that the trucks did not have the capacity to carry bigger loads since material was already falling out of the back and sides of the truck beds. More questioning and reflection revealed that by altering the angle of repose (the angle the material can reach before it rolls down or spreads out) and creating larger sides on the trucks, the average loose cubic meter tonnage per truck could be increased significantly. This was a major breakthrough for the action learning project. The Breakthrough A Road Analysis Control (RAC) system was established, which measures haul road improvement and efficiencies and tells the digger oper-

Environment and Sustainability

107

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Downer • • • • • • • •

Root-cause analysis Learning and action intertwined Strong and positive group norms Intensive questions from various perspectives Skilled facilitation by action learning coach Reflection and dialogue Creative insights Commitment to sustainable development

ators instantly how much weight each load is carrying, thus ensuring the maximum payload is reached on each truckload. This allowed the payload per truck to be increased significantly, and the total loading costs decreased accordingly. A  percent payload improvement has been recorded, which, when extrapolated across Downer’s mining projects, has resulted in maximum payloads being achieved with a great return on investment. The benefit to Downer has been calculated at over $ million. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Downer, see Table ..

United Nations Environment Programme The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) coordinates the UN‘s environmental activities and helps developing countries to implement environmentally sound policies and practices. It was founded in June  and has its headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP’s mission is to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations. UNEP is an advocate, educator, catalyst, and facilitator, promoting the wise use of the planet’s natural assets for sustainable development (UNEP, ). The Complex Problem When the United Nations outgrew the office accommodations at its -acre Gigiri compound in Nairobi, it was clear that any new building would have to meet several challenges head-on. It would need to be energy

108 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

and water efficient, to reduce and recycle, and to maximize sustainability without compromising the quality of the working environment. Although UNEP programs have been climate neutral since , in Nairobi they also took on the tough challenge of developing a state-of-the-art, energy-neutral UN office building. Having carried out comprehensive background studies on areas such as energy production, lighting, and hardware, it became clear that the greatest challenges in achieving energy neutrality were the high-energy components, specifically information technology and lighting. Achieving energy neutrality would require producing as much power as the building consumed over the course of the year. In designing the building, UNEP discovered that the IT component of their operations was consuming the most energy and was the largest inhibitor to becoming energy neutral. Relying on traditional IT policies would consume so much energy that the goal of energy neutrality would be unreachable. Thus the challenge faced by the action learning group: How to design a new, energy-neutral building that would showcase innovative design and technology? Action Learning Team In March , an action learning team composed of UNEP officials and Microsoft leaders met for three days in Nairobi to develop a strategic plan for designing and building the new UNEP headquarters building. The team developed strategies and plans for fund raising, data collection, IT assessment, solar panel implementation, culture change, and marketing. The design and construction of the building were completed over a period of several months. The Breakthrough UNEP Building The key design element allowing the UNEP building to be energy neutral was to make the building act like a chimney, drawing warm air up from ground level and through the office areas, then allowing it to escape beneath the sides of the vaulted roof in order to maintain comfortable temperatures in the offices and air circulation throughout the building

Environment and Sustainability

109

In addition to energy-efficient electric lighting, there are atriums that provide natural lighting, fountains that use recycled water inside the building, the largest solar panel array in Africa (roughly , square meters), an innovative IT equipment cooling system, and the first ITPAC (IT pre-assembled components) data center in Africa, with the equipment placed out of doors for natural cooling. The building reduces greenhouse gas emissions and saves $, in energy usage each year. The four buildings, linked by airy walkways, flooded with natural light, and with green areas individually landscaped and themed, can accommodate , staff. Solar panels cover the roof space, automated low-energy lighting illuminates workspaces, and energy-efficient computers sit on desks. Rainwater is collected from the roofs to feed the fountains and ponds at the four entrances, and sewage is treated in a state-of-the-art aeration system and recycled to irrigate the beautifully landscaped compound. Water-saving lavatories, a central atrium, and light wells in every office zone, together with an inventive design that maximizes cooling natural airflow through the building, all contribute further to sustainability. And far from compromising the working environment, the new building and its environmentally responsible features are acknowledged to be a huge enhancement of the surroundings and comfort in which its new occupants work (UNEP, ). The ITPAC technology uses fans to create negative pressure, drawing outside air through the container to cool equipment. As a result, the technology dramatically reduces the typical data center carbon footprint and the consumption of materials such as water, concrete, steel, piping, and copper, along with the additional carbon footprint associated with the packaging and transporting of servers, equipment, and supplies. Frank McCosker, who coordinated Microsoft’s involvement in the action learning project, notes: This piece of cutting-edge technology illustrates how it is possible to create sustainable st-century work environments. And implementing green IT policies like the highly efficient ITPAC data center is not only ensuring the building’s energy neutrality, but also demonstrating the crucial role that technology can play in environmental sustainability.

110 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

We have estimated that with ITPAC data centers, the Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) ratio is often cut in half. In addition, the ITPAC’s technology also allows the building to leverage increased IT flexibility and scalability of advanced technologies like cloud computing—unlocking even greater efficiencies and allowing the UN staff in Nairobi to do more with less. Based on research Microsoft conducted with Accenture, we’ve found that the carbon emissions running Microsoft business applications were reduced by more than % when hosted in the cloud when compared to being installed on-premises (McCosker, ). A working building and a research facility, the building also serves as a sustainable showcase aiming to motivate others around the world to become part of the transition to a green economy. Moreover, the building is a testimony to the power of public-private partnerships and the potential for innovation through collaboration. “The new building takes environmental sustainability to a new level,” notes Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon attended the opening ceremonies in February , proclaiming that “the building is a living model of our sustainable future” (UNEP, ). Those who doubted it would be possible to bring in such an ambitious project on time and in budget were proved wrong. Instead the new office facility has become an international showcase for sustainable buildings and a central pillar of the United Nations’ broader goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For a list of factors that enabled breakthroughs at the UNEP, see Table ..  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs by the United Nations Environment Programme • • • •

Diverse team with membership from inside and outside UNEP Skilled, certified action learning coach Systemic questioning and reflection Inclusion of several problem-solving strategies such as power of analogies and generation of challenging ideas • Ability to access information and resources from numerous sources • Challenging problem with global implications and benefit • Ability to effectively work virtually

Environment and Sustainability

111

Breakthroughs in Environmentally Sound and Sustainable Development The four cases described in this chapter represent only the tip of the iceberg of organizations using action learning for breakthrough strategies related to the environment and sustainability. These and others have successfully translated science into practical sustainable solutions, built communities of change agents, and encouraged others in the wider community to work toward a safer and healthier environment. Many other companies, such as the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Nokia, have also successfully used action learning to change their cultures and practices while at the same time developing actions that are environmentally and socially constructive.

6

National and Community Development

N

in responding to the economic, educational, and social needs of their people. The application of action learning for national development began in the s when Reg Revans, a pioneer of action learning, started working in Belgium. At the time, Belgium’s annual economic growth was among the worst in Western Europe. Traditional economic measures had been tried, but with limited results. The country was eager to improve, and Reg Revans was asked to assist. Revans brought together five universities and  of Belgian’s largest organizations, representing some  percent of the country’s capital base. Within a few years, the results of the action learning efforts took Belgium from the bottom of Western European countries to the top in terms of year-to-year economic improvement, ahead of even Germany, Japan, and the United States (Barker, ). More recently, action learning has been used by numerous government ministries around the world to develop specific social or economic sectors of the country. For example, the Ministry of Education in Malaysia is using action learning to transform the country’s higher education institutions as “the stepping stone to developing its people and bringing Malaysia to developed country status by the year . Selected universities throughout Malaysia created action learning teams to solve specific challenges that they were facing in their communities as well as challenges 112

at i o n s fa c e t r em en d o u s c h a l l en g e s

National and Community Development

113

experienced by their students and faculties. Each university created action learning teams, who have been given the resources, training, and coaching to develop breakthrough strategies and actions. Action learning will then be applied in university classrooms and offices to transform the academic culture and to influence the national culture. Development is a process of social change, not merely a set of policies and programs instituted to achieve specific results. Though we often use the term “development” to mean economic progress, development can apply to political, social, and technological progress as well. In this chapter, we explore how action learning was used for the development of the health system in the Cook Islands, community development in Australia, and economic and social development in Wales and Kenya.

Health Development in the Cook Islands Suresh Vatsyayann, during his work as a United Nations volunteer in the Cook Islands, applied action learning in confronting the health problems of that nation. Upon arrival he quickly discovered that there was a rather alarming lack of general public health awareness in the community at large. Several domestic and public areas fell below the World Health Organization’s minimum standards. In addition, he was concerned that there appeared to be developing a semi-permanent need for expatriate officers like him, and was alarmed to note that the community saw this as inevitable and thus had little motivation to achieve a full understanding of public health, its rationale, and its practices for themselves. Through his efforts, a partnership was established among administrators, teachers, and informal and formal leaders of the island, as well as the staff attached to the health department on Atiu. They undertook an extensive action learning and research program to tackle the island’s health issues. The action learning teams began with the belief and assumption that the community should have the power to pursue its own health agenda. The Complex Problems The teams set out to assemble evidence that could lead to an understanding of the health, disease, demographic, and behavior patterns, as

114 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

well as the physical geography and the housing, external environment, education, and economic development standards of the community that influenced the health situation on Atiu. Their intention from the outset was also to utilize the research project as an in-service, on-the-spot manpower training program for the partners. The acquisition and analysis of data would be an important first step in encouraging sound and healthy practices at home and in the community. The action learning teams envisaged the project as having implications for the Cook Islands medical service as a whole, given Atiu’s health problems were fairly typical of those in in the other islands as well. How the Action Learning Teams Solved the Problem The action learning project afforded an opportunity to increase public health awareness, especially among leaders strategically placed to assist in disseminating the information to the public. One result of the action learning program was a structured series of videotapes, which were shown nationally in centers where public health education was promoted in forums and discussion groups. Nearly  of villagers attended at least one of these sessions. The action learning teams also considered how to address the prevalent problem of dental disease. It was determined that children at the Atiu primary school should be educated about oral health and be given toothbrushes and toothpaste so that they could learn to brush their teeth during the school day. By the end of the year, most of the children were brushing regularly at home. Recognizing the need for dental services, the action learning partners were able to obtain dental equipment and a dental chair for the school. At the village level, the action learning groups began mass treatments for intestinal worm infestations, head lice, and scabies; mass hair trimming, especially for the children, followed. A program to provide iron, folic acid, calcium, and fluoride supplements was put in place for most pregnant and lactating women. Every feasible method of health education was pursued to provide the public information from different sources and perspectives. A leading national newspaper, Atiu Journal, produced a series of approximately  articles about disease prevention and remedies. All of the common health,

National and Community Development

115

disease, and nutritional problems were discussed, one by one. The articles included information about the beneficial effects of local herbs as well as how and when they could be used. The Breakthroughs The action learning programs helped to create a sense of urgency in the community about the need to upgrade toilets and personal hygiene facilities. Through research and networking they were awarded a $, grant from the U.S. government to install flush toilets in the school and college, a first for any of the outer islands in the Cooks. These were installed within one year. After frequent meetings with groups such as the religious advisory council, parent committees, and the teaching staff at the college, the action learning groups concluded that adolescent pregnancy was a key and critical social problem. Pregnant girls had normally not been allowed to remain in school for fear that their presence would escalate the problem. Atiu was the first island to set aside this rule. There was no adolescent pregnancy reported during the two-year period following this rule change. And the college-bound pregnant girls were enlisted to talk to other young people about sex education. Collective action by the health department, the public works department, the Island Council, and the local government resulted in a dramatic improvement in the proper collection and disposal of garbage. The positive results included a near-total freedom from mosquito nuisance within a year. The philosophy that community involvement is the surest way to longterm health development in a society prompted the partners to support the residents’ formation of the “Atiu Health Promotion Committee,” which included employees from various government departments on the island. The committee became an active participant in every health planning and implementation activity on the island of Atiu. The partners felt that now their voice was heard at the national level. Why the Action Learning Teams Were Successful Action learning groups also helped to increase public health awareness among the young. Four nights a week, some  students who were inter-

116 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs in the Cook Islands • • • • • • •

Groups’ belief in their power and ability to solve problems and implement strategies Intensive problem analysis Systems perspective Consensus built on key issues and strategies Fresh questions from a variety of perspectives Commitment to improve community Wide diversity in community leaders involved in analysis, reframing, and implementation • Collective strategy development

ested in promoting health among their peers met with Health Department officials to listen to lectures, undertake practical work in designated homes, effect environmental improvement, learn about recommended treatments, learn how to build public awareness, and evaluate their own effectiveness in Atiuan public health development. Over the long term, action learning helped the island’s residents to plan the development of the Atiuan community. Most important, a new public health awareness was created at every level of society. Public health officials had, for the first time, comprehensive data to use in planning, whether for the extension and upgrading of public amenities or the construction of private housing. The Cook Islands experience, according to Suresh Vatsyayann, demonstrates that action learning can be used to develop public health awareness as well as confidence among the people that they can solve problems on their own. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs in the Cook Islands, see Table ..

Community Development in Maroochy Shire, Queensland, Australia Maroochy Shire is situated in southeast Queensland, one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. In the early s, a number of issues affected Maroochy, among them population growth, the changing nature and viability of traditional industries, increasing community requests for more direct involvement in decision making, and concerns surrounding sustainable development and the provision of solid governance and leader-

National and Community Development

117

ship. The local citizens decided that business as usual could not continue, and that they needed a strategy for managing the future (Gould, ). The Challenging Problems To address these issues, the Maroochy Shire Council established the “Maroochy  Community Visioning Project.” Ideas were presented and discussed at a Maroochy  summit that included key public, private, and community representatives. They concluded that they needed a deeper understanding of the problems and more effective partnering. It was decided to use Anticipatory Action Learning (AAL) because it was seen as a pivotal methodology for utilizing “the inherent capacity of the community to create alternatives in terms of issues definition, images or visions, and solutions for Maroochy Shire” (Gould, ). Community engagement was seen as the cornerstone of Maroochy , and efforts were made to maximize public participation and contributions through community workshops, school summits, a website, visioning sessions, action planning groups, document and literature reviews, community surveys, newsletters, articles in newspapers, and other media. These efforts, in the end, embodied input from nearly , people and over , written, e-mailed, and phoned responses from every segment of the community. How the Action Learning Team Solved the Problem Action learning was applied within the Maroochy  Project through the Community Taskforce and community workshops. .  The Community Taskforce was tasked to write the  vision. The taskforce members used their knowledge of the Shire to undertake the action learning processes of reflective questioning and idea sharing. These action learning processes helped to identify and analyze possible trends, issues, and scenarios for Maroochy Shire. The Community Taskforce established six focus areas for the visioning process and developed a “possible scenario” paper as a precursor to the main community consultation activities. .  Community workshops. These workshops, utilizing action learning practices, engaged the community in thinking about how to solve the problems facing Maroochy Shire. They applied the classic action learning approach of P+Q: asking new questions to develop fresh perspectives built

118 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

on existing (program) knowledge. Learning occurred as the community groups recognized that all of them shared the problems, and therefore all could contribute to the solutions and provide mutual support, advice, and criticism, The Breakthrough Steve Gould, reflecting on the Maroochy  action learning experience, provides the following summary of how action learning worked: What worked well: • The community was open to the notion of being challenged through the use of anticipatory action learning methods. These methods helped the community to reframe their understanding and thoughts about the issues that would drive their future. • A large and diverse segment of the community was able to participate in creative ways in long-term planning. • Anticipatory action learning led to valuable community improvements, and it was determined that it could become a transformative approach to community planning. Things that could have been improved: • Consistent involvement of key opinion holders and decision makers throughout the process • Efforts to secure future funding by stakeholders to implement actions that would make the vision a reality What people learned: • The future does not need to be anticipatory, or perceived as a foregone conclusion; people have the capacity to create or influence decisions and thereby create alternative futures. For example, during a community workshop, a sugar cane farmer realized that he could think about an alternative future, an epiphany that gave him hope and new motivation as he faced uncertainty in a collapsing industry. Why the Action Learning Team Was Successful As a result of the community visioning summit, the mayor committed to including the outcomes of the Maroochy vision in the current Council’s

National and Community Development

119

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs in Maroochy Shire • Fresh questioning that resulted in fresh perspectives • Willingness to take risks, share ideas, and challenge assumptions • Encouragement and time for reflection • Exploration of entire system • Openness to diverse perspectives • Community support for the action learning teams • Integration of action and learning • Pride in participating in action learning groups

Corporate Plan. The Queensland (Australia) Department of Local Government and Planning has praised the Maroochy vision as an example of how to create community plans for the future. Maroochy  was seen as a landmark event in anticipatory democracy, which highlighted that, through anticipatory action learning, individual communities possess the capacity and leadership to articulate a common future under one main vision. The Maroochy  experience left a positive personal impact on its participants by developing critical thinking skills, changing attitudes, and empowering them to take charge of their own future. Gould () reports that the effectiveness of community action learning groups has created residential communities and associations who are eager and willing to participate in their own development. The results of projects like Maroochy , he concludes, are a wakeup call to planners, governments, and business alike, and serve as a great model for communities that may wish to question the assumptions of planners and their images of a community’s future, and to articulate their own vision for a healthy community future. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs in Maroochy Shire, see Table ..

Partnership for an HIV-Free Generation The HIV-Free Generation Project (HFG) is an innovative public-private partnership between the Kenyan-based organization and Adopt-aBusiness and Microsoft. The purpose of the coalition is to reduce HIV prevalence among the youth in Kenya by promoting positive behavior change.

120 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

HIV/AIDS is a massive and complicated issue across the African continent. HFG’s approach is to tackle the issue by focusing on one generation of people (the youth population of –-year-olds) and saturating them with programs and messages that will change the ingrained habits and attitudes that perpetuate the spread of AIDS. The idea is built on the belief that when one generation understands the message and adopts a different lifestyle, they will pass this lifestyle on to the next generation and the cycle of behavior that perpetuates AIDS will be broken. Clearly this is an ambitious undertaking, not least because of the scale of the problem but also because the target population can be cynical and are not won over easily. To make the programs and messaging credible and different from what the youth have heard before (and therefore inspire change), HFG mobilized support from a number of private sector companies, including Warner Brothers, Nike, and Microsoft. One innovative and successful initiative was the development by Warner Brothers of a cutting-edge video game set in the slums areas of Kenya, which is home to millions of young Kenyans. The game, called Pamona Mtaani, is accessed by local youths on computers in help centers run by local NGOs, which contain refurbished computers supplied by Microsoft. As they progress through the game, the players are presented with situations in which myths about how HIV/AIDS is contracted are dispelled and through which positive behavior choices are rewarded with further game play. Those who complete the game receive a T-shirt that they can wear with pride around their community. Other partner organizations such as Soccer Youth contribute sports programs to the initiative. APCO Worldwide contributes branding and communications expertise. The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) has also taken a coordinating role and provides staff and administrative support for the partnership. The Challenging Problem One of the big challenges facing HFG was how to help young people in Kenya learn to start and develop income-generating activities. This had been identified as a major issue for the partnership because unemployment rates in Kenya are very high, particularly within the slum environments.

National and Community Development

121

Young people without work get bored, which can lead them to participate in illegal activities. Young women without work who need money to look after themselves and their children may enter into relationships with different men in search of security or turn to prostitution. All of these activities increase people’s risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. How the Action Learning Team Addressed the Problem For HFG the opportunity to tackle this issue using action learning came through one of their commercial partners, Microsoft, and Adopta-Business, an organization that uses business skills to help address social issues in developing countries. Microsoft had previously partnered with Adopt-a-Business to develop a leadership development program for some of Microsoft’s high-potential employees. The design of the program required the Microsoft employees to work in action learning groups with partner organizations addressing problem issues in Africa. The partner organizations brought a specific challenge to an event in Nairobi where action learning groups composed of employees of the both the partner organization and Microsoft spent two days developing strategies and a set of actions to address the challenge. Three Microsoft employees and three HFG employees formed the action learning group. The group spent one day immersing themselves in the local Nairobi context, which included visiting one slum area and talking to community leaders who worked with the Kenyan youth. The group then spent two days developing ideas for income-generating opportunities and generating a list of actions to address the challenge. The Breakthrough The development of an effective strategy needed to overcome a couple of major obstacles. On the one hand, all of the HFG participants were from an NGO background and did not have a strong commercial mindset about how to approach a task that was ultimately about developing commercial opportunities for the Kenyan youth. On the other hand, the Microsoft team members were not local (all were from the United States or Europe) and therefore were largely unfamiliar with what kinds of income-generating activities might be appropriate for young Kenyans. In this respect the questioning methodology of the action learning process forced the partici-

122 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

pants to ask questions in order to understand the basics and not jump to conclusions. In addition, the initial immersion experience briefly exposed the Microsoft participants to the local context in which the Kenyan youth operated and built rapport between team members. Another challenge was the diversity of the two cultures. The action learning method helped the two organizations more clearly see and learn about their own culture through the eyes of the other. Participants from both Microsoft and HFG were able to articulate new learnings about their organization’s working style and assumptions about the style of others through the interventions of the action learning coach. The resulting stronger relationships between the organizations were one goal of the program. During the action learning process, however, it became clear that even within the HFG organization the team members had not connected thoroughly on this challenge before the kickoff event in Nairobi. There had been recent senior leadership changes within the organization, and the action learning process gave several key stakeholders on this challenge an opportunity to connect and dissect the issue. It was agreed that the action learning group would develop three detailed program opportunities to present to the Executive Board of HFG. These would demonstrate the importance of the issue (which was not acknowledged everywhere) and the viability of potential solutions, and ultimately mobilize the resources to implement the programs. After some deliberation and prioritizing, which continued in conference calls and in the initial meeting, breakthrough strategies for three program areas were identified. . Solar power energy microenterprises . Technology skills training and technology access . Community recycling and waste management Why the Action Learning Team Was Successful Detailed strategies for the three program areas were pilot tested by HFG staff in field visits to existing Solar Power and ICT Education programs in the region, including two that were operated by other partner organizations at the same Microsoft event, Kibo and UNIDO.

National and Community Development

123

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Kenya HFG • • • • • • • • •

An urgent, challenging, exciting, and important problem Commitment to innovation and breakthrough thinking Diverse group membership from within and outside the organization All group members having the opportunity to “experience” the problem Fresh questioning from a variety of perspectives Clear upfront norms established relative to questioning and learning Assumptions were challenged Strategic thinking and strategic actions Full-time action learning coach to help the group improve their problem-solving and leadership competencies

The action learning groups also developed a rollout strategy, which involved establishing a network of centers of excellence to demonstrate the efficacy of their programs in delivering health education as well as economic opportunities. These programs were, in turn, developed into a Tor (online anonymity network) that was presented by the leadership of HFG to principal stakeholders. Subsequently, U.S.-based staff from PEPFAR visited Kenya to learn more about the potential of the program. After this visit, the whole group continued to work on the agreed-upon actions. The action learning team met virtually via two conference calls with their action learning coach over the next  days to report on progress, develop further strategies, and reflect on their learnings. Matthew Farmer, Adopt-a-Business’s executive director, reported that the action learning team “created a major change in thinking about how to approach and address the HIV issue. The breakthrough strategies developed by the action learning team will provide tremendous benefits for young Kenyans.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Kenya HFG, see Table ..

Rural Development and Welsh Farmers In  the Welsh Assembly Government, together with support from the European Social Fund, launched an innovative management development program for farming businesses in Wales that would help farmers develop skills for sustainable farming. The organization responsible for skills development in Wales was the Education and Learning Council,

124 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

which was tasked with developing and delivering a program. The resulting action learning program for farming families was “the first time the management development training was based on action learning” (Williams, ). Projects for the Action Learning Teams Three organizations were involved in the development of the action learning project: () Menter a Busnes, a Welsh-based economic development company; () ADAS Wales, a group of agricultural consultants; and () Ashridge Consulting. The project was named “Agrisgôp,” a bilingual word derived from the words “agriculture” and the Welsh word for “scope” (sgôp), that captured what the action learning project was seeking to attain; namely, the development of the capacity of Welsh farming families to create and manage their own destiny. The project began in  and was approved to continue until . Nearly  action learning groups have been established and nearly , farmer family members have participated. How the Action Learning Teams Worked on the Problems At the beginning of the action learning projects,  individuals were selected to serve as action learning facilitators and designated “Agrisgôp Leaders.” In recruiting the farmers, the most difficult initial challenge, according to Eirwen Williams, director of rural programs and communications, was explaining the project in a few sentences. Although promotional leaflets were produced and articles written about action learning and the projects, the facilitators discovered that the most effective recruiting tool was a phone conversation with a potential member and an invitation to attend a meeting about what the action learning projects were trying to achieve. The facilitators invited members of farming families to the action learning meetings, where the process was described with a minimum amount of theory (Williams, ). One factor that allowed the participating farmers to work well together was the fact that, although farmers were passionate about their individual businesses, they usually worked independently and did not view other farmers as direct competitors. Therefore they welcomed the opportunity to come together to discuss issues that affected their businesses and

National and Community Development

125

were close to their hearts. Being “practically minded people, members of farming families welcomed the opportunity to learn through action rather than following a classroom-based management development course” (Williams, ). They learned from each other and realized that together they could face the challenges that lay ahead. Another success factor was the fact that all the Agrisgôp leaders were well known in their rural communities. They were able to draw on their local contacts and use their knowledge to form the action learning groups. The action learning groups included representatives from a wide swath of society, from women’s groups to groups with a special interest, such as tourism. Based upon his many years of experience as an Agrisgôp facilitator, Williams observed: It takes a special kind of person to act as a leader. Some of the leaders within our present team tell me that this is the most difficult job that they perform. Being part of that delivery team gives me a valuable insight into the problems that the rest of the team encounter. I can relate to the feeling of terror as you pick up the phone to invite a person to your first group meeting; the sheer panic as you sit all alone in a village hall or pub waiting for the members to turn up for the second meeting; the relief when, one by one, they do turn up; and the ecstasy and excitement as you drive home after a successful meeting! It may be the most difficult job of all at times, but it can also be the most rewarding and satisfying job in the world at other times. (Williams, , p. )

The Breakthroughs The first high-profile success story to emerge from Agrisgôp came in September  when a group of National Trust tenant farmers secured a contract to sell their lambs collaboratively to Sainsbury’s, a large supermarket chain in the United Kingdom. Through their action learning project these farmers had realized that they could market their Welsh lambs collaboratively. They approached Sainsbury’s through Dunbia, a food processor, and secured a contract to sell their lamb at a premium price. Since then the group has continued to market their product and is considering an additional venture, taking over the management of the village pub. The Welsh minister for rural affairs noted the achievements of this action

126 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

learning group, saying: “The vision is of an innovative agri-food industry, creating high-quality, value-added food products that are closely targeted on what consumers are prepared to pay well for” (Williams, , p. ). A number of other Welsh organizations developed action learning successes in subsequent years: () a bio-fuel plant in northern Wales; () a Cambrian Mountains group of lamb producers selling direct to the cooperative; () a group of Welshpool farmers who developed ways to market their tourism businesses; () a brewery in Pembrokeshire; () an egg marketing group in Montgomeryshire; and () a group of young farmers who worked with the Prince’s Trust (a youth charity) to secure a contract with the British retailer Marks & Spencer. As these stories and successes became known around Wales, it became easier to recruit for new action learning groups. In addition, project funders began seeing and appreciating the benefits of the action learning project. The action learning facilitators gained more confidence and took ever greater pride in what they were achieving. Why Action Learning Was Successful Under the terms of the project each group is required to meet at least six times over a period of – months. After that period the groups may continue to meet without the action learning facilitator. If they have achieved their objectives, they may decide to end the project. At the end of the six meetings each individual who has taken part in Agrisgôp is asked to complete an evaluation form. Among the comments of the participantfarmers were these: • “I feel a sense of privilege that I can speak openly in confidence and everyone else will listen.” • “Lots of farmers talk about ideas they have and changes they would like to make, but action learning puts you on the spot and makes you do something positive about it.” • “Agrisgôp has pulled us all together in this valley.” (Williams, , p. ) An independent evaluation was undertaken in  by CRG Consulting, which stated:

National and Community Development

127

 6.4 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs in Wales • Use of action learning facilitators • Development of leadership and group competencies while solving problems • Passionate commitment to solving problems and achieving goals • Positive working and learning climate in the groups • Openness to fresh questions and ideas • Important problems experienced by the group members themselves • Commitment and need to generate breakthrough strategies

Despite this being a new concept within the farming sector, % of those interviewed believed “action learning” to have been the best approach for the courses to take, offering the opportunity for farmers to “meet similarly minded people who are also at a crossroads in their life” and “collectively address relevant business issues.” Perhaps most significantly, despite aspects of farming being naturally isolated, in the future collaboration, networking and management development will be essential—all of which are addressed by the Agrisgôp program.

As Williams (, p. ) notes, “I believe that through action learning we have taken a step forward in encouraging collaborative working— empowering individuals to take charge of their own future and igniting innovation among farming families—which contributes to the sustainability of rural communities in Wales.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs in Wales, see Table ..

Breakthroughs in Community Development Although action learning projects are undertaken primarily within organizations to solve corporate problems and develop organizational leaders and high-performing teams, a growing number of countries and communities have tapped into action learning as a way to bring home breakthrough benefits. Among them are Fairfax County and Prince William County in the U.S. state of Virginia, cities such as Helsinki and Singapore, and nations such as South Korea and Sweden. Like the four organizations described in this chapter, they are, through action learning, bringing about change for the betterment of the community as well as creating alternatives and solutions to enable people to be masters of their own destinies.

7

Product and Services Innovation

C

are challenged to continuously develop new products or improve existing products and services in order to survive in a highly competitive world in which customers have much more power and many more choices than they had in the past. With the power of the Internet, customers can purchase products from anywhere in the world, and not be forced to buy locally. They can demand the best quality at the lowest price for products and services tailored to their tastes, delivered quickly, and readily replaced or repaired. Therefore, products and services must be continuously improved in design, features, and functionality. New product development is thus one of the key driving forces for companies seeking to build and maintain a competitive advantage in their existing markets as well as to enter and create new markets. Through action learning, companies can create and organize functions and create knowledge in unique ways. They can also make innovations that redefine markets rather than merely satisfy demand (The Economist, ). Barbara Fuchs () has identified three reasons why organizations can benefit from action learning as they seek to develop new products: o m pa n i e s a r o u n d t h e w o r l d

. Only products that satisfy customer needs will be successful in the market. Learning about existing or new customer needs is not easy, 128



Product and Services Innovation

129

especially when it comes to products that customers have not yet consumed. Often customers are not able to articulate their expectations about products, although they are usually able to say what they like and do not like about existing products. Interactive forms of learning, such as lead-user methods (i.e., methods that test users who are ahead of the majority of the market on a major market trend) and testing of user behavior with prototypes, are the best ways to identify subtle and equivocal customer needs that form the basis for product success. Interactive and action learning about customer needs should not be limited to the marketing department. Every activity in the company that requires an interaction with customers has the potential to produce valuable customer information, which the organization then needs to systematically gather, evaluate, and utilize for new product development.  . Success in producing new products is closely linked to the overall production and marketing capabilities of a company. Positive product experience is built on customer services and perceptions, and is not limited to the material product. For example, as Fuchs (, p. ) notes, “the procurement of parts by suppliers engaged in illegal practices such as child labor, or a lack of customer orientation in sales, can turn a good new product into a market failure. Production and marketing capabilities can either spur innovation or impose significant constraints on product innovations; e.g., due to outdated infrastructure or inefficient work organization.” Developing new products should be an integral part of the total production system, and not be carried out solely by employees in research and development. Thus, action learning for the purpose of improving a product or creating a new product should be the responsibility of the whole business chain of the company. Both individual learning and group action learning efforts must be encouraged and should become part of the broader work experience. . The third aspect of action learning for innovation, according to Fuchs () relates to organizational continuity and dynamic change. Too often, companies develop inertia once they have established successful market products. But because markets are never totally stable and

130 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

are always changing, companies must build the internal capability to anticipate changes in their competitive environment and to renew their skill set and routines; in short, they need to become learning organizations (Senge, ). Otherwise, if they are unable to respond in a timely way to external shocks or changed market conditions, they risk going out of business (Nobeoka, ). Companies that have built and maintained a competitive advantage in new product development are capable of both continuously improving their products and processes and, when necessary, initiating and dealing with organizational discontinuity and disruptive change. Action learning in these companies supports the preservation and enhancement of existing capabilities as well as the acquisition and implementation of new skills when needed (Marquardt et al., ). Action learning has the potential to enable organizations to bring the ongoing learning necessary to understand current and future customer needs and to generate breakthrough problem-solving strategies to respond to those needs. In this chapter, we tell the stories of how three companies—Morgans Hotel Group, Toyota Motor Company, and Just Born— have used action learning to improve existing products and develop new ones.

Morgans Hotel Group The Morgans Hotel Group (MHG) is a hospitality company that operates, owns, acquires, and redevelops boutique hotels in the United States and Europe. In , senior leadership at MHG identified several key issues that would require the talents and ideas of managers from throughout the organization to resolve. These included the role of the concierge, leadership development, the human performance matrix, employee recognition, and an award system for frequent guests. Action learning was determined to be the most effective way not only to solve these problems, but also to build a stronger and more cohesive culture among the employees of the hotels. MGH had grown through the purchase of other hotels with different cultures and ways of working.



Product and Services Innovation

131

The Challenging Problems The general managers and human resources director of MGH met in Las Vegas to identify problems they viewed as (a) crucial for the growth and development of Morgans Hotel Group and (b) appropriate to address through action learning. The problems chosen affected three critical aspects of the company’s business: employees, guests, and owners/shareholders. Six specific challenges were selected for action learning: . Expanding and improving the value-added responsibilities of the concierge . Developing recognition programs and awards for frequent-stay guests . Developing a performance matrix for shareholders . Promotion and development of employees . Creation of employee recognition programs . Maintaining guest relations during hotel renovations Action Learning Teams Top management prepared a brief written summary of each challenge for presentation to the members of the six action learning groups. A problem sponsor was available at the opening session to answer questions that the group members might have and to emphasize the importance of the challenges and benefits to MHG, the boundaries and limitations of its resources, and the company’s expectations. The action learning teams worked for two days to develop strategies, which they then presented to the project sponsors and key MHG leaders. “The results were amazing and the teams worked extremely well,” according to Kathy Chalmers, executive vice president for human resources. “The ideas generated for maintaining guest relations during hotel renova . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs by the Morgans Hotel Group • Careful selection of urgent, companywide problems • Diversity of group members from all levels and locations of the organization • Commitment of top management to providing time and resources for teams to solve problems and develop strategies • Use of trained action learning coaches • Creative systems thinking

132 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

tions will alone result in millions of dollars in savings as we expect occupancy to be % higher as a result of implementing the ideas generated by that action learning group. Action learning has truly been an extremely valuable tool in examining and resolving important challenges at Morgans Hotel Group.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at the Morgans Hotel Group, see Table ..

Toyota Motor Corporation Toyota Motor Corporation, the largest automobile manufacturer in the world, employs nearly , workers worldwide, with  revenues approaching $ billion. Founded in , Toyota has become a world leader in product development relative to outstanding lead-user times, short product cycles, high quality, and technical innovations. Fuchs’s () analysis of Toyota’s new product development system described Toyota’s extensive utilization of the principles and practices inherent in action learning. The following paragraphs draw on her account of how Toyota’s use of action learning enabled the company to successfully negotiate changing market conditions in their development of Toyota automobiles from the mid-s onward. Ever since the s, the Toyota production system (TPS) has been synonymous with the concepts of lean thinking and lean production, which are characterized by a customer-oriented production process, just-in-time supplier relations, continuous improvement (kaizen), flexible mass production, and worker mobility. Although often portrayed as a smoothly running company, Toyota management had to cope with major problems related to employee job satisfaction, low profitability, and costly new product development. Initially, Toyota managed to overcome these crises by employing traditional learning practices to analyze its market position, define new strategies, and restructure its organization (Fuchs, ). Until the late s, the increasing shortfalls and the cost of new product development were not seen as major problems. Sales of new car models usually surpassed initial sales volume targets, largely driven by Toyota’s innovative power and internationalization. Growing market share and internationalization created nearly , new jobs in new product devel-



Product and Services Innovation

133

opment, feeding the traditional Toyota production system. Developers and designers, who literally made themselves redundant by optimizing the flow of production, were rewarded with new tasks and positions. Promotional wage gains were topped by annual bonuses of up to  or  times employees’ monthly base salary. Although engineers in product development were expected to put in up to  percent of unpaid overtime as work expanded and deadlines had to be met, they were satisfied with their working conditions (Nobeoka, ). The situation changed significantly when the Japanese economic bubble burst in the early s, leaving Toyota with several problems, including: (a) dramatic slumps in domestic sales; (b) pressure on exports due to the appreciation of the yen against the dollar; and (c) increasing cost competitiveness from overseas manufacturers amid mergers and acquisitions. When sales dropped precipitously and prospects of a quick recovery deteriorated, slower new product development suddenly became a threat to future competitiveness. Toyota began to reduce its labor costs by cutting bonuses, limiting promotions, and transferring people to lower-paid sales positions. New hiring was postponed and vacancies were filled with temporary workers. The company also reduced the number of subcontractors it used. As Fuchs notes, however, in companies with a seniority system, downsizing by reducing new hires was costly because older, experienced workers are more highly paid and less productive than younger workers. The Challenging Problem To tackle its problems, Toyota launched an internal initiative called the Future Project  (FP). The ultimate goal of FP was to identify problems in the existing product development organization and make it fit for the st century (Nobeoka, ). The company wanted to move forward with a clear understanding of which traditional skills, processes, and routines would be needed and which new ones would have to be added to maintain a competitive advantage in product development. Toyota’s goal was to maintain the traditional high frequency of individually designed new car models with high quality, but at improved profitability.

 . Toyota’s Application of Action Learning to New Product Development Learning for New Product Development

Principles/Representation in Action Learning

About customer needs: • On-the job training of engineers in marketing and sales • Early focus groups and prototype testing instead of pure market research

Increasing customer orientation: • Learning-by-doing through structured job rotation • Communication and structured interaction with customers to test preferences and discover latent needs

About product integration: • Functional engineers working on different projects simultaneously sharing know-how and learning from doing their jobs in different project work groups • Senior project managers dealing with one project across all functions of product development • General managers of product planning making sure that learnings about best practices are shared between projects • Double-checking standard routines with production and marketing for optimizing design and integrating products

Fostering system thinking: • Organization of heterogeneous work and project groups • Questioning product design from all aspects, from engineering to production to marketing • Organization of quality circles that included employees and workers with different backgrounds • Structured reflection of progress on product design across the production system

Continuously across the organization: • On-the-job training facilitators at work to ensure the progress of the action learning group • Willingness and ability to learn and to change incorporated into personal evaluation, promotional career, and compensation system • Intense personal supervision and mentoring by experienced senior manager

Delegating competence and facilitating problem solving: • Each project member and group facilitated by heavyweight project manager with full competence and support of top management • High levels of autonomy of project managers to come up with product solutions • Full management support to implement new solutions if needed

Source: Adapted from Fuchs, 2007.

Toyota’s Application of Action Learning Principles in New Product Development

Increasing customer orientation, communication, and interaction: • Establishment of four centers with center heads responsible for inter-project management and project managers ensuring intra-project communication • Reduction of functional divisions and engineering specialization, which reduced the workload for product integration • Transfer of research personnel into new centers with basic R&D Fostering systems thinking: • Optimization of customeroriented product integration across the value chain by sharing parts and components, improving interface management, and bettering the costperformance ratio • Reinforcement of traditional performance evaluation and promotion schemes to reward individual employee efforts to improve the overall product development and production process. • Adaption of wage system to better compensate for learning efforts, taking action, and implementation of necessary change Facilitating problem solving: • Migration of project managers into new functional divisions, allowing for coaching of junior project managers without conflicts of seniority • Maintenance of capabilities to continuously enhance skills and processes, such as corporate culture, kaizen, and quality circles



Product and Services Innovation

135

Solving the Problem Special work groups were asked to identify the biggest obstacles that workers faced when developing new products across all functions. These teams were also asked to analyze and record in detail which routines, parts, and components could be used without limitation by all product development projects, and which ones they thought were unique to a specific car model. Based on the results, all current development projects were to be categorized into groups with similar engineering requirements. Findings were forwarded to existing quality circles for further discussion and evaluation. FP work groups were then asked to precisely describe the areas and problems investigated and propose solutions. In the case of missing data or open questions, work groups were extended either horizontally or vertically to gather information from other sources. Figure - shows how Toyota incorporated the principles of new product development (discussed earlier in this chapter) with the principles of action learning that ultimately led to Toyota’s successes in the early s. See Table . for an outline of how Toyota applied action learning to new product development. Within four years of the FP action learning project, the restructuring led to an average  percent cost reduction per development project, a decrease of prototypes by an average of  percent, and shortening of average lead time to about  months, all of which helped put Toyota back into the worldwide lead in auto sales. Fuchs () lists a number of reasons for this success: (a) an increase in component and platform sharing; (b) intensive coordination between less specialized departments and functions; and (c) improved communication and interaction within and across centers. The restructuring also allowed Toyota to maintain existing skills and routines, such as the traditional employment system and routines of continuous improvements with the integration of new skills—for example, the grouping and management of development based on technology platforms. The Breakthrough Toyota’s product differentiation strategy successfully integrated new customer needs with cost-efficient and timely product design and produc-

136 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

tion. Job satisfaction and employee loyalty were also improved through adaptations in the wage system. Before the FP project,  percent of employees’ wages depended on efforts made monthly by each work team. As a result of the action learning, the portion of the wage dependent on work teams’ efforts was reduced to  percent of the monthly salary. Instead of being evaluated on a monthly basis by senior management, efforts to reduce, for example, the number of hours worked per week were negotiated between management and workers at the workshop level every six months based on workers’ own proposals (Shimizu, 5). Just as Toyota used action learning in the s to develop the Japanese market for the Lexus (see Chapter ), the company was able to use action learning in the mid-s to respond to the sudden change in the economic climate and the resulting overcapacity, overloaded product designs, high cost of development, and increasing job dissatisfaction. Toyota realized that the traditional production system had been supported by high growth rates, enabling generous compensation to workers and suppliers for their personal contributions, but with the new economic environment of the s, they needed to adapt and innovate. By determining which individual and organizational capabilities to continue and which ones to discontinue, Toyota was able to reorganize into an efficient multi-project center and regain its competitiveness in new product development. Why the Action Learning Teams Were Successful Having built the capability to learn from individual and group efforts and to derive actions from learning, Toyota was able to turn around new product development, and manage necessary change in managerial mindsets without destroying valuable skills, making staff redundant, or burdening the company with high costs of restructuring. To achieve these results, Toyota made brilliant use of action learning practices and principles. Through the implementation of a single action learning program, Toyota’s new product development efforts resulted in greater customer orientation and a highly integrated new product experience. If action learning is “carried out properly and supported by top management, reflection and learning from such a single action learning program could trigger further



Product and Services Innovation

137

 .3 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Toyota • Utilization of several different problem-solving strategies, particularly incremental problem solving • Systematic and comprehensive analysis of root problems • Allocation of resources to acquire and analyze necessary data • Opportunities to develop needed skills and experiences • Ongoing communications between and within groups • Heterogeneous membership in groups • Structured reflection and learning times • Full support of management to implement solutions

learning initiatives aimed not only at delivering a single product solution, but transform learning into new organizational routines” (Fuchs, , p. ). For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Toyota, see Table ..

Just Born Candy Just Born is a candy manufacturer based in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, whose tagline is “A great candy isn’t made...it’s Just Born.” Just Born’s products are well known throughout the United States, and include Mike and Ike, Hot Tamales, Peanut Chews, and a range of jelly beans. Its bestknown product is a yellow marshmallow chick called Marshmallow Peeps. Over . billion Peeps are produced annually. Action learning has become an important tool for innovations in staff development at Just Born. In , action learning was used to train a large number of employees, from senior managers to junior clerks. The use of action learning was part of the company’s long-term commitment to human resource development and learning (Bingham and Galagan, ). All Just Born employees were offered the opportunity to improve their leadership skills so as to help grow the company with new products and services and to fulfill Just Born’s mission: “Aggressive growth and above average profitability through superior leadership.” One of the company’s co-CEOs, Ross Born (a grandson of the founder, Sam Born) expressed his commitment to learning by stating: “Learning is like breathing for us. We operate in a changing world. In our industry we have globalization; we have low cost competition; and we use a lot of

138 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

technology. If you don’t learn in this industry, you’ll go out of business. Our competition is learning; so we need to learn all the time” (Bingham and Galagan, 2006, p. ). Alignment of learning and business is achieved through the cascading of Just Born’s business objectives through the various departments and a companywide people development system (PDS), which ensures that learning and development are aligned with the corporate strategy and that associates are equipped with the skills needed for their current and future roles. Two elements of PDS are of particular importance: a performance management process (PMP) and a career development process (CDP). Both involve an interview and agreement between the associate and his or her boss and written output. Once the competencies have been identified, the associate and supervisor are responsible for developing a simple learning plan for the year. The career development process focuses on future potential and is linked with Just Born’s succession planning process. Most of the eligible associates participate in CDP discussions, which are focused on future job interests and long-term career goals. Leadership and Problem Solving In the mid-s, Just Born introduced its Human Performance Leadership Development (HPLD) program, which is offered to approximately  associates a year. The design of the program has evolved over time, but has always been closely linked with Just Born’s ‘Wow … Now” improvement process. This is a customized “kaizen” process that offers a systematic way to collect data and identify product and service improvement opportunities at Just Born, using a step-by-step approach. Successes of the Action Learning Teams Participants in the HPLD spend six months in the program, in groups of – members. After an initial orientation to elements of leadership, teamwork, systemic problem solving, and values (a key element being “Wow … Now”), they meet once a month for modules of up to three days. HPLD is closely linked to the workplace, and all participants undertake two action learning projects during their time in the program. These projects are intended to contribute to the participants’ development as well as provide a tangible business benefit to Just Born. Each group’s goal is to



Product and Services Innovation

139

 .4 Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Just Born Candy • Development of clear and full understanding of customer interests and needs • Systematic process to collect data and to identify opportunities to improve products and services • Diverse membership in action learning problem-solving groups • Support of top management • Learning as part of action learning

deliver $, in savings, which must be approved by the finance department. Illustrative projects included: • Weighing the candy more accurately to conform with customer orders (this produced savings of almost $, for the company) • Better mistake proofing on bulk order delivery (saving $,) • Improvements in the production process for eight-ounce candy bars (saving $,) For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Just Born Candy, see Table ..

Breakthrough Problem Solving for Product and Process Innovation Fuchs () identified four specific reasons action learning has such power to help organizations create new products and services. () Action learning enables greater learning about customer needs. Effective product development relies on the ability of a product’s design to create a positive product experience. This involves a complex translation of product information from customers to engineers to production to sales and back to customers. Learning about customer needs, potential problems, and requirements for procuring, producing, and marketing new products is critical and involves intense communication with parties internal and external to the company. Clark and Fujimoto () point out that information has to be gathered, evaluated, and exchanged between customers and company representatives, between functional departments involved in the process, between the company and distributors, and with stakeholders interested in the success of new product development.

140 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Action learning groups, when composed of a diverse membership, have the ability to capture the complex communication needs between customers, stakeholders, and professional experts. Since action learning groups are composed of members who own the problem—that is, the responsibility for developing a new product concept—they are able to question existing product solutions and production knowledge and to discuss new aspects and innovative approaches. In addition, action learning groups act in an atmosphere of open and mutually agreed information access and exchange. In action learning, the collection and sharing of information is necessary to solve the problem, whether internal or external to the company. There is therefore a common agreement to deliberately share and provide information. By reflecting on what action learning members have learned through the problem-solving process, they can eventually come up not only with a solution, but with proposals for broader improvements in the retrieval of information and the flow of communication, and for closing knowledge gaps. () Action learning fosters systems thinking. New product development is a complex task combining what customers want with what technology can deliver and what customers can afford. Companies need to deliver to customers the best possible solution and do it profitably. Product developers must understand the whole system and its interdependencies, and must be willing to work with other departments to deliver a fully integrated product experience. New challenges in development are rarely caused by a single factor, but rather by a multitude of influences that can only be detected if developers are familiar with the entire process. On the basis of an analysis of outstanding companies in product development, Clark and Fujimoto () concluded that it is the overall management of the development system, including organizational structure, technical skills, problem-solving processes, culture, and strategy, that makes product development and innovation successful. () Action learning groups involved in product innovation are heterogeneous. In order to ensure diverse perspectives and to represent the wider system, action learning groups that work on product development must include people with different backgrounds and from different organizations and functions. Diversity allows the action learning team to system-



Product and Services Innovation

141

atically investigate the problem deeply, challenge existing knowledge, and try new approaches to solving the problem. Investigating from a variety of perspectives improves awareness and helps account for all influential factors and possible effects of the suggested strategies on the whole system— for example, discussing how new products will affect production cost and how customers will benefit from the integrated product experience. () Action learning operates on a project-oriented basis and thus delegates competence and problem solving across the organization. Studies of product development have found that a project-oriented approach, rather than a function-oriented approach, reduces the lead time between the design of a product and its final production, improves individual project efficiency, and increases productivity (Clark and Fujimoto, ; Nonaka and Takeuchi, ). As product life cycles grow shorter, companies are under greater pressure to improve efficiency and creativity. The management of new product development projects will need to become a core competence. Top management will need to delegate major competences and responsibilities to their project managers and engineering staff, who then take over full responsibility for the project and its outcome (Fuchs, ). Top management should therefore agree up front to devote adequate resources to the action learning group and to make sure that action learning members have full competence to act as problem solvers. They must also assure the action learning group that the solutions they agree on will be implemented. Finally, it is important that the organization make every effort to incorporate the solutions and learnings at all levels. Based upon these four product/service elements of action learning, more and more organizations are using action learning to innovate and to improve their products and services. The pharmaceutical company Novartis is another company that has developed highly successful products via action learning. A key ingredient in their success is the inclusion of individuals from noncompeting industries as members of their action learning teams. The perspectives of people from nonpharmaceutical industries, such as banking, manufacturing, and consulting, has enabled Novartis teams to “think outside the box” and generate new ideas and approaches.

8

Corporate Culture and Ethics

P

professor of ethics at Wharton University, wrote that action learning brings ethics to the workplace because of its “unique process of bringing interested parties to a place where you can ask and you can argue, and this is good and right for the process of decision making. Action learning keeps questioning and reflection alive in decision making. The very act of raising questions and reflecting on the answer brings about the involvement of free will and choice, which in turn reduces short-sightedness and potential harm, which then creates fairness and longterm thinking and so brings about better ethical decision making” (Dean, , p. ). A key mental mindset in problem solving that leads to ethical decision making is how action learning recognizes the importance of Ezra Taft Benson’s dictum: “Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right.” Ensuring high ethical standards and practices within an organization is a tremendous challenge, particularly in a highly competitive and sometimes unethical corporate landscape. In this chapter we describe how three organizations changed their corporate cultures and ethical practices by integrating action learning into every part of the organization’s life. Panasonic used action learning to create a corporate culture that incorporates the ethical standards and learning philosophy of its founder, Konosuke Matsushita. Anglo-American Mining Company discovered that action learning could enable the 142

e t er d e a n ,

Corporate Culture and Ethics

143

organization to provide greater service to its customers and communities. Union Church Hong Kong used action learning to adapt to the changing membership brought about by the transfer of Hong Kong from the British to the Chinese government.

Panasonic Founded in , Panasonic is the largest Japanese electronics producer; it produces nonelectronic products and services as well. With nearly , employees worldwide, Panasonic was ranked the th largest company in the world in , with over $ billion in revenues. In addition to using action learning for leadership development and problem solving, the company has used action learning methods to build a culture imbued with high ethical standards, a commitment to continuous learning, and deep respect for others—all principles that are inherent in the practice of action learning. All new employees at Panasonic are introduced to action learning and participate in action learning problem solving as part of their orientation. Action learning comprises the values and basic business philosophy (BBP) of Panasonic’s founder, Konosuke Matsushita, as follows. () Courtesy and Humility. Matsushita practiced and encouraged the skill of listening to others with respect. To strengthen cordial work relationships, he advocated modesty and respect for the rights and needs of others. The virtues of courtesy and humility correspond closely to two key norms of action learning: (a) respect for the ideas and differences of each member of the group, and (b) setting aside time for learning as well as action. Everyone in the Panasonic action learning team is therefore treated with equal respect; they have equal opportunity to share by asking and responding to questions. () Cooperation, team spirit, and collective wisdom. Matsushita had a penchant for asking questions and learning from others to create better alternatives for effective problem solving and decision making. He believed that wise leaders could not solve problems based on their own personal experiences and perspectives. Instead, “a wise person knows that those who ask questions are more sought after than those who spout knowledge.” In the action learning programs at Panasonic, leaders ask questions

144 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

to reflect their desire to understand what their members know or think. Individuals feel appreciated, motivated, and gratified when they are given the opportunity to share their ideas and experiences with interested parties. Their “collective wisdom” reflects the wealth of experience possessed by the team. Action learning fosters a climate of understanding, an openness to different ideas, and the humility and willingness to interact and learn within a diverse team. Panasonic’s BBP encourages “co-operation and team spirit.” With this in mind, Panasonic teams can expect to develop better solutions and to elevate their learning as individuals and as a team. () Sunao mind. The “sunao mind” is a Japanese phrase that means understanding the truth without bias or self-interest. One is willing to hear different perspectives and have an open mind. Panasonic employees are to practice “sunao mind” when they engage in conversations. With an open mind they are able to listen to and empathize with the other person’s point of view, be objective and unbiased, and thus develop a concrete paradigm of the actual situation/issue under discussion. Panasonic’s action learning teams frame and reframe each problem, and every team member must try to be objective, have an open mind, and be unbiased. With greater clarity about the nature of the problem, the team can solve it and make decisions more effectively. () Adaptability and untiring effort to improve. Panasonic employees are encouraged to adapt their thinking and behavior to meet the everchanging conditions of the business environment. Continuous learning, relearning, and unlearning are the foundations of action learning. Action Learning Projects at Panasonic In its reflection of Matsushita’s philosophy, action learning helps employees to further appreciate and apply the BBP in their day-to-day work and decision making. The birth of “BBP and Action Learning” as a key human resource development (HRD) activity took place in January . Since then, the company has launched a series of action learning training programs as a component of all of Panasonic’s seminars for highpotential employees. According to Jasmine Liew, Panasonic’s HR manager, the alignment of

Corporate Culture and Ethics

145

BBP with action learning is further testimony to Mr. Matsushita’s belief in “people before products.” As Panasonic develops state-of-the-art products and services, it strives also to develop “thinking employees” and “thinking leaders.” Both Panasonic’s management philosophy and action learning promote self-development and team development. Seki Fuyuki, a senior Panasonic manager and certified action learning coach, notes that “Action learning has become a key driver in the Panasonic culture, and has reinforced a culture of high ethical standards with high productiveness.” He cites two specific successes among the hundreds of action learning projects undertaken by new employees and seasoned managers at the Panasonic Asia Pacific Training Center in Singapore between  and . One key problem faced by Panasonic was the high rate of turnover in some of the Asian manufacturing sites. In some cases, turnover was as high as – percent within the first three months. The assigned action learning group identified the primary causes as lack of a support system and ineffective recruitment procedures. The breakthrough strategy that was suggested and successfully implemented was the development of a comprehensive mentor system for all employees. Another action learning group worked on a production problem with a manufacturing plant in Thailand, which was presented to the group by the deputy director of the facility. In addition to solving the problem, the action learning group recommended developing line leaders in the production line. A pilot test of the action learning group’s strategies resulted in an initial cost reduction of more than  million baht (roughly $,), with even greater savings expected in the future. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Panasonic, see Table ..  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Panasonic • • • • • • •

Commitment to continuous learning Support and respect for other group members High ethical standards Engagement of top management throughout the action learning programs Urgent problems that are connected to business success Development of a learning network inside and outside the organization Certified action learning coaches

146 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Anglo American Mining Case written by Tammy Perrie, Kobus Bergh, and Liora Gross Anglo American is one of the world’s largest diversified mining and natural resource companies, employing , people, with headquarters in London and operations in South Africa, South America, and Australia. The core mining portfolio includes platinum, coal, iron ore, copper, and nickel. Stating its aim to be the “investment partner and employer of choice,” it demonstrates considerable commitment to people development. Anglo American conducts a range of leadership and talent development programs throughout the organization. The Program for Management Excellence (PME) is delivered in South Africa by the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS). It comprises three residential study blocks separated by six weeks over a period of three to four months. The goal is to develop foundational management skills, knowledge, and awareness among middle managers across the company. It is a hands-on pragmatic program, wherein action learning project results are a key deliverable. Challenges chosen by the company need to satisfy two criteria. First, delegates are asked to identify a topic that would contribute to the solution of important problems within the company. Second, adjudicators determine that each chosen topic will provide leadership learning related to “how to get things done in Anglo American.” The topics must be original and have a scope that allows for implementation (or demonstrate feasibility of implementation) by the close of the PME. The Action Learning Problem One of Anglo American’s key strategic objectives is operational excellence. One action learning group noted that cost management at the firstline supervisor level was substandard because supervisors lacked adequate knowledge of cost management principles, and that tracking of costs and expenditures within budget was poor or nonexistent. This problem was chosen as an action learning project based on a values-based assessment: it met the goals of strategic alignment, probability of being implemented and measured in a three-month time frame, project sponsor availability, potential value chain creation, asset optimization, and challenge.

Corporate Culture and Ethics



147

The objectives of the action learning project were:

• to empower the line supervisors in the business units to operate within budget • to ensure effective cost tracking by line supervisors • to empower line supervisors to manage the company budget as if it were their own • to provide line supervisors with the necessary cost tracking tools to achieve effective management of company funds The key financial benefit of this action learning project was to reduce budget overspending on the Working Cost Suspense and Stores accounts at the pilot mine from $. million to zero in one year. The nonfinancial benefit was to enhance organizational learning related to cost management, accountability, and ownership of results among first-line supervisors. How the Action Learning Team Solved the Problem The members of the action learning group were chosen by the program managers from both GIBS and Anglo American. All seven members of the group worked for Anglo Thermal Coal in different capacities. It was felt that this grouping made sense logistically and geographically, while still providing diversity in experience. The positions held at Anglo Thermal Coal by the members were section geologist, section manager (at two different collieries), graduate metallurgist, data analyst, VOHE superintendent, and plant superintendent. One of the group members was female and the rest were male. The program comprised three study blocks approximately six weeks apart. The group met for the first time during the first study block. At the end of the final study block, the group was required to present their final action learning project report and findings to a panel of senior Anglo American leaders. The group was provided with a clear project guidelines. They were also given a GIBS action learning coach to support the process and team dynamics. It was the role of the Anglo American project sponsor (chosen by the group) to provide advice on delivering the benefits of the project idea to the organization.

148 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Key to the group’s success was their self-management from the outset, despite the everyday work pressures they still faced. The group met every week on a Friday at noon at a central venue. The minutes of the meetings were produced by the following Tuesday and distributed with notes from the project leader. Each member of the group had clearly defined roles and responsibilities. The tasks were distributed according to the members’ individual strengths. An updated project plan and work breakdown schedule were maintained as the project progressed. The team was governed by their team charter and project charter. Everyone knew and understood the goal and that that they would be held accountable. Mutual respect for each other and shared values enabled the team to resolve potential conflicts. The Breakthrough This project aimed to provide line supervisors with a tool to track and control expenditures. The thinking of the group was that, if each line supervisor were aware of his own cost budget and actual expenditures they would be able to make better purchasing decisions and keep costs in line. In order to provide a tool that the line supervisors would both understand and use, it was essential for the group to identify their needs. In addition to having the line supervisors complete an interactive questionnaire to assess their competency and knowledge levels, they conducted one-on-one interviews with relevant employees. During these interviews, it became evident that not all of the line supervisors were competent to use the inhouse budget system. This meant that the scope of the project would need to be expanded to include a refresher course on the budget system before the pilot tracking tool could be used or its results measured. The team’s flexibility and willingness to change scope as a result of their learning was a key success factor. The group also conducted a literature review to identify methods for encouraging the line supervisors to use the new cost management tool. This research focused on cost management strategies, organizational and cultural change management, and the sustainability of change. The primary strategy however, was to get the tracking tool operation on the floor,

Corporate Culture and Ethics

149

and a major breakthrough came once the IT and programming challenges were eliminated. This became the platform for the effective training and implementation of the tracking tool. Why the Action Learning Team Was Successful On the basis of its research, the group agreed that the Cost Tracking and Training Toolkit (CTTT) could be piloted at the colliery within the time frame allocated for the project. There were five key aspects to this project: . Inhouse Budget System Training Refresher (Flash Player, User Guide, and Flow Chart) To facilitate an understanding of the inhouse budget system, an Adobe flash demonstration program was developed to demonstrate how to check stock items in store, call up a normal stores requisition, implement a purchasing order, and check the cost center budget against actual expenditures. This demonstration program included a step-by-step user guide that provided more details about the ordering process, tracking costs, and the relevance to successful cost management. It was further supported by a quick-reference flow chart to enable users to take the correct steps when purchasing stock. . Cost Tracking Tool (Software, User Guide, and Flash Player) The cost tracking tool was developed to be colliery specific and deliver actual costs and commitments on working costs and store accounts. It allows the user to drill down to the lowest level of data. It is updated daily and delivers output in printable format and Microsoft Excel worksheets. A flash player demonstration shows how to access and use the software tracking tool and includes a step-by-step user guide on how to access and view the costs. . Cost Management Guidelines: A four-page reference guide on cost management includes definitions and basic principles of cost management, the in-house budget system refresher training program, and the cost tracking tool. . Rollout of Refresher and Cost Management and Tracking Tools: The group arranged with the colliery management team to present the

150 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

toolkits to the plant line supervisors and other relevant plant personnel. The rollout included demonstrations and explanations about the use of the tools; attendees were encouraged to ask questions and raise concerns. The training documents and toolkits were also placed on the pilot colliery’s shared computer system for anyone to view.  . Feedback on the Value of the Training and Tracking Tools: Feedback was solicited from the users of the new training and tracking tools to gauge both acceptance and benefits. This feedback indicated that  percent of the line supervisors were using the new tools. In one year the colliery expenditures came in R. million under budget, a turnaround of $. million in one year. Anglo American attributes the success of this action learning project to the following factors: • The action learning group had a well-crafted team charter that guided the individual team members’ behavior. They worked well as a team. There was respect for each other, their personal constraints, and their abilities. • They had a committed and involved project sponsor who provided them with the guidance and support they needed. • They had a detailed project plan and work breakdown schedule that was constantly updated and adhered to by the members of the group. • They conducted rigorous research. • The group came out of the starting blocks quickly, held regular weekly meetings, and recorded the proceedings. The activities set for the next week were completed on time and to standard. • The team had fun working together. • They were able to apply the learning from the three study blocks effectively. • They understood the needs of the market they were trying to serve and then devised a solution to meet those express needs. • They leveraged the strengths of the individual team members. The most important reasons for this team’s success, according to Anglo American leaders, were teamwork, mutual respect, and a passionate

Corporate Culture and Ethics

151

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Anglo American Mining • • • • • • • • • •

Strong teamwork and mutual respect Passionate commitment to the project outcomes Challenged assumptions Clear group norms and charter Use of the experiences and diversity of group members Rigorous problem analysis Skilled action learning coach Sense of urgency linked to outcomes Creativity Systems thinking

commitment to the project outcomes. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Anglo American Mining, see Table ..

Union Church Hong Kong Union Church is an interdenominational church that was established in Hong Kong in . With the handover of Hong Kong from the British to the Chinese government in , the congregation of Union Church was transformed from predominately European expatriate to  percent Asian. The Challenging Problem The challenge faced by Union Church was how to integrate the new parishioners as well as build new leadership and teams. A number of issues added complexity to the challenge. One was the fact that the church was a multinational/multicultural organization. Westerners and Chinese would need to work together, communicate effectively, and trust one another. The church’s ministry team comprised both Western and Chinese members. Traditionally, Chinese clergy are more reserved than their Western colleagues, and, according to Perry Lam, a church member who also served as the action learning coach for the group, “may tend to listen rather than actively contribute in discussion and planning of programs.” Another difference is that Asian organizations tend to be more hierarchical. Junior members tend to wait for the senior members to provide direction. As a result, issues may not be fully discussed before a leader takes action. Mem-

152 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

bers may not know why they are involved and may not support the actions taken. How the Action Learning Team Solved the Problem The action learning group chosen to build the new culture and to develop the new leadership consisted of the entire Union Church ministry team: senior pastor, associate pastor, teaching pastor, Filipino pastor, church manager, youth director, executive assistant, business administrator, secretary, and janitor. It was important, according to Lam, to ensure that everyone had an equal voice and opportunity to contribute. As most members were relatively new to their jobs, working together on the action learning team was a challenge as well as an opportunity to nurture communication and teamwork. The action learning process is designed to make all members comfortable participating in the communication and decision making. In addition to developing successful strategies, group members improved their listening, decision making, and questioning skills. Initially, the Asian members and more junior members were reserved, but they become more engaged as the action learning sessions continued. The result was a rich team atmosphere for the development of breakthrough strategies. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Union Church Hong Kong, see Table .. The Breakthrough As a result of the action learning efforts, attendance at services increased by over  percent, the budget was tripled, and the church increased its staff to  full-time and  part-time members. Lam notes that “the action learning sessions also helped accelerate the integration and development  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Union Church Hong Kong • All members recognized that there was a strong sense of urgency in dealing with the problem. • Each member was directly responsible for and committed to the outcome of their work. • Teamwork • Questions and reflection • Sense of humility in interacting with and learning from a diverse team • Willingness to change

Corporate Culture and Ethics

153

of the new leaders of Union Church.” He adds that “there was an increased alignment among the actions undertaken by the new leaders, as well as greater commitment to share in the workings of the Union Church. There was greater trust and greater innovation as well.”

Action Learning and Learning Organizations Action learning has tremendous power to change the culture of an organization at the same time that action learning groups tackle important problems within the organization. It has proven to be the single best tool for building a learning organization; action learning groups are the ideal model and a mini-version of a learning organization (Marquardt, a). Numerous other organizations, including Caterpillar, Federal Express, Wells Fargo Bank, Intelsat, NEC, and Nokia, are utilizing action learning to build a corporate culture imbued with learning, ethical behavior, and high levels of service to employees and customers.

9

Talent Management and Development

T

which includes the hiring, developing, and retaining of skilled employees, has become a key organizational requirement and challenge of the st century. Organizations realize that they must have top-flight talent in order to succeed in the hypercompetitive and increasingly complex global economy. There are three major drivers fueling this emphasis: a l en t m a n a g em en t,

. There is a demonstrated relationship between better talent and better business performance. A  study by the Hackett Group found that companies that excel at managing talent have earnings that are  percent higher than those of their peers. For an average Fortune  company, that translates into hundreds of millions of dollars. . Talent is a rapidly increasing source of value creation. The financial value of companies often depends on the quality of the talent it employs. . The context in which we do business is more complex and dynamic. Hyper-competition makes it more difficult than ever to sustain a competitive advantage over the long term. New products and new business models have shorter life cycles, demanding constant innovation. Talent development is costly not only in financial terms. It often involves taking staff away from the day-to-day working environment;

154

Talent Management and Development

155

their temporary absence lessens the organization’s ability to respond to competition and customers. Organizations are looking for a better way to develop their employees, especially leaders, while they are on the job. They are also looking for learning programs in which the learning is effective, efficient, relevant, and inexpensive. More and more organizations have discovered that action learning can provide this type of learning, because it enables employees to develop skills while working on real problems in real time and with real consequences, and receiving feedback from others while practicing their skills. Robert Dilworth (, p. ) observed that leadership development, as practiced by most organizations, “produce[s] individuals who are technologically literate and able to deal with intricate problem-solving models, but are essentially distanced from the human dimensions that must be taken into account.” Dilworth also noted that action learning provides leadership skills that encourage fresh thinking, and thus “enable[s] leaders to avoid responding to today’s problems with yesterday’s solutions while tomorrow’s challenges engulf us.” Ian McGill and Liz Beatty (, p. ) point out that action learning provides managers the opportunity to take “appropriate levels of responsibility in discovering how to develop themselves.” Leaders thus may become good at downsizing and corporate restructuring, but cannot deal with a demoralized workforce and the resulting longer-term challenges. Typical leadership development programs, however, rarely address the social and interpersonal aspects of the organizations and tend to focus on tactical rather than strategic leadership (Lynham, ). These limitations and shortcomings in traditional leadership development programs have caused organizations to seek more effective ways to develop their leaders. This chapter explores how three organizations— Microsoft, National Bank of Dominica, and Boeing—are using action learning to acquire, develop, and retain top talent. Action learning was determined by all three companies to be the most powerful and effective way to develop both current and future leaders, who, over the years, have participated in hundreds of action learning projects that have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits.

156 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Microsoft Founded in  and headquartered in Redmond, Washington, the Microsoft Corporation has nearly , employees worldwide. At Microsoft, as at other organizations, the business climate is constantly evolving. As the way of doing business changes, the company’s competition, its opportunities, and its leadership requirements also change. Economic turbulence highlights the need to have leaders who are adaptable and able to respond quickly and appropriately to new and uncertain conditions. The rapid growth of emerging markets is shifting the focus away from the United States and the developed markets To accelerate the development of high-potential employees within its Sales, Marketing & Services Group, Microsoft developed the ExPo program to build an expanded and diverse organizational network that provides visibility to current leaders and engagement with immediate management, creates a thoughtful and rich development plan, and enriches the on-the-job experience of managers. ExPo is offered to employees in the top  percent of the Sales, Marketing & Services Group worldwide. These employees are identified by their supervisors as having the aspiration, commitment, and ability to be business leaders at Microsoft. ExPo’s objective is to accelerate these members’ development by providing additional experiences that create greater readiness for leadership. ExPo includes early-career individual contributors through to experienced employees in functional leadership roles; the development training they receive is differentiated by career stage. One of the core components of ExPo is Leadership in Action. The Leadership in Action experience uses the drivers of accelerated development and the action learning approach to advance leaders’ skills and capabilities while, at the same time, making a direct business impact. In preparation for Leadership in Action, ExPo members in senior leadership roles (Tier ) attend a global launch event that explores the value of differentiation. At this event these members consider how they can differentiate themselves as leaders by focusing on and delivering what matters most. The session helps these members to identify the “breakthrough problem or opportu-

Talent Management and Development

157

nity” within their role where they can create the visibility and momentum needed to propel their careers forward. Members use a member/manager contracting process and reflection following the launch to get their managers’ support for the ideas they submit for breakthrough problem solving. Solving Partner Problems with Action Learning One of ExPo’s core experiences, Expo Front Lines, used action learning in  to help develop leaders while providing a valuable service to Microsoft partners in Africa. ExPo Front Lines gave senior, high-potential participants an opportunity to work on real business challenges facing Microsoft partners in Africa through an immersive, three-day action learning workshop in Kenya and a four-week virtual follow-up supported by technology. Held in Nairobi, Kenya, Front Lines brought Microsoft high-potential leaders together with representatives from Microsoft’s African partner organizations and their Microsoft partner account managers (PAMs) to confront the challenges facing these partners. To prepare participants, members were sent a series of preliminary reading materials relating to leadership development, corporate social responsibility, and Africa. Peer-coaching learning circles were formed in advance of the workshop as well, and members met once via audio conference to prepare for their experience. For the introductory three-day, face-to-face session, members arrived in Kenya and spent a full day focused on immersion and context setting by visiting local business sites and industry. There they witnessed some of the opportunities and challenges of doing business in Africa today. Representatives from local NGOs were invited to discuss these issues on a panel and participate in a question-and-answer period. The group spent the next two days using action learning in small groups with the partners and PAMs, working on the specific business challenges facing the selected partner organizations. The on-site session was immediately followed by a four-week virtual event. During that time, action learning groups continued to work with the partners on the actions to which they committed while in Nairobi. This virtual work was supported through a secure hosted Microsoft SharePoint

158 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

collaboration site. This site allowed all team members to blog, share documents, and conduct audio and video conferencing to deliver on the commitments agreed to in Nairobi. At the midpoint and end of the four weeks, audio conference calls were attended by the team’s action learning coach. Microsoft Live Meeting was used during these calls, allowing the teams to do real-time document sharing, presentation, and white-boarding. The Front Lines participants reconvened several months later at a oneday closing event. They met first with their respective action learning teams for reflection and then presented their results to each other and to other Microsoft leaders and participants. The goals of this program are to help broaden leaders’ perspectives on the business by exposing participants to an emerging market where income is generated in different ways, trading conditions are chaotic, and the future is uncertain. Through Front Lines they work on business challenges that they will face in future leadership roles, including interfacing with political leaders in order to influence the political agenda in an emerging market. In addition, the facilitated action learning process enables them to reflect deeply on their own leadership behaviors and lessons learned and translate those into actions. All selected projects align with Microsoft’s core capabilities and interests, as outlined in best-practice guidance around strategic corporate social responsibility (Porter and Kramer, ). The participants all have real, urgent business challenges that will benefit from the diverse perspectives brought by the Microsoft leaders. The Front Lines team ensures that both the high-potential participants and the partners benefit from the experience. For the partners, benefits include receiving consulting on critical business challenges, exposure to the action learning methodology, a best-practice leadership development experience for a key staff member, and a strengthened relationship with Microsoft. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Microsoft, see Table .. Benefits of Action Learning to Microsoft Microsoft sees clear benefits from the Front Lines program. Not only do the participating leaders practice and develop needed competencies and skills through action learning and their African experience, the com-

Talent Management and Development

159

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Microsoft • Strong connection with problem solving and leadership development • Accountability for taking action and learning from actions • Commitment to questioning and reflecting • Support of action learning from HR and top leadership • Diversity of teams • External and internal skilled action learning coaches • Deep thinking, metacognition, and systems thinking

pany as a whole also benefits. Kellie McElhaney () claims that there is good evidence that the company benefits financially from corporate social responsibility (CSR) in three distinct areas: talent management, reputation and brand, and operational cost saving. Although any or all of the above benefits may result from the Front Lines program, a more direct benefit is that all of the projects are brought forward by significant Microsoft partners. So in helping these projects make a worthwhile impact on their communities, members also are furthering key relationships. Action learning allows members to practice and develop leadership competencies, work together as high-potential teams, and learn to ask great questions as leaders, all while working on real, urgent business problems. In addition, leaders work with each other on their own challenges and problems in “action learning circles.” According to Shannon Banks, director of Worldwide Leadership Development, the selection of great problems and the diversity of the teams were the keys to the success of the problem-solving projects as well as the development of leadership within Microsoft. Based upon the design and successes of Microsoft’s action learning projects, the company was awarded the  Organization of the Year Award by the World Institute for Action Learning.

The National Bank of Dominica The National Bank of Dominica Ltd. (NBD) offers a wide range of loan and deposit instruments to its customers and was among the first in the region to offer an international debit card on a Visa platform. The bank operates from five locations in Dominica and boasts the largest ATM and

160 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

point-of-sale networks in the state. In addition to traditional services the National Bank of Dominica pioneered telephone and Internet banking in the region. The bank was among the first in the Eastern Caribbean to introduce mobile telephone banking, which allows customers to operate their accounts and to complete bank transactions using text messaging on ordinary mobile telephones. With the increasing thrust of globalization financial market turbulence, the bank has been forced to examine new ways of doing business that will ensure its long-term survival and success. NBD has built a sound reputation as an excellent corporate citizen over the years. The bank’s mission is “to improve the quality of lives of the people in the communities we serve.” In  the bank was recognized by the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (bank regulator for the Eastern Caribbean) as the “Best Corporate Citizen” among member territory banks. The award was based on the bank’s sponsorship and support for education, health, sports, culture, and community development and its reputation for being the employer of choice in its market. The Problem—Becoming More Customer-Focused In , action learning was introduced to the bank by Vow Mourillon, executive manager for human resource and organizational development. A number of challenges were selected, one being the need for the bank to become more customer-focused. The Customer Service Action Learning group was formed with members from throughout the bank. It worked over a period of several months to analyze the problem and to develop strategies. At an early session of the group, it was determined that the root causes of the problem were twofold—namely, () the internal frontline employees who served the external customers were not treated well, which resulted in a negative mindset, and () external customers felt, at various times, ignored, rebuffed, and/or uninformed. The action learning group explored several issues relative to the treatment of the bank’s external customers and developed strategies to improve the services and relationships. Previously, customer service staff tended to be quite insensitive, formal, even cold, when interacting with customers. When finished serving a customer, they shouted “next” rather than thanking the customer and formally completing the transaction by say-

Talent Management and Development

161

ing good-bye. Also, they did not provide customers with information the bank thought would be valuable because they thought it would be wasting the time of the customer. The Breakthrough Strategies developed by the action learning group and actions taken by the bank to improve the mindset of the frontline employees included: • Executive “meet-and-greet” expectations were set in which top leaders interacted with the customer service people and shared ideas about how to exchange pleasantries with customers. • Quarterly meetings were scheduled between customer service staff and other bank employees. These meetings included social activities (ice breakers such as games and magic tricks), as well as information sharing and training. Music and other forms of entertainment were used to present new information about bank accounts, for example. Customer service staff could submit questions to the executive staff before these meetings. • New staff positions were first announced to the customer service staff rather than through external media outlets. • “Dress-down” days were established, allowing customer service staff to wear more casual clothes, including shirts with logos that matched the branding scheme of the bank. • The bank’s Staff Club was revitalized with resources and a budget for community services. The Staff Club adopted a children’s home that cared for orphans and abandoned children. • A reward system was developed by the customer service staff. Whereas the executive staff in the past rewarded employees primarily with money, the customer service staff suggested rewards such as vouchers for vacation/shopping trips and electronic products (e.g., netbooks and iPods, trips), items that were actually less expensive than those top management had been considering. Why the Action Learning Team Was Successful In total, the Customer Service Action Learning group identified  ideas for providing better service to bank customers. They also researched

162 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

best practices of other banks around the world. Although there was initially a lot of disagreement over how customers should be treated, the action learning team was able to reach consensus on bank policies and develop a comprehensive training program that included philosophy, guidelines, principles, and standards. The action learning group also identified support services that the “back office” staff could provide for customers. The branch offices needed better branding and identification to improve their “look.” Everyone who served customers would be given name badges, not just the customer service staff. They attempted to recruit new staff who were customer oriented. The training programs for employees included customer service principles, best practices, and even songs that conveyed customer service ideals. Under the direction of Mourillon, the training was cascaded throughout the organization, beginning with bank executives, who in turn trained the supervisors, who trained the customer service staff. Anecdotally, these actions generated more smiles on the faces of the customers and the customer service staff. Mourillon notes that there was a “buzz of excitement” about customer service in the bank. Although initially skeptical about the work of another problem-solving group, employees saw that the action learning group analyzed the problem systematically and attended to many issues throughout the bank’s system. The National Bank of Dominica has used action learning for many other purposes since , including restructuring. One action learning group developed new locations and services to reach a larger market share; another group explored the feasibility of establishing a regional bank in the Caribbean. Mourillon observes that “action learning has dramatically  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at the National Bank of Dominica • Strategic and systematic analysis of the root problem • Commitment to breakthrough creativity • Rigorous research on best practices within and outside the industry • Skilled action learning coach • Connection of strategy to business success • Respect for other members of the group • Open-ended questions

Talent Management and Development

163

changed the culture of the National Bank of Dominica. We are more creative, committed, and excited about both our present and our future as a result of action learning.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at the National Bank of Dominica, see Table ..

Boeing Boeing is the world’s largest aerospace company and leading manufacturer of commercial jetliners and defense, space, and security systems. Boeing is the largest U.S. exporter with total company revenues for  being of over $ billion. The global reach of the Chicago-based company includes customers in  countries, employees in more than  countries, and operations in  states. Worldwide, Boeing and its subsidiaries employ over , people. More than , Boeing employees hold college degrees—including nearly , advanced degrees—in virtually every business and technical field from approximately , colleges and universities worldwide. The Boeing enterprise also leverages the talents of hundreds of thousands more skilled people working for Boeing suppliers worldwide. As a global learning organization, Boeing seeks employees who take an active interest in their own development through lifelong learning, recognizing that this is the only way it can maintain a leadership position in the global aerospace industry (Boeing, ). The Boeing Global Leadership Program, which debuted in , represented a significant investment by the company. Naturally, it hoped for a reasonable return on that investment, although historically, quantifying the return on investments in leadership training had been difficult. Thus Boeing decided to develop a program that not only served as a leadership development tool, but also served to provide the Boeing Company decision makers, through an action learning model, with quality information about a real-time issue. Preparing the Action Learning Teams for Solving Complex Problems As a first step, the Boeing Leadership Center set out to identify executive competencies that were most important for the success of global leaders. The result was a reorganization of  executive competencies into three

164 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

categories: () the most critical competencies (adapting, thinking globally, building relationships, inspiring trust, leading courageously, aligning the organization, influencing, and negotiating); () very important competencies (shaping strategy, fostering open and effective communication, attracting and developing talent, driving for stakeholder success, demonstrating vision, using sound judgment); and () important competencies (driving execution, inspiring and empowering, working cross-functionally, focusing on quality and continuous improvement, applying financial acumen). Boeing chose action learning as the training methodology since it fit the objective of enhancing the most critical global competencies. Action learning appeared to Boeing to be best able to produce a forum for senior level executives to learn while being challenged with real corporate issues related to the international environment in which they were placed. The Global Leadership Program has five key goals for its global executives: • Practice working together as one global company. • Value and seek understanding of the history, culture, politics, and customs of countries/regions. • Appraise the business practices, issues, and competitive dynamics within a country/region. • Assess business opportunities in a prospective country/region. • Understand the opportunities for international joint ventures and partnerships. All participants in the Global Leadership Program are senior executives of the Boeing Company, typically directors, division directors, and vice presidents. In addition, GLP participants are potentially identified on a company succession plan to be considered for the top company leadership assignments. The result is an extremely rigorous action learning environment designed to strengthen executive global competencies at the highest level of corporate influence. Program participation is by nomination only through the candidate’s business unit.

Talent Management and Development

165

Format of the Action Learning Program The program is divided into three sections: introduction, in-country, and report-out. The introduction consists of approximately three days in a location within the United States. These three days include introductions and orientation as well as guest speakers from within and outside of Boeing. The speakers who address the group are subject experts with international credentials. Internal Boeing experts provide insight from a U.S. perspective and a Boeing perspective. The second phase of the program is spent entirely within the country selected by the corporate executive board as strategically important. Participants spend three weeks traveling throughout the country, interviewing business leaders, hearing from country experts, and being immersed in the culture. After approximately  days into this phase, the executives are introduced to a specific business issue that has been selected by the corporate executive board as an important current issue for the company. The participants form teams to develop solutions and recommendations to present to corporate decision makers. The participants return to the United States for the final two days of the program, where they review, refine, and prepare their team’s presentation before the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee considers recommendations presented by the participant teams for action. At various points in the Global Leadership Program, action learning coaches work with the teams to help members reflect on how they could improve their capabilities as a team and how they could transfer their learnings to other aspects of Boeing operations. Both HRD staff and Boeing managers with no previous group facilitation background serve as action learning coaches. The action learning coaches receive an intensive two-day training course during the initial facilitations of the Boeing teams. Assessment of the Action Learning and the Global Leadership Program In an effort to ensure that the training program was met its objective of enhancing Boeing’s ability to operate as a global company, the Global

166 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Leadership Program developed an aggressive and comprehensive evaluation process. The questions it poses are carefully worded and designed to measure specific usefulness, applicability, and learning transfer. All data are kept strictly confidential. The evaluation design was developed by experienced industrial organizational psychologists, researchers, and evaluators of the Boeing Leadership Center as well as outside consultants knowledgeable in program evaluation methods. The follow-up evaluation instruments were developed by first linking the carefully worded questions with program objectives. During the program, the participants complete five formative evaluations. The collected data are immediately read by the program staff who provide real-time feedback and can quickly react to emerging issues. The results are organized and shared with the appropriate program partners. On the final day, the participants are also asked to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the program. Their feedback is analyzed for content and used to develop an executive summary report that is shared with the Boeing Executive Council. Benefits of the Global Leadership Action Learning Program The participants respond to the following questions. . What elements of the program were most valuable to you? The top three answers were the cultural experience, the networking, and the action learning while working on real business issues. . How did working in a team composed of several business units affect your experience? Were you able to work effectively as a team? What, if anything, was missing from the team process? The responses to this question were positive about the teamwork they experienced. Participants are formed into teams comprising members that do not know each other and are from various business units within Boeing. Each team member brings different skills and perspectives. Many of the responses to this question suggest that the members realize that leadership is as much about following as it is leading. Because all of the participants in this program are high-level executives who are used to leading, the team dynamic forces them into new roles of cooperation with peers. Leaders

Talent Management and Development

.

.

 .

167

emerge at various times during the program. Each team is tasked with finding a way to work cooperatively to solve a real issue while realizing that they are accountable for their conclusions to the executive board. The program provides a balance between a safe learning environment, a real issue to solve, and accountability for the decisions they make— all important components of action learning. Overall, what are the two or three most significant insights/learnings you have gained as a result of this program? The responses to this question are predominately personal, based on the participants’ experience. The comments range from general awareness of global competencies to very specific learning such as patience, humility, and stamina. This question also has generated responses that confirm participants are learning the targeted leadership lessons and global competencies. To what extent will this learning increase your effectiveness as a leader? Please explain. Responses have included comments such as: “Part of being a good leader involves synthesizing environmental inputs and taking the right folk in the organization to address specific areas of concern. This program reinforced my knowledge of establishing vision and getting the team behind it.” And “I am continuing to push my openness to alternative points of view.” “I see the value of silence as an effective intervention.” “I now use power of inquiry.” These statements demonstrate the learned value of asking good questions, reflecting, and being patient. Anything else you would like to say? Sample responses to this open question include: “This was simply the most valuable learning experience I have had as a Boeing employee. Thank you!” “The chance to work on a real business issue was appreciated. I’d encourage GLP to continue to include a diversity of positions, as I saw some of the non-technical folks adding a lot of value and learning to think more outside business lines.” “This was a fantastic experience; it exceeded my expectations by far. My only comment would be that we need to be careful not to let the deliverable overshadow the learning experience.”

168 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Approximately three months after and then again one year following the completion of the program, a sampling of graduates are interviewed in an effort to determine whether there has been any significant transfer of learning to the workplace. Graduates are asked whether they have used what they learned, and how. Using Kirkpatrick’s four levels of learning as a quantitative measure (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, ), the responses are coded as demonstrating awareness, learning, behavior changes, or performance stories. All respondents showed an increased awareness of the global environment. Ninety percent of the respondents demonstrated at least one new learning about themselves or their job. Forty percent could identify a behavior change since being back on the job, and  percent identified specific and quantifiable performance stories resulting from the program. One participant credited the Global Leadership Program for being instrumental in his successful negotiation of a new multi-million-dollar international business venture. He cited being in a new country, being part of a working team, learning reflection techniques, and cultural awareness as directly contributing to the global competencies he needed to be successful. Action Learning Teams and the Boeing Challenges The Global Leadership Program has been considered a great success in helping Boeing executives develop the global competencies the company identified as critical. In spite of the relatively high training costs of placing a group of senior executives in another country, the return to the company in the form of enhanced global competencies and great solutions to complex problems is considered a valuable return on investment. In addition to the qualitative stories of return on investment attributable to program learning, nearly  percent of participants can identify a specific behavior change or global competency as a result of the program. In addition,  percent identify learning from the program, and all participants (all of them senior executives whose budgets absorb the program costs) support the continuation of the program. The methodology of action learning has also proven to be highly effective. As one notes, “I have been to university-based programs in the past and they are not nearly as effective as being in-country and having a real life issue to work [on].”

Talent Management and Development

169

The action learning model is clearly effective in enhancing the transfer of learning in this case. According to Jim Eckels, who assessed the GLP for Boeing, “overwhelming positive responses from graduates after they have been back on the job are strong evidence that they are using what they have learned and believe that the  days they spent away from family and job was of significant value.” Based on the responses from graduates, Eckels recommended that the Global Leadership Program “should continue in its current form. In order to assure program effectiveness, Boeing must send the right people who will become part of a global assignment or be scheduled for a global assignment. This is important to a sustained learning transfer.” Eckels concludes that “action learning is a process that enhances learning for senior executives, as leaders at this level are typically goal oriented. The action learning approach is adaptable to the needs of the corporation, the individual, and the program staff. In addition, action learning creates a learning environment that requires participants to learn while creating real solutions through real life issues.” Why the Action Learning Team Was Successful The Boeing Leadership Center has begun to incorporate the action learning model throughout its leadership programs for first-level and midlevel managers and executives. The action learning framework is being used to incorporate the measurement of results into the curriculum. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Boeing, see Table ..  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Boeing • Commitment to learning and transferring that learning throughout the organization • Skilled coaching and facilitation • Diversity of team members • Time available (up to 28 days) for teams to develop breakthrough strategies • Clear responsibility and power in groups • Systematic and comprehensive assessment of the action learning programs • Clear boundaries relative to resources and restrictions • Building strategies from pilot testing • A business-impact perspective in developing potential solutions • Leaders regularly informed about progress of the strategies and actions • Strategies presented to the executive team • Resources and support available to implement strategies

170 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Breakthroughs in Talent Management and Leadership Development Most organizations that use action learning do so for the purpose of developing the leadership competencies of their organization. They have discovered that great leadership skills can be built only by real people working on real problems in real time with real consequences. They have learned that the more complex the problem faced by the action learning group, the more the leadership skills will improve. Every leadership skill can be practiced and improved in the action learning project—where everyone is working together to solve a problem for which a breakthrough strategy is sought, and where everyone’s questions and insights are valued equally. Organizations have also discovered that the bigger the questions asked, the better the leaders who ask them become. Great leaders ask great questions; great questions create great leaders; and great questions come from trying to solve great problems. The World Institute for Action Learning (WIAL), in collaboration with business schools around the world, including the Business School of the Netherlands, Ramkhamhaeng University (Thailand), and the Gordon Institute of Business Science (South Africa), has introduced action learning/leadership development programs into hundreds of organizations, including Humana, Wells Fargo Bank, Target, Singapore Airlines, Samsung, and Siemens.

10

Virtual Settings

M

the work of the organization is being done by individuals and teams located in different physical locations and different time zones. A number of benefits accrue to the organization that can unite highly qualified people without location restrictions—namely, greater ability to leverage skills throughout the organization, better capability to provide customers with the “best and brightest,” more balance between work and home relationships, and the opportunity to cut costs and time. The need to use the knowledge and talents of people throughout the organization to interact with specific customers using specific capabilities has resulted in more and more organizations creating action learning teams that can work virtually and quickly. This chapter discusses how Kanbay-Capgemini, Hewlett-Packard, Virtual City–Kenya, and George Washington University are using action learning in virtual settings. ore and more of

Kanbay–Capgemini Case written by Catherine Marsh Kanbay, Inc., now a division of Capgemini under the name FS-GBU (Financial Services Global Business Unit), is a global systems integrator



171

172 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

providing solutions to the insurance, banking, lending, credit card, and securities industries. Founded in  in Chicago, Illinois, by  Kanbay’s revenue was $ million and the company had grown to over , associates in  locations in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and India. Although Kanbay was recognized as a premier business and technology services provider for the financial sector, what permitted it to continue to attract new clients in the technology services sector was the low cost of services leveraged through the company’s offshore development facility in Pune, India. Kanbay’s leadership had also been savvy enough to understand that the company could become just one more offshore provider if it did not build a culture that was focused on the care of its people. In mid-, when the company first engaged in action learning, Kanbay could be seen as a highly successful entrepreneurial venture that had survived the recent economic downturn within the technology services sector, had expanded globally, and had developed a reputation as a quality offshore provider based on work done by partnering local on-site consultants with Indian technology professionals based in Pune, India. In addition, Kanbay had associates on the ground in Hyderabad, India, building and staffing another state-of-the-art offshore facility. To enhance its reputation for quality, efficiency, and business proficiency, it had attained ISO  certification and had successfully launched an initial public offering (IPO). The company had achieved notable business success and had also been recognized by Computer World magazine as one the best places to work. By , Kanbay’s profits of $. million were nearly triple those in , and its revenue had grown from $ million to $ million (Yue, ). In , Capgemini, a French company and one of the world’s largest providers of consulting, technology, and outsourcing services, having seen its own growth and profits decline, took notice of Kanbay and eventually acquired the company in  (Business Wire, ). As reported in Forbes, Kanbay’s leadership had some critical success lessons to share with the French giant (David, ). While the facilities in Pune and Hyderabad, and the most recently opened facility in Madras, provided Capgemini with growth and a well-trained workforce, Capgemini realized that a large part of Kanbay’s success could be attributed to the culture and values

Virtual Settings

173

promoted by Kanbay’s leadership. One year following the acquisition, in , over  percent of Kanbay’s leadership team were involved in driving successful growth and profit for Capgemini. The conscious development of its culture and leadership had been a foundational priority for Kanbay’s business strategy from the beginning. With the company’s rapid global expansion beyond India into Europe, China, and Japan, and with thousands of employees with culturally diverse perspectives, continued commitment to unified values and culture throughout the organization was essential. Kanbay’s leaders also suspected that with the increased number of offshore facilities offering IT services to the U.S. market, culture, values, and leadership could be the determinants of continued success. The Challenging Problems According to Cyprian D’Souza, chief people officer, one of Kanbay’s significant challenges had been to ensure that Kanbay associates from multiple countries and backgrounds did not take Kanbay’s culture in a host of different directions. “Creating a consistent global culture is the key to providing consistent client and associate experience. It’s how we retain contracts and keep associates,” D’Souza explains (David, ). From Kanbay’s early days, when the founders matched the need in the United States for software engineers with the rapidly growing numbers of Indiantrained IT professionals, the top priority had been to create a value-centered, people-centered organization. It had always been clear that the success of the business was dependent upon the success of its people, and no employee was going to feel like a second-class citizen. Kanbay’s global leadership team chose four critical initiatives, deemed both urgent and strategically significant, that required the sponsor and the participants of each team to develop a clear understanding of the key business issues, make recommendations, and implement parts of the plan after approval by the global leadership. Other aspects of the plan were transitioned to key stakeholders throughout the company. The four critical initiatives taken on by the action learning teams were: • a career development framework that supported the Kanbay culture while satisfying growth objectives and career aspirations of the associates

174 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

• a decision making model for Kanbay’s solution center strategy that would determine the timing and location for the next business solution center • a model for the improvement of project profitability that would allow for continuous growth while increasing the gross profit margin • a consistent client interface management process that would create predictable excellence in project delivery across multiple sites. How the Action Learning Teams Solved the Problems In , Kanbay’s leadership adopted action learning as the process they believed would serve them best as they launched their first Global Leadership Development Programs (GLDP) with the goal of building a unified value-based leadership within the organization. Four weeks before the beginning of the Global Leadership program the company invited  specially selected employees to participate in the program. In that invitation, Kanbay’s CEO, Raymond Spencer stated the goals of the program: • develop a group of global leaders that effectively can work across borders and cultures to drive the business and lead the organization • understand and acquire new models, skills, and attitudes of leadership • learn to plan and implement strategic breakthroughs • create a living “leadership network” across Kanbay locations • launch four global project teams to deliver positive, measurable, and lasting results that achieve the company’s business objectives. The GLDP took place over a period of  weeks. The  associates were divided into four teams of  to  members each. Group membership was based on the expertise and resources each could bring to the particular business need as well as a representation of business divisions, multiple global locations, and cultures. Each team had a trained action learning coach who was a process expert, as well as a sponsor or business area expert. After one week of briefing in Chicago, the associates returned to their home locations. Their workloads doubled as they continue in their usual positions while learning to operate in virtual teams on their assigned stra-

Virtual Settings

175

tegic global initiatives. In the th week, everyone reassembled in Chicago to present plans, receive feedback from leadership, and reflect on lessons learned. The final six weeks, with the associates back in virtual project teams at scattered locations, was the time when plans were finalized and implementation designs put in place, with ongoing coaching and pushback from leadership. Senior leadership clearly expected each team to deliver results. The North American staffing manager, who was assigned to the Roles Framework Team, stated, “Being a part of the GLDP was an incredible honor, but it was also the hardest thing I have ever done. I had to continue my own job while working in a virtual global team and knowing that I would be held accountable for producing a quality outcome! There was a great deal of pressure to perform.” While results were demanded, Kanbay’s leadership did not lose sight of the overall goal of leadership development. Participants were placed on teams where, in order to succeed, they would be required to learn new skills and ways of operating. One area of skill development that could not be ignored was conflict resolution, which was exacerbated by the cultural differences and the necessity of working virtually. One executive vice president and action learning coach commented, “Taking on an idea, working it across time zones, and finally coming to consensus on a new direction at the global level has transformational power in it” (Marsh and Johnson, , p. -). One year later, while in the midst of phenomenal growth and profitability, Kanbay’s leadership determined that although at the conclusion of the GLDP only two of the four initiatives were immediately doable, all four teams had made significant breakthroughs in thinking and planning that helped propel the company to a new level of global organizational capability. The Breakthroughs Two of the critical initiatives that propelled Kanbay’s growth following the  and  GLDPs were: () a decision making model for Kanbay’s solution center strategy that would determine the timing and location of the next business solution center, and () a model for the improvement of project profitability that would allow for continuous growth while increas-

176 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Kanbay-Capgemini • • • • • • •

Clear, measurable goals Strategic thinking Linkage of leadership development and problem solving Skilled action learning coaches Time and resources for the action learning team Urgent problems closely connected to goals of the business Support and encouragement of top management

ing the gross profit margin. Between  and , with the opening of the third solution center in Madras, India, and improvements in project profitability, Kanbay’s profits almost tripled, to $. million, and its revenue jumped from $ million in  to $ million in . In January , one month before the finalization of the Capgemini acquisition, Kanbay was recognized by Forbes (Murdoch, ) as the fastest-growing publicly traded technology company. When Forbes reporter Ruth David wrote, “Kanbay founders figured IT out,” she was not, however, just discussing the dramatic growth and profitability. While David acknowledged the numeric markers of success, she pointed to Kanbay’s approach to people and its corporate culture as being critical factors to its business model. Kanbay’s success may be partially based upon the determination of Kanbay’s leadership to not treat India as a back office for the operations in the United States. For Kanbay, leadership development has always been seen as global and action learning provided a significant methodology through which global, competent, principle-based leadership could be developed while critical business issues were being solved. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Kanbay-Capgemini, see Table ..

Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard (HP) is a technology company that operates in more than  countries around the world. The company was founded in a onecar garage in Palo Alto by Bill Hewlett and David Packard, and is now one of the world’s largest information technology companies with operations in nearly every country. Headquartered in Palo Alto, California, HP

Virtual Settings

177

serves more than  billion customers around the world, with approximately , employees. In , the company was ranked number th in the world, with revenues of over $ billion. Action learning was introduced to HP Asia Pacific in  as part of a problem-solving, talent-development program. Four key and critical business issues were identified by the vice presidents of business units across the region: customer service, product focus, emerging markets, and the youth market. The problems were urgent and selected because they (a) caused customer satisfaction challenges; (b) prevented HP from capitalizing on an existing market; (c) hindered improvements in market share; and/or (d) did not contribute the required revenue and/or margins. The Action Learning Problem The business units needed to show considerable improvements in revenue, and hence tackling these issues at the earliest opportunity was important. Employees from different functions of the organization, including supply chain sales, marketing, finance, and distribution channels, constituted the action learning teams that were tasked with solving these problems. Each action learning team consisted of six to seven members, with each team carefully selected by the vice president of human resources so as to ensure diversity in gender, functional expertise, language, and culture. The action learning teams were given a timeframe of eight months to study their particular problem, research the issues, and recommend solution strategies, including project plan and timeline. The end goal was to have these team members present the analysis of the problem, solution recommendations, and resource requirements to the senior leadership team of the organization for their review and comments. Working Virtually The teams worked primarily as virtual teams, meeting face to face only three times during the project. Each session lasted a full day. At the first meeting, team members were given a demonstration of action learning as well as some skills training in areas such as communications, leadership, and innovation. During this first meeting, professionally certified action learning coaches were made available to lead each team through the prob-

178 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

lem definition phase. At the end of the first session, each group identified an internal action learning coach to facilitate the remainder of the action learning sessions. Once the action learning teams began working virtually, the HR staff set up check-in calls to periodically assess the progress and provide assistance as needed. Each team had defined the problem at the end of the phase , researched the problem and potential solutions at the end of phase II, and identified specific action items at the end of phase III. At the end of the eight months, each team prepared a -minute presentation to the senior management team, recommending solutions and highlighting key learnings among the members and across the team. The Breakthroughs According to Jayan Warrier, the HP manager coordinating the action learning projects, senior HP leaders were pleased with the final strategies for the following reasons: . The problem analysis and strategies addressed the system as a whole rather than specific events. . The solutions were holistic and incorporated an overall organizational perspective. . The solutions were feasible and able to be implemented across countries and cultures. . Team members from diverse organizational units had learned how to collaborate as they worked on the potential solutions. . The solutions were well researched from a business impact perspective and were designed with a specific focus on containing cost. . The solution recommendations were convincingly crafted and presented by the team members. Strategies and presentations demonstrated practical understanding of the problem. . Incremental learning from pilot testing was valuable in developing the final strategic actions. . Each of the solutions incorporated breakthrough thinking that leveraged the existing organizational resources and depended less on external assistance.

Virtual Settings

179

Final presentations included specific strategies, project plans, and resource maps. The panel of senior leadership members who listened to the recommendations included problem owners (who were not part of the teams, but were available as needed) as well as the vice presidents of various organizational units. The solutions were scrutinized for clarity of the problem definition, identification of root causes, depth of research into alternative strategies, potential solutions, creativity, sustainability, measure of return on investments, resource requirements, and immediate impact on business. After each team’s presentation, the senior leadership team discussed the proposals and decided on the next steps, including “Go,” “No Go,” and “Wait.” Some projects were handed over to the problem owners for implementation of the solutions, while others were developed further. The project team continued to be available as resource persons to advise the implementation team as and when needed. One action learning team tackled the challenge of responding to urgent and profitable business needs while being constrained by budget limits. The team discovered a pattern of conflicts in the organization, and realized that, in an increasingly commoditized market, the role of IT engineering in HP would need to shift. While examining how IT engineers responded to these recurring dilemmas, one group member asked the question: “What if the senior leaders do not see the link between their support of budget restrictions in one area and the risks of severe business consequences in another?” This question reframed the issue and caused the group to examine a number of new possibilities for action. By exploring the potential issues embedded in this question and its implications, group members began to understand that they were uniquely positioned to provide cross-organizational data about tradeoffs associated with investments in global information technology and budget reductions. They also recognized that they could add new value, even in an organization preoccupied with cost cutting and resource conservation, by helping senior leaders distinguish high- from low-leverage IT investments.

180 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Why the Action Learning Teams Were Successful HP considered this and other action learning programs to be extremely successful, and many of the team members who participated were promoted within a year. The progress they achieved in their careers and the learning they gained while working on the projects were key successes. Some teams experienced conflicts that arose from personality, culture, and language differences. Each of these challenges led to personal and team turning points. People managers revived some long-forgotten basics and also learned the techniques of managing diverse virtual teams. Team members sharpened their listening and questioning skills and practiced respecting others, honoring opposing views, and tolerating differences. Some team members mentioned conflict handling as one of the skills they learned. According to Jayan Warrier, the teams “built a deep working relationship and formed strong alliances with those outside their country/culture/function. The problem and the research on solutions provided each one an opportunity to build organizational networks beyond their team, including with those in key leadership positions. Each of the team members increased their knowledge of business, customer service, and strategic thinking. They also learned about the challenges faced by team leaders in creating a safe environment for team members.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at HP, see Table ..  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Hewlett-Packard • • • • • • • • • •

Norms established and resources provided to enable the groups to work virtually Skilled action learning coaches Urgent problems Top management support Problem analysis and strategies that addressed the system as a whole rather than specific events Solutions were holistic and incorporated an overall organizational perspective A diverse team representing all of the organizational units Group provided training and guidance in teamwork, problem solving, questioning, and creative thinking Solutions were well researched from a business-impact perspective and were designed with a specific focus on containing cost Ability of teams to manage differences and conflict

Virtual Settings

181

Virtual City–Kenya Virtual City is a Kenyan-owned and -managed software business that develops customized mobility solutions for organizations in Kenya and neighboring East African countries. In February , an action learning team composed of Microsoft managers, Adopt-a-Business advisers, and Virtual City staff worked to deal with the problem: “How can Virtual City enhance its organizational capacity to be able to sell its Internet Protocol globally?” Following two face-to-face action learning sessions in Nairobi, the action learning group continued to work virtually over the following two months. Results of Problem Solving via Action Learning A number of strategies and actions emerged from these action learning sessions, including a more strategic focus on underlying issues that had hindered the progression of the company and were the source of the challenge above. Matthew Farmer, the lead partner in Emerging World, noted that the action learning group achieved successes related to quality, legal protection, and marketing: (a) Quality • Program management best-practices skills transferred from Microsoft, India • Began roadmap for ISO  quality certification process • Dedicated software testing team created • Completed training in areas such as strategic account management, software quality assurance and testing, and project management (b) Legal IP Protection • First recipient in Africa to receive Reuters Foundation program offering free global IP legal fees to Virtual City • Identified eight key software products for commoditization • Marketing collateral designed and project teams assigned • Redrafting and gap analysis of internal and external software licensing agreement (SLA) projects completed

182 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

(c) Marketing • Designed and initiated “Mobility in Action Marketing Campaign” in partnership with Microsoft • “Regional Route to Market Program” began in January  On September , , Virtual City won the  Global Growth Economy Venture Challenge from Nokia. The award recognized Virtual City’s Mobile Distributor Solution, which is designed to improve distribution efficiencies for small and micro enterprises in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) market. Virtual City received US$ million in venture capital investment and a commitment of support from Nokia to help turn the idea into reality. Judges looked for one idea that rose above the rest, an idea that changes the way people use Nokia mobile devices, demonstrates how mobility can radically improve the lives of people who reside in areas where the average income is under US$. per day, or that is a good business opportunity and also contributes to “doing good” in the world. John Waibochi, CEO of Virtual City, highlighted how action learning benefited his company: “The greatest value the action learning program has brought me is helping me identify the key challenges that our company is facing and then laying the building blocks and strategies for real business transformation. The strategic partnerships created and the focused action gained through action learning has helped move our company towards, what I am proud to say, becoming a truly Global Standard Company.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Virtual City, see Table ..  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Virtual City • • • • •

Openness to new thinking and ideas Urgency of the problem Diversity of group members Presence of a skilled action learning coach at face-to-face and virtual meetings Focus on learning problem-solving skills as well as on developing strategies

Virtual Settings

183

Action E-Learning at George Washington University George Washington University is a private, coeducational research university located in Washington, D.C. It is the largest university in the nation’s capital, with nearly , students; it is known for its programs in international affairs, political science, law, and medicine. Action elearning was introduced by Deborah Waddill, noted e-learning author, to the School of Health Sciences and the School of Education and Human Development. The target student audiences for these action e-learning programs are located throughout the United States and most of them are full-time workers. To accommodate their busy schedules, courseware is offered entirely online using a learning management system (LMS) called “Blackboard.” School of Health Sciences The design of this health care leadership program incorporates project-based learning. Practical applications are an important element of the course objectives. Rather than focusing on leadership theory, this health care leadership course emphasizes practical leadership development. An innovative version of action learning called Action E-Learning (AEL) is adapted for the online environment (Waddill, ). In the health care leadership online course, students must post a leadership problem that pertains to the field of health care and has a leadership dimension. The types of problems that students present range from managing a change effort, to handling conflict, to motivating subordinates, to integrating business units. Then using a text and relevant readings, students identify a leadership theory, trait, or style that is attractive to them. They integrate their chosen theoretical stance. Using a threaded online discussion, students post their urgent business problems at the beginning of the one- to two-week cycle as a new thread and label the problem in the subject line. During the first half of the cycle, other students add their questions to the online thread. The recipient reflects on the questions; this may take a couple of days, and the resulting discussion thread produces numerous considered responses. During the second half of the session, the problem owner responds to all of the ques-

184 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

tions posed about his or her problem. When students take action on the problem, they report on it in the threaded discussion of the learning management system (LMS). This cycle repeats itself, with a new thread starting at the beginning of each session. Students post their original description of the problem, or reframe it under the same topic (Waddill et al. ). The instructor-as-coach intervenes following the basic action learning protocols. The coach intervenes by using a bold, italicized blue “Note:” in the subject line. Participants know to pay attention to the coach’s question; it requires a response. The advantage of the technology is apparent in the asynchronous environment, offering boundless opportunities for thoughtful questions, reflection, and action in a safe environment. Students follow basic rules of netiquette. The coach presents those rules in the kickoff overview that is conducted via a groupware program called Elluminate Live. The outcomes of the course appear in the text in the discussion board as a permanent testament to the power of this process. Many students resolve the dilemma they presented. Not all of the students take action on the problem, but most move toward a solution. All of them document their learnings as they work through their business problems. If they find a solution before the end of the semester, they are allowed to introduce another problem. Students indicate their enthusiasm for the AEL approach on the course evaluations. As one student said, “I have participated in numerous leadership training classes, but this one incorporated all the critical concepts into a forum that enables the student to identify significant application for the topics” (Waddill et al., ). An important consideration for the instructor as coach is to give the discussions considerable weight when grading because participation in the threaded discussion is a labor-intensive process. Graduate School of Education and Human Development A more recent technology innovation, also termed Action E-Learning, is used in a human resource development (HRD) course offered by the GWU Graduate School of Education. In this course, designed and taught by Waddill, the students are given the opportunity to conduct action learning in a virtual world called “Second Life” (SL). SL is a three-dimen-

Virtual Settings

185

sional virtual world that allows users to socialize and connect with each other. Because GWU has campuses around the world, students on other GWU campuses have access to the power of action learning without being co-located with the instructor and the other group members. The longterm implications are that the action learning can be conducted across time zones, wherever there is a group member, a computer, and an Internet broadband connection. Action E-Learning in SL functions on the same basic principles as action learning. Action E-Learning in SL requires students to create an avatar and register for the private “GWU Island,” a meeting space specifically designed for action learning, with sound-proofed rooms for privacy. Student coaches oversee the action learning sets, which use an “open” approach to action learning. Each student brings his or her own business problem to the set and is allocated time to address a chosen business dilemma in SL using either the chat or voice-over Internet protocol (VoIP). Then they take action between set meetings. At the next scheduled SL meeting, they report to the set the results of the actions they have taken. There is a learning curve for interacting in a virtual environment, of course, but once participants become skilled with the process, the synchronous VoIP technology simulates the face-to-face aspect of action learning without requiring co-location. Participants learn to relate to the avatars as an extension of themselves. The avatars provide an enjoyable alternative to the physical constraints of real life, and participants seem to relate to the avatars as an extension of themselves (Waddill et al., ). Other Virtual Applications of Action E-Learning As Waddill notes, these examples of Action E-Learning do not exhaust the possible technology applications. Other technologies provide equally viable options for implementing virtual action learning on a global scale. Those who have Internet capabilities may find that threaded discussions, groupware, social networking, and virtual worlds offer feasible alternatives to the face-to-face approach. However, nations and peoples without Internet access also have action learning options. Mobile technologies, including cell phone and personal digital assistants (PDAs), offer connectivity in

186 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at George Washington University • • • • •

Group members trained in working and learning virtually Access to complex learning technologies Development of problem-solving and technological skills Establish expectations that will ensure the quality of technology Clear norms to handle potential difficulties such as absences, tardiness, mobile phone use, and participation

regions where there is no stable Internet. As the lines between the Internet and telecommunications blur, action learning advocates may someday take advantage of mobile technologies. Conversion techniques—to adapt pedagogical material for delivery on a mobile device—have already been delineated (Rosman, ). A similar approach could expand the use of action learning to areas where Internet connectivity is unreliable and mobile technology is available. Mobile technology offers a viable option for bridging the digital divide and implementing action learning in developing countries. If new applications are the foundation of action learning’s future, technology will be the delivery mechanism that propels action learning forward. It is safe to assume that technology and virtuality will be essential elements of action learning in the future. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at George Washington University, see Table ..

Breakthroughs in Virtual Environments More and more of the problem solving done by groups will be done virtually, and thus groups will need to learn how to cooperate from different locales and time zones. Virtual action learning groups with the appropriate norms, processes, and resources can be quickly effective, as the organizations described in this chapter have demonstrated. Kanbay-Capgemini, Hewlett-Packard, Virtual City–Kenya, and George Washington University were able to achieve breakthrough developments in global products and services, IT investments, and learning.

11

Organizational Change and Learning

O

to become ever more nimble as they seek to offer better and less expensive tailored services and products. Organizational learning has thus become critically important within companies for several reasons: (a) the changing nature of the markets; (b) continuous innovations in technology, product, work processes, materials, organizational culture, and structure; (c) various actions of work force values, global competitors, demands, and diversity; (d) ethical constraints and regulations; and (e) individual transition and development of the business. The most common forms of organizational restructuring are: r g a n i z at i o n s n eed

a. Regrouping of business—the reorganization of an existing business into fewer business units for efficiency, manageability, and profit b. Downsizing—reducing manpower—e.g., by offering a voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) c. Decentralization—reducing the layers of management in a business to give everyone a greater voice d. Outsourcing—reducing a company’s manpower needs and thus its fixed costs e. Enterprise Resource Planning—an enterprise-wide computer-based integrated management information system that enables management to understand their circumstances more quickly and efficiently

187

188 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

f. Business Process Engineering—redesigning business processes to maximize operational efficiency and the value-added content of products and services while minimizing everything else g Total Quality Management—including external certification of product quality to generate goodwill in the market; improvements in customer service, and reductions in business costs In this chapter we describe how three organizations on three continents—Constellation Energy, Deutsche Bank, and Kentz Engineers & Constructors—have used action learning to solve problems related to one or more of these forms of organizational restructuring.

Constellation Energy Constellation Energy (originally Baltimore Gas and Light Company), one of the oldest power companies in the United States, is among the largest providers of wholesale, commercial, and retail electric energy in the country. The electricity generating fleet is diverse and currently has , megawatts of generating capacity powered by nuclear, coal, oil, gas, wood, waste coal, hydro, solar, and wind electric generating units in the United States and Canada. Constellation is expanding into the renewable (solar) market for retail and commercial customers and has purchased “merchant” generating units in large markets. With annual revenues approaching $ billion, Constellation has over , employees nationwide. The Complex Problem Constellation’s use of action learning to solve problems related to organizational restructuring began in the early s. It was introduced to Frank Andracchi, vice president of power generation, who opted to do a trial run with the members of his leadership team. He began by asking leaders throughout the organization to identify possible action learning problems. The one chosen, although it appeared fairly simple on the surface, had been challenging the organization for a number of years—namely, how to staff one of the power plants six days a week,  hours a day. As Andracchi noted, it is relatively simple to set up a / schedule: for instance, an employee might have four days on, three days off, and work

Organizational Change and Learning

189

ten-hour days. It is not as simple to design a / system that is fair to all employees and meets the financial and legal restrictions of the company. How the Action Learning Teams Solved the Problem Constellation decided to hold two half-day action learning sessions because of the intense nature of the problem and the importance of solving it as soon as possible. (Through trial and error the company had discovered that four hours is about the longest session a team can handle.) Holding the second session on a second day would allow for overnight reflection and fresh thoughts after a good night’s sleep. Action learning team members were chosen from both the East and West Coast plants. To distribute the travel somewhat evenly, they decided to meet in West Virginia. The team gathered in the hotel conference room. According to Andracchi, “the body language was deafening. Most of the managers were ‘forced’ to attend and they didn’t work to hide their dissatisfaction. As each entered the room they found a seat around the table with practically all of them noisily plopping in their seats. Many of them took as closed a stance as they could muster. Arms folded, head down, eyes looking toward the floor, legs extended and crossed at the ankles. It was clear they weren’t interested in the organization development bandwagon du jour.” After watching a demonstration of how action learning worked, however, “several of the folks were sitting forward in their seats, and were eager to start working on the / problem mentioned.” As Andracchi observed, “you could tell much of the group was passionate about the problem; it apparently had been causing friction for quite some time. You could also tell that most of the men around the tables were engineers—as many were trying to work the shift schedule challenge out mathematically. It was a struggle to get them to ask questions that would lead to the true nature of the problem. The vocal ones kept going on that it’s simply a scheduling problem—all we have to do is …” The youngest manager in the room had been quiet for most of the afternoon. In spite of the interventions from the action learning coach, the team was having trouble drawing him into the conversation. Finally, someone asked him for his perspective on the problem since he worked at the plant in question. That simple question led to the breakthrough

190 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

in identifying the true nature of the problem. He was a technician at the plant when they went from / to /. As he explained, the / schedule was consistent. Employees worked four days, then had three days off. Most of the guys at the plant had to commute an hour and a half each way. A four-day workweek minimized their commute. In addition, they were able to care for their children on their days off, allowing their wives to work without having to incur the expense of day care. When the plant switched to a / schedule the decision was announced without discussion. The new schedules entailed working eight-hour shifts, six days a week. It was evident why the workers hated the new schedule, but the scarcity of jobs in the area made it impossible to quit. A bit more digging into the problem uncovered that although the employees didn’t like the new schedule, they also resented the fact that the change hadn’t been discussed at the plant—simply imposed. And since the plant had only  employees, consulting with all of them would have been easy. Andracchi recalls, “at this point it became blatantly clear that if we had just sent a new shift schedule, regardless of how perfect it was, the true problem would still be there. The workers want a say in their fate! With this, the team decided that they would come up with three potential shift schedules that were all acceptable to the partners and the leadership, and allow the plant members to vote on what schedule they desired.” As the action learning session continued, the managers who had been resistant in the beginning became interested in and finally enthusiastic about the process. For the first hour most of the participants hunched in their seats, then gradually became more engaged. When the first session ended, most were tired but not ready to go. The next morning more than half the managers showed up an hour early because they were eager to get started. Through the process they realized the need to identify the real problem before trying to fix it. Too often solutions address only symptoms. Remarkably, to Andracchi and others at Constellation, the action learning group, in less than eight hours, came up with a solution that had eluded Constellation for many years, a solution that met the approval of the plant workers and managers as well as the company’s financial and legal requirements.

Organizational Change and Learning

191

Other Breakthrough Problem-Solving Successes at Constellation One Constellation action learning group explored the problem of “how to retain employees until the last day of operation for mining projects which were currently highly profitable, but would shut down in four years, due to new legal regulations and laws.” The group’s task was to create a retention program that was fair to both the employees and the company. The membership of the action learning team included both affected and unaffected employees and business leaders from unaffected business units. In two four-hour sessions, the action learning team devised a retention program that included a $ per month set-aside for each month an employee worked, as well as an additional two weeks of severance pay for each year of service. It should be noted that, at the time, most employees had only five years of service or less. Four years later, Andracchi reports that this project “met all of their production goals right until the last day of operation, with both the owners and operating company exceeding all of their financial projections for this investment. If the projects had not had the solution developed by the action learning team, the financial loss to the investors would have been $ million, with another $ million in losses to the operating company. Maintaining the staff until the very last day of operation was critical to the success of this investment.” Another action learning success was a major reorganization effort in which Constellation combined three business units into one, involving more than  employees, leaders, professionals, and craft personnel. According to Andracchi, “the questioning approach of action learning was the key in accomplishing this reorganization in a very short period of time with relatively few meetings. Our questions efficiently helped us to determine goals, the resources required to achieve the goals, and the most effective way to structure those resources to result in a highly effective and efficient organization. This reorganization and elimination of reluctances will result in a minimum of a $ million dollar savings per year going forward.” In subsequent years, Constellation has had a number of additional successes with action learning. Since introducing action learning into Constellation Energy, Andracchi observes, “this problem-solving approach has been widely successful in solving both simple and complex problems. And

192 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Constellation Energy • • • • • • • • •

Urgent, complex problem affecting large section of the organization High expectations for change throughout the organization Diversity of team members Management belief in and commitment to the action learning Focus on questions in the problem-solving process Search for a wide variety of possible solutions Root-cause analysis in problem solving Clear goals and boundaries Provision of skilled coaching/facilitation

the real benefit is that as your leadership team becomes knowledgeable with the action learning process, they begin to use it everywhere to solve day-to-day business problems effectively and efficiently. Action learning has resulted in clearly definable cost savings and breakthrough thinking at Constellation.” For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Constellation Energy, see Table ..

Deutsche Bank Deutsche Bank, an international bank with its headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany, employs more than , people in  countries, with a large presence in Europe, the Americas, the Asia Pacific region, and the emerging markets of Africa. Revenues in  exceeded $ billion. Deutsche Bank received the  Bank of the Year Award, the financial industry’s most coveted award from the prestigious International Financial Review (IFR magazine), an award it also won in  and . In the early s, Deutsche Bank faced tremendous changes in its business and staff structure, with critical implications for corporate culture. Organizational change was critical, and action learning was employed to work on the following efforts: • • • • •

reconfigure operations along divisional product lines shift from a regional to a global operational structure shift from a multinational to a global leadership structure acquire several U.S. entities and incorporate their leadership model change the corporate language from German to English

Organizational Change and Learning

193

In order to address these issues effectively, Deutsche Bank recognized that it needed to develop its leadership and its problem-solving capabilities. Existing leadership development programs were focused on individual rather than organizational development. As a result, little knowledge got transferred to the workplace or to the application of new skills to business challenges. In addition, the cost of off-the-job training and development was high and climbing. In searching for a tool that would develop leaders while simultaneously resolving these challenges, Deutsche chose action learning for its just-in-time learning model and self-managed learning process. The bank undertook a six-month action learning program to address these key business challenges. The CEO, program director, and/or program manager selected the problems best suited for Deutsche Bank and for the action learning participants. Each problem needed to be: • • • •

of strategic importance to the bank a potential source of significant organizational change strategic—not tactical—in nature, to “stretch” participants broad in scope, offering rich learning opportunities

Twenty participants were selected. Following a two-day introduction to action learning, the four groups met part-time over a period of six to eight weeks. The final two days included the presentation of actions taken and captured the learning that could be applied throughout Deutsche Bank. The program was considered a great success, having attained innovative and cost-effective actions for each of the company’s problems. For a list of the factors that led to breakthroughs at Deutsche Bank, see Table ..  . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Deutsche Bank • Careful selection of critical problems with clear time frames for strategy development • Support of top management • Clear reframing and goal setting • Action focus • Diversity of group members • Integration of learning and action

194 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

Kentz Engineers & Constructors Kentz Engineers & Constructors is a global provider of specialist solutions with over , employees operating in  countries. It has provided specialist engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) services and technical support services to clients in the energy and resources sectors for more than  years. Growth has been rapid, with  revenues over $ million. As a result of the continuous and rapid expansion, global restructuring and organizational change are ongoing processes at Kentz. Companies transitioning to global business units, like Kentz, seek ways to improve profitability through efficiency savings, global purchasing, and consistent application of project controls. There were two additional advantages of global restructuring for the company: () many of its major clients were multinational enterprises seeking opportunities to work with preferred contractors on a global basis, and () each of the three global business units in Kentz had a different global footprint. Therefore, if Kentz were able to leverage its total global footprint, it would be able to increase revenues across other business lines (Karallis and Sandelands, ). Developing a Global Learning and Development Strategy Using Action Learning Kentz’s rapid growth and organizational changes triggered the need to develop new leaders with a broad sense of vision, strong interpersonal skills, and multifaceted problem-solving skills that complemented their strong technical expertise. This proved to be a major challenge. Following a strategic review in , Kentz developed a global learning and development strategy built on eight pillars: • Pillar —Supervisory Management Development Program (enabling graduates, tradespeople, and other high-potential people to move into supervisory positions) • Pillar —Skills enhancement courses (available to everyone in the company and focusing on leadership skills) • Pillar —Executive Diploma in Leadership and Management (supporting employees with degrees or significant experience to move into junior management positions)

Organizational Change and Learning

195

• Pillar —Master of Business Administration (MBA) to support and develop mid-level managerial talent • Pillar —EPC Project Management programs • Pillar —Degree and Diploma Support Program • Pillar —Technical training courses • Pillar —Functional training courses Connecting these eight pillars with the company’s mission of “building better futures,” Kentz considered a number of learning and development interventions, and ultimately decided to embed action learning tools throughout the leadership and management development process, and to make it available globally (Karallis and Sandelands, ). Carefully selected action learning teams were formed to address live issues, take action, provide space and encouragement to reflect, and relate the most appropriate theory and practice to the problem. A senior-level corporate sponsor advised each action learning team. Underpinning the global introduction of action learning was Kentz’s simultaneous investment in the development of HR systems, in particular the ULTIPRO performance management system, which connected performance management outcomes, training management, and human development. These systems would enable Kentz’s objectives to be better managed and allowed for comprehensive record keeping, tracking of training requests, and competency development. The company conducted extensive and ongoing assessments and gathered feedback from a number of sources. When these performance management evaluations were compared with Kentz’s strategic imperatives, a number of areas were identified for further development. Action learning in Pillars 1 and 2 Pillar , the Supervisory Management Development Program, is intended to help high-potential young leaders gain experience within the company’s different functions. A mentored rotation process familiarizes them with the business and helps them think holistically about Kentz and about their careers within the company. The rotation process is supported with management and leadership workshops in which action learning is used to resolve issues such as managing people and relationships with the boss, the mentor, and the client. The rotations, exposure, and action learn-

196 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

ing experience also help the participants develop internal networks. Pillar  offers skill enhancement courses for leaders, including problem solving, planning and organizing, questioning, strategic thinking, and creativity. Action Learning in Pillars 3, 4, and 5 Pillars  (Executive Diploma in Leadership and Management, or EDipLM) and  (MBA) use action learning in programs that bring Kentz employees together from around the world to work on strategic projects designed to ensure that corporate-level and business unit level strategies are put into action. Positioning the EDipLM as a global program has over time built connections among mid-level managers that contributed to the company’s establishment of global business units from national, then regional units. These two linked programs develop the skills that allow employees to make the transition from operational to strategic roles. The CEO of Kentz has played a leading role in the selection of project topics and in ensuring understanding of the strategic imperatives facing the business. A significant number of the senior management team are involved in leading a number of modules, especially those related to project management and the “teaching” of Kentz business practices. The action learning MBA has from its inception focused on live projects. Among the action learning projects undertaken are: • • • • •

Measuring organizational performance Developing a group branding strategy Black economic empowerment in South Africa A post-acquisition integration strategy Improving the effectiveness of Kentz business development systems

Originally the diploma program was envisioned as concentrating on reflective practice; now participants are explicitly involved in putting aspects of the strategies developed into action. A learning support network connects the learners with others inside and outside the business who can help them expand their opportunities to learn. Past participants act as “learning buddies,” bringing continuity and more opportunities to share expertise and learning. Two thirds of EDipLM graduates are promoted to

Organizational Change and Learning

197

a more senior role within  months of graduation. While no target has been set for career progression from the MBA, all graduates have received promotions, either during the program or within one year of graduating. Pillar  is an EPC project management program internally written and delivered and taught to capture Kentz’s core expertise and practices as an EPC contractor. Much of the information is technical and procedural and “taught” by subject matter experts from among the company’s leaders. But even in a program of this nature, the new challenges at work are such that developing effective leaders able to cope with the risk decisions and other major decisions is a key factor, and action learning problem solving and sharing are key parts of how this is achieved. Action Learning in Pillars 6, 7, and 8 Action learning at Kentz is also used for short-term programs. People can begin identifying issues and resolving them in teams within an hour. Over the course of a two-day workshop, action learning groups can be formed and provisional implementable actions established. Kentz skills enhancement courses focus on what are often called “soft skills” areas, such as negotiating skills, influence and assertiveness, time management, communication skills, and dealing with difficult people. These are tools for leadership and personal effectiveness. In these courses, action learning breaks the dependency on spoon-fed knowledge and instead engages participants in resolving live issues. Even short, one-, two-, or three-day action learning workshops can address and resolve significant issues. For many participants, two days in a new learning environment can change their whole approach to work, as well as give them a deep appreciation of this method of learning (Karallis and Sandelands, ). Success Factors in Action Learning for Kentz Takis Karallis, group HR director at Kentz, makes the following observations and conclusions about the company’s experience with action learning: . The future of Kentz Engineers & Constructors rests with its ability to develop sufficient numbers of effective leaders. There is no substitute for action learning in this process.

198 Case Studies of Breakthrough Problem Solving

 . Factors Enabling Breakthroughs at Kentz Engineers & Constructors • Learning individual and group skills as part of problem solving • Selection of challenging problems that required the development of leadership skills • Group diversity • Time allocated for reflection and learning • Support from top management • Use of short-term and long-term projects • Encouragement of risk taking

. Buy-in from the CEO and senior management team and their deep engagement with the process was crucial. . Attention needs to be paid to effective HR systems, in particular talent management systems, to both build demand and monitor actions. . Action learning can be used effectively, even in short “training” sessions. . A quality management, continuous improvement philosophy must be adopted to ensure improvement in corporate-wide learning and development activities and sufficient adaptability to cope with dynamic circumstances. . Action learning has been important in making Kentz’s “Building Better Futures” purpose real for its employees and in developing leaders at all levels to drive and respond to growth and change. For a list of the factors that enabled breakthroughs at Kentz, see Table ..

Breakthroughs in Organizational Structuring, Change, and Learning In addition to the three organizations described in this chapter, many other organizations around the world (Sony Music, Humana Health, and Goodrich, to name a few) have begun using action learning to restructure, resize, decentralize, outsource, implement enterprise resource planning, and globalize. These organizations have discovered that implementing action learning projects propels them toward becoming learning organizations, and that action learning teams are themselves mini–learning organizations.

12

Action Learning Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

I

we described the growing complexity of problems faced in today’s workplace environment, the latest and most cutting-edge theories relative to problem solving, and how action learning has the unique capacity to solve such problems. In Part II, we presented  stories detailing how organizations around the world have successfully used action learning to achieve breakthrough strategies when confronting the difficult and complex problems of the st century. This chapter integrates the elements and principles found in both the best theories of problem solving and the best practices of action learning. From this synthesis and with a systematic review of the empirical research on action learning undertaken by several action learning scholars over the past five years (e.g., Boshyk and Dilworth, ; Marquardt et al., ; Pedler, ) we present ten key principles that are critical for consistent breakthrough problem solving, all of which are part of or can be incorporated into action learning. n pa r t i o f t h i s b o o k ,

Ten Critical Principles for Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning . Select a problem that is urgent and complex. . Use questions and reflection.

201

202

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

. Foster a receptive mindset and attitude among action learning team members. . Use skilled coaching/facilitation of the action learning team. . Integrate learning into the action learning projects. . Establish clear norms and enforce them. . Formulate explicit timelines and expectations for the action learning team. . Allocate power and responsibility to the action learning teams. . Ensure membership diversity within the action learning teams. . Enlist the commitment and support of top leadership. 1. Select an Urgent and Complex Problem Unless a problem has urgency, those tasked with solving it will devote limited energy commitment, or creativity to it. Simply put, without an urgent problem, there will be neither significant learning nor meaningful action. As the experiences of the Downer Group, Constellation Energy, the Cook Islands, and Lexus illustrate, the more complex and difficult the problem, the more the teams learned and the more breakthrough thinking that occurred. Complexity generated a need for creativity as well as a sustained, systemic, and successful approach. Table . presents recommendations for selecting and introducing problems to action learning teams. The problem should be deemed important and the solutions extremely valuable to the organization. If the problem is seen as unimportant or too simple to solve, the group will not put enough effort or energy into solving it, and their capacity to be an effective problem-solving team will not be tested. In addition, the action learning team may feel that the organization  . How to Select and Address an Action Learning Problem 1. Select a real-time, urgent business problem. 2. Approach the problem with the understanding that multiple strategies are possible. 3. Review and reframe the problem statement before searching for solutions. 4. Provide a clear time frame for presenting and/or implementing solutions and strategies. 5. Build learning opportunities from working on the problem. 6. Select a problem that will generate learning opportunities for individuals, groups. and the organization.



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

203

does not have enough confidence or trust in the group to give them a truly difficult problem. To demonstrate to the group that the organization believes in its capability to solve the complex problem, it is important that only one group be assigned to work on a problem. Allowing another action learning team to share the problem reduces the level of exclusivity and diffuses the group’s power to make clear decisions. When the problem is shared between groups, duplication of resources and efforts can cause intergroup conflict and ambivalence about the learning process. Finally, the problem should provide maximum opportunities for the group to learn. The appropriateness of a problem is determined by the sense of urgency that it needs to be solved and the scope for exploration. Hence, in order to promote optimal problem solving, the chosen problem should open unlimited pathways for group members to be boldly involved in reflective learning and action taking. Without an appreciation of the urgency and complexity of the problem, group members will not be motivated to question the underlying assumptions and devise appropriate actions. 2. Use Questions and Reflection Questions are the essence of breakthrough problem solving. All great inventions in the history of the world were initiated by the inventors asking questions that had not been asked before. Questions serve many purposes for an action learning team. They enable group members to understand, to clarify, and to open up new avenues of exploration. They provide new insights and ideas for strategic actions and potential paths toward solutions. Questions build understanding while laying the groundwork for gaining support for possible actions. Questions also serve as the foundation for individual, team, and organizational learning. Several of the organizations described in Part II (Kirin Brewery, Microsoft, DuPont, and Panasonic) included training in questioning skills as part of the action learning program. Specific actions undertaken by these organizations that are recommended to achieve breakthrough thinking are listed in Table .. One of the primary ways in which action learning differs from other

204

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

 . Questions and Reflection 1. Focus on questions rather than answers. 2. Reflect on one question before asking the next one. 3. Frame questions with a curious and breaking-new-ground attitude. 4. Ask lots of “what if” questions and play out scenarios with the problem sponsor. 5. Ask basic questions to determine the real, root, and/or systemic problem before jumping to conclusions. 6. Ask “fresh” questions to develop new perspectives and to challenge assumptions. 7. Explore the potential issues embedded in each question. 8. Understand the power of simple questions. 9. Use questions and reflection to develop leadership and team competencies.

problem-solving approaches is its focus on questions rather than solutions. By asking questions a group gains a common understanding of the problem, acquires a sense of potential strategies, and achieves innovative breakthrough strategies and solutions. Questions, when asked at the right time in the right way, provide the glue that holds the group together. The seeds of the answer are contained in the kernel of the questions. Thus the better the questions, the better will be the solutions and the learnings; the deeper the reflections, the greater the development of individual and team competencies. Action learning recognizes that problem solving begins by diverging through the use of inquiry, and only then continued to converging and narrowing. It is first necessary for a group to gain the big picture of the problem, “to see the entire elephant,” before beginning to explore goals and specific strategies. The acquisition of a helicopter-view of the problem can only be accomplished by openly and freshly questioning each other and then reflecting on the responses. A central aspect of action learning is the reflective inquiry process and the resulting group environment that allows for and encourages people to ask “dumb,” or more accurately, “fresh” questions. The ability to ask good questions is essential for challenging other perspectives and opens potential pathways for creative problem solving. When the problem owner asks learning questions, it creates a different energy and dynamism within the group. Learning questions are openended “what if,” “how,” and “why” questions to jolt the minds of problem solvers into understanding the many possible scenarios that the problem at hand could present.



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

205

Deep questioning of assumptions and ambiguities helps group members prioritize their actions and at the same time prepare them psychologically for the lessons to be learned. Group members begin to realize that both learning and action are equally important and necessary for their development as leaders. In so doing, the group will reach a deeper level of engagement that helps them go beyond problem solving to creating new insights about their learning ability. As members reflect on the key issues and challenges of their collaborative experience, they begin to formulate new frames of references for subsequent action. This mental process involves unlearning and relearning. The intrinsic benefits of questions and reflection must be supported by the mindset, values, and attitudes of the action learning members. Without the right motivation, it will be a challenge for individuals to translate learning into proper action. There were several factors noted in the  cases that enabled and encouraged the individual group member to ask questions during the action learning process: . Self-direction. Individual participants should possess an intrinsic motivation to undertake learning as a continuous pursuit of personal and professional improvement. They must take responsibility for their learning to enhance their self-efficacy in taking action. . Learning orientation. Learning from other group members is a crucial aspect of enlarging one’s worldview; participants build on each other’s experiences to craft their own purpose of inquiry in the action learning process. In this way, learning becomes a much more meaningful process that allows them to make sense of the environment in a spontaneous yet purposeful manner. . Thoughtful questioning. A crucial aspect of action learning is the ability to ask useful questions; this ability needs to be built through support and encouragement. Asking the right questions helps an action learning group to see things in the right perspective and solve the problem at hand in a much more concerted and thoughtful way. . Deep listening. All participants need to be keen observers and listeners as they internalize the ideas and issues discussed for the externaliza-

206

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

tion of their strategies. Reflective listening removes doubts and provides the cognitive capacity for participants to analyze things clearly.  . Confidence and well-being. It is important that all participants feel they have something important to contribute to the action learning process. Mentally and physically healthy participants are able to deal more effectively with doubts and ambiguities than unhealthy people and work through issues to develop appropriate solutions. 3. Foster a Receptive Mindset, Values, and Attitudes among Action Learning Participants Apart from the support and resources that can be obtained from external sources, the success of action learning is determined by the readiness of each participant. The way group members perceive themselves, their tasks, and their internal and external environments will have an impact on the results they achieve. For instance, it is important for them to explore their ideas collaboratively rather than imposing them on others. Their attitude toward others and the recognition that they may need to change their behavior affect the value they imbue in the process, which in turn determines their potential for becoming better problem solvers and decision makers. The value of an appropriate mindset was evident in the action learning projects of the Downer Group, the United Nations Environment Programme, Anglo American Mining, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, whose key practices are presented in Table .. Sometimes, the quest for a competitive edge at all levels motivates the team members to look outside the organization for inspiration and renewal. However, what they really need to do is unleash the power within  . Mindset, Values, and Attitudes of Action Learning Members 1. Be bold in sharing and testing ideas. 2. Be practical minded. 3. Do not view other participants as competitors. 4. Listen to other participants with respect. 5. Keep an objective, unbiased, and open mind when discussing solutions. 6. Increase self-management from the outset. 7. Develop a commitment to project outcomes. 8. Focus on systems thinking. 9. Expect breakthrough ideas and strategic actions.



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

207

themselves to control and lead in meaningful ways. In other words, people naturally possess the power to change and influence things around them. For instance, several of the breakthrough ideas in the cases were motivated by problems that were urgent. Incentive alone was not the only motivator that sustained the participants’ commitment to action learning. Breakthroughs stem from the realization that they have in themselves the power to influence events and make progress. Without the right mindset, it is easy for the action learning team to veer off course. During the review and evaluation stage of the project team members need to consolidate and communicate their findings through formal presentations to the top management. The value they place in the problem solving and action taking becomes evident in the manner in which they provide the information and conduct the presentation. Their attitude is reflected in the way they gather and respond to feedback on their recommended ideas and solutions. If group members project the right mindset about the overall process, they will take feedback in stride and use it to generate a rich and concrete experience. Hence, the evaluation process will not only determine the effectiveness of the program but also provide an opportunity for team leaders and senior management to identify top performers on the action learning team. Each participant’s focus on his or her own mindset, value to the team, and attitude will provide the direction and recommendations for future program improvement. 4. Use a Skilled Coach or Facilitator to Support the Action Learning Team Although not all of the cases that were presented in Part II had a coach or facilitator, in those that did (Nationwide, Microsoft, Goodrich, Boeing, Kirin Brewery, and Constellation Energy), the organization and group members recognized the speed and creativity that the facilitation provided. These groups handled conflict well, were cohesive, and saw positive group dynamics. The key practices are listed in Table .. Coaching is necessary for the group to focus on the important process of learning and on the urgency of the problem. This focus can be supported by a coach who helps the team question assumptions and reflect

208

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

 . Skilled Coaching and Facilitation of the Action Learning Team 1. Provide skilled coaching or facilitation to ensure learning as well as action. 2. Create a safe environment for participants to ask questions. 3. Provide power to the coach so that the urgency of action is balanced with the importance of the learning. 4. Help participants “in the moment” to understand, learn, and apply their learning. 5. Enable and encourage participants to provide useful, positive feedback to each other. 6. Develop consensus on policies, guidelines, principles, and standards. 7. Resolve conflict in a timely manner and see it as an opportunity to develop individual and team skills.

on key issues. In particular, the coach should be aware of what the team is achieving, what they are finding difficult, what techniques they are using to solve the problem, and the implications of these intricate processes for the overall action plan. Most important, the coach should possess the relevant facilitation skills to maximize the team’s reflective, experiential, and collaborative inquiry. The primary role and focus of the action learning coach is to facilitate the group’s ability to grow and learn so that it, in turn, can better solve the problem. Without a facilitator or coach, a team is likely to slip into familiar patterns of activity. In this environment, team members can easily go on “autopilot,” mindlessly displaying habitual behavior that has been well rehearsed and reinforced over years of organizational life. The coach ensures an atmosphere of learning and reflective inquiry. It is important that the focus and objective of the action learning coach remain on the learning, and not on the problem. The coach also helps to ensure that the norms developed by the organization and the group are adhered to and that the group gains learning and develops actions in each session. Although it is possible for any group member to focus on the learning and to ask the questions assigned to the coach, the case examples and the research show that these tasks are rarely performed unless someone is designated to do so. Problem solvers (i.e., the group members) are focused, as they should be, on the urgent problem. The urgency of the problem always overwhelms the importance of learning.



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

209

5. Integrate Learning into the Action Learning Projects It is important that all participants improve their knowledge and competence through action learning, both for the short-term benefit of solving the problem, and for the long-term benefit of solving future problems for the organization. Competencies include teamwork, leadership, communication, conflict management, and innovation skills. Appropriate time and support must be given to help the team capture the relevant learnings that will guide their subsequent actions. Every one of the cases carefully integrated learning into their projects. Some companies—Kentz Engineers & Constructors, Hewlett-Packard, the Caribbean Water Project, Boeing, Nationwide, and Just Born—devoted longer time and more resources to creating and capturing learning at the individual, group, and organizational levels. The critical steps these organizations undertook to integrate learning into the action learning projects are shown in Table .. One way to ensure a successful action learning program is for the team to constantly review their operational process to verify that they have captured the key lessons and solved the problem appropriately. An internal audit helps the team to modify their learning strategies and action plans to bring about the most effective results. This is a simple yet powerful way of integrating learning into the project. Investing time in understanding the learning process is essential to creating the right mindset for both participation and collaborative inquiry. Acknowledging that the process is not without challenge and risk provides the group with the underlying motivation to embrace learning as an inescapable part of problem solving. In other words, a problem can pro .5 Integrating Learning into Action Learning Projects 1. Ensure time for learning as well as problem solving during all action learning sessions. 2. Adopt a systematic, holistic approach to learning. 3. Encourage adaptive and generative learning in the face of challenges and emerging issues. 4. Build on existing knowledge and capabilities. 5. Reflect on and immediately apply the learnings during and after the action learning sessions. 6. Develop a learning support network inside and outside the business.

210

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

vide many learning opportunities for participants to realize their potential. When learning and problem solving are integrated, there will be greater opportunities for breakthrough ideas to develop. This is likely to occur when the participants learn from their errors and go on to craft different strategies to overcome them. It is when logic and creativity intersect that breakthrough thinking is likely to occur. In other words, when one or more ideas that may seem far-fetched are applied in actual situations, it is then that breakthrough results are likely to follow. Without action, theoretical reasoning will remain just that. With the integration of action into the action learning project, participants will learn to take greater courage and risk to test their assumptions. 6. Establish Clear Norms and Enforce Them Encouraging the group to be clear about how they plan to work together early in the process offers members a platform for discussing and finalizing their expectations. Through discussion, the group can voice their assumptions about individual commitment and accountability, as well as the support they require. As the group progresses toward a deadline for specific deliverables, the level of stress may increase. In this case, ground rules can be useful in reminding members of their agreed roles, responsibilities, and expectations and prevent conflict from developing. Norms and routines should be clearly specified and agreed to by all members and should be reinforced through frequent reviewing and monitoring. This will help maintain behavioral boundaries and healthy and balanced interactions throughout the process. Even with cross-functional teams and cross-border collaborations among people from diverse backgrounds, appropriate norms and routines will help facilitate a dynamic cross-fertilization of ideas and increase the value of action learning. Norms such as focusing on questions, taking time to learn, seeking input from all members, respecting different perspectives, and accepting the role of the coach/facilitator were seen as critical for the success of the action learning projects of Microsoft, Constellation Energy, Nationwide, UNEP, Hewlett-Packard, and George Washington University. Table . highlights the important aspects of norms in action learning programs.



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

211

 . Establishing and Enforcing Clear Norms 1. Establish a few clear norms and expectations. 2. Continuously improve the norms. 3. Help group members be aware of how the norms improve performance and breakthrough thinking. 4. When working virtually, capitalize on technology to establish norms that will ensure the quality of the sessions. 5. Develop norms to handle potential difficulties such as absences, tardiness, mobile phone use, conflict, and participation. 6. Consider the norm of allowing “statements only in response to questions” to enable stronger group cohesiveness, better listening, and more creativity.

7. Formulate Explicit Timelines and Expectations for the Action Learning Team Setting an explicit timeline is an important step in helping the action learning team prioritize their tasks, keep pace with what needs to be done, and achieve specific goals. It also determines the expectations of the problem sponsor about how time should be divided among the various complex tasks. In addition, the sponsor or coach needs to set realistic expectations and manage them in a way that prevents conflict and poor performance. However, the most crucial evidence shown by research and the  cases is that top management’s high expectations of a program have a direct and significant impact on the final outcomes. High expectations by top management imply a psychological contract between management and employees and increase the participants’ desire to meet them. Not only will the participants be more engaged in their learning, they will also be extra motivated to outperform themselves to explore the best solutions possible. As such, clear and achievable expectations supported by a realistic timeline create a win-win situation for both the problem sponsor and participants. The action learning projects undertaken by Kanbay-Capgemini, Deutsche Bank, Morgans Hotel Group, and Goodrich all demonstrated the importance of clear expectations and boundaries on the part of top management. Key practices employed by these organizations are presented in Table .. Developing a plan for working together will give the action learning team a platform for discussing expectations. As group members seek to define their role, identity, and expectations they will develop the synergy

212

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

 . Formulating Explicit Timelines and Expectations 1. Establish specific dates for the selection and implementation of strategies. 2. Clearly state whether the action learning team will only be presenting strategies or will also be implementing the recommended actions. 3. At the end of each action learning session, identify actions to be taken by individuals and/or groups between sessions. 4. Develop detailed strategies with timeframes and expectations. 5. Expect implementation of individual learnings.

necessary for obtaining breakthrough results. This requires the group to both objectively and openly discuss their assumptions about commitment and accountability. As the action learning team progresses toward project delivery, their level of stress may increase; having reliable support and encouragement from the top management, problem sponsor, and coach will help the team manage their time and expectations. The important thing is that the team should not feel inhibited in any way in trying to meet the arbitrary timelines; instead, they need to be fully engaged in the process to explore the potential sparks for breakthrough thinking. More than having timelines, norms, and routines, clear communication of expectations will ensure that purposeful action is undertaken. Having realistic expectations encourages group members to view problem solving as a means of contributing to the wider organization rather than focusing on smaller tasks. Although all of these practices are important, they need to be carefully coordinated so that they can serve as the driving force for breakthrough actions. 8. Allocate Power and Responsibility to the Action Learning Teams The power of the action learning team can be derived from their endorsement, support, and recognition by top management. The team first needs to know that their efforts are of value to the organization and that their ideas will have an impact on the business. They then need to take ownership of the problem and do their best to make decisions and solve the problem. For instance, each step taken to unpack the problem will serve as an opportunity for the team to discover new perspectives on



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

213

 . Allocating Power and Responsibility to the Action Learning Teams 1. Provide adequate power and responsibility to the group so as to achieve breakthrough problem solving. 2. Expect a high level of effort and energy. 3. Set clear boundaries and other limitations at the outset. 4. Provide access as necessary to the people who have the power, passion, and knowledge. 5.. Experiment and pilot-test different actions and determine the best action for solving the problem. 6. Assess opportunities for short-term and long-term strategies that will affect the entire organization. 7. Adopt a business-impact perspective in developing potential solutions.

problem solving. This will require further conceptualization, reflection, and experimentation. Energy, creativity, and synergy are directly correlated with the expectation that the work of the group will result in organizational action, as witnessed in the Boeing, Welsh farmers, National Bank of Dominica, and Lexus cases. Table . highlights the important actions relative to allocating power to action learning teams. When the group understands the importance of their contribution, they will feel empowered to suggest changes in the organization. Action learning can alter social interaction patterns to create a greater conversational space in which new ideas can develop. Such change can be achieved through cross-functional collaboration and integration, where participants capitalize on subsystems such as technology, culture, and structure to synergize learning and encourage reflective action taking. In turn, the power allocated to the team also enables them to steer the learning in the right direction for the most desirable solutions. 9.Select Action Learning Team Members with Diverse Backgrounds and Experiences In order to increase the power of the action learning team, it is important to select members from a variety of backgrounds and disciplines, even if they are located in different geographic areas. Goodrich, Microsoft, Boeing, and Hewlett-Packard, for example, capitalized on the diversity of the team members by using technology to connect them virtually. Team diversity can raise the level of learning, creativity, and problem solving by bringing alternative perspectives to the collaborative inquiry. Group

214

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

 . Diversity of Membership on Action Learning Teams 1. Carefully plan the membership of action learning teams. 2. Seek members of different genders and ethnicities and from different backgrounds and disciplines. 3. Consider members from outside the organization or outside the community in order to obtain fresh perspectives and ideas. 4. Establish cross-functional teams with members of different organizational rank. 5. Create norms that encourage participation by junior and outside members. 6. Recognize the advantages of diversity in achieving creative, breakthrough ideas.

diversity will also create new dynamics that promote active debate and discussion on issues that require wider and more in-depth explorations. One attribute of action learning is the potential it provides for individuals of different rank, education, and experience to work together on an equal basis. Asking questions and listening reflectively are the most valuable contributions that any member can offer. Thus a janitor or a customer may be able to ask better questions than a manager or a CEO. Those new to action learning are often amazed how quickly and easily people of different socioeconomic and academic backgrounds work smoothly and seamlessly together. The Welsh farmers and the Caribbean action learning teams highlighted the value of diversity in their action learning projects. Some of the crucial ways to ensure and utilize group diversity are listed in Table .. Different ways of thinking and seeing the problem as well as varied skills and backgrounds enhance the probability that the group will achieve breakthrough strategies and actions. As noted in the HewlettPackard, Constellation Energy, and Microsoft cases, among others, the questions and the perspectives of people least familiar with the organization or the problem allowed the group to come up with the best ideas. As Reg Revans noted in his early experiences with action learning in Belgium—bankers sometimes had better ideas than educators about how to solve educational problems, educators sometimes had better ideas about corporate strategy or customer service than corporate managers, and corporate managers sometimes had better ideas than government officials about governing.



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

215

10. Get the Commitment and Continuous Support of Top Leadership for Action Learning A diverse action learning team without the support of the top management on the project is probably going nowhere. Top leaders of the organization need to first understand the value and role of action learning in solving critical business problems, and then support the team with resources and other involvement. They can show the team that they are fully committed to the project by helping select the problem, being available for feedback and discussion, and providing the appropriate support for the implementation of the strategies. Every one of the  action learning projects described in this book had top management support from the inception to the completion of the problem-solving process. Table . presents the key elements incorporated by these organizations in demonstrating top-level commitment. Above all, top management needs to be genuinely convinced of the power of action learning because this will give the team a clear sense of purpose. The next crucial consideration is to ensure that participants adequately understand how the problem the team is working on is aligned with specific organizational goals or will respond to potential challenges. Timely action plans approved by the top management will enable the project to succeed within the scope and timeframe. As such, the involvement of key stakeholders will ensure that appropriate solutions are implemented without complications. The Hewlett-Packard, Goodrich, and PepsiCo cases, for example, clearly demonstrated top management’s commitment to the action learning program.  . Commitment and Support of Top Leadership 1. Engage the top management from the beginning and keep them engaged throughout. 2. Keep leaders informed of the progress and success of the action learning teams. 3. Carefully develop and plan the strategies and deliver them to top leadership. 4. Provide a supportive corporate culture and reflective environment. 5. Clarify doubts and establish boundaries with the problem sponsor. 6. Encourage participative and team-oriented leadership in presenting strategies. 7. Focus on strategic partnership with key stakeholders. 8. Provide resources and support for the implementation of strategies. 9. Create panel discussions to facilitate rich exchanges between participants and stakeholders.

216

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

In order to promote breakthrough thinking and action, participants should combine diligence with courage by taking advantage of any existing constraints to bring about positive change. Quite frequently, it is the constraints and limitations that provide the impetus for creative ideas to be generated and concrete actions to be taken. Supported by a blame-free learning environment, the team can even increase their confidence and autonomy to produce more breakthrough solutions.

Stumbling Blocks to Breakthrough Problem Solving Although action learning has been proven to be a successful tool for solving complex problems in organizations, it is not without its challenges, challenges that can potentially lead to moments of “inaction.” Based on common action learning practices and a deeper analysis of the  cases, we have identified a number of “inaction” moments that prevent action learning teams from making good progress. These moments are largely triggered by internal and external factors that we term cognitive passivity and environmental uncertainty, respectively. Cognitive Passivity Cognitive passivity is a condition in which group members see no immediate connection to the action learning project and therefore adopt a passive attitude toward learning and problem solving. It is largely caused by a number of assumptions and practices that affect members’ attitude toward action learning. One primary cause is the selection of an unsuitable problem, such as one that cannot be solved within a realistic timeframe. Lack of ownership of a problem further prevents group members from moving forward to find an appropriate solution. If dialogue is not facilitated about deep-level issues, discussions will hover over surface-level issues and participants will lose interest in digging deeper into the problem. A group’s inability to reflect in meaningful ways can give members the impression that action learning is a time-wasting and unproductive endeavor. Lack of ownership and proper training can lead those who are new to action learning to view it as an ordinary project-based task lacking a systematic structure and a set of interlocking processes.



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

217

Environmental Uncertainty Environmental uncertainty is a condition in which unnecessary conflict and poor team dynamics cause participants to feel disengaged from the project. It is caused by the lack of a clear purpose, process, and support. Lack of support from top management creates uncertainty in the minds of the participants. Sometimes they are coerced into participating in an action learning project without understanding its underlying purpose, value, or benefits. In such conditions group members will be unable to see the connections between the learning tasks and their daily work. The absence of a supportive learning system causes participants to lose focus on what they can do to solve the problem. Action learning teams without clear direction from the leadership and without specific strategies will be ineffective. In addition, if the action learning coach lacks the facilitation necessary for ensuring successful reflection and action taking, the team will also be less effective. Both cognitive passivity and environmental uncertainty reduce participants’ responsiveness to dialogue and feedback, each of which is a fundamental element of successful action learning. Without those elements, action learning groups will have fewer opportunities to develop breakthrough thinking and innovative solutions. Table . illustrates the common mistakes caused by cognitive passivity and/or environmental uncertainty and what actions can be taken to overcome them.

Learning While Solving Problems— The Key to Breakthrough Problem Solving Action learning is such a successful problem-solving tool because of the knowledge and competencies developed by the team as a whole and its individual members. As they become smarter and more skilled at utilizing the insights and experiences of a diverse group, the team increases its ability to systematically diagnose complex problems. There are five dimensions of team and individual learning that affect and can empower the learning competence of the action learning team.

218

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

 . Breakthrough Elements, Common Challenges, and Corrective Actions for Breakthrough Problem Solving Breakthrough Elements

Common Challenges/Mistakes

Corrective Actions

1. A problem that is urgent and complex

• Problem is urgent but unimportant • Problem is too narrow and does not provide sufficient scope for learning • Problem concerns a select group of people, not the organization

• Choose a problem that is both urgent and important • Evaluate the scope of the problem with the sponsor, coach, and top management • Select a problem that will make an impact on the organization

2. Questions and reflection

• People use questions as weapons to make personal attacks • People question for the sake of questioning • People lose interest in the process because they cannot reflect well

• Keep all questions related to the problem • Give equal importance to questions and reflection • Develop members’ questioning and reflection skills

3. Appropriate mindset, value, and attitude of action learning members

• Attitudes and values are too diverse and there is no common meeting point • People harbor anger because they have been coerced into action learning • A negative mindset can breed further negativity

• Encourage open communication of personal values and attitudes • Convince people to participate in action learning; do not force them • Help people adopt a positive mindset

4. Skilled coaching/ facilitation of the action learning team

• Coaches are appointed without prior training or experience • Coaching is misconstrued as conflict management • Coaching is used to manipulate relationships

• Appoint coaches with the right experience and training • Prepare members for what to expect from coaching • Continue to develop the competencies of coaches

5. Integration of learning into the action learning projects

• Learning becomes ambiguous when members do not know what to learn and unlearn • Learning becomes a chore for the team • Learning becomes mechanical

• Capture lessons learned at various points • Integrate learning with questions and reflection • Develop strategies to help members see benefits and applications of learning

6. Establishment and enforcement of clear norms

• Norms are mistaken for organizational policies • Norms do not relate to performance or learning • Norms are either too rigid or not enforced

• Enable everyone to agree on the norms • Develop clear and explicit guidelines • Help the group learn how to enforce the norms



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

219

7. Formulation of explicit timelines and expectations for the action learning team

• Unrealistic timelines create unnecessary pressure on the team • Expectations and timelines do not match • Conflicting expectations surface from top management and problem sponsor/coach

• Ensure that all timelines are achievable • Discuss expectations and timelines with the team and other key stakeholders • Align expectations with all parties involved

8. Power allocated to the action learning teams

• Roles become ambiguous in team settings • Power is manipulated for personal gain • Power is overshadowed by authority from top management

• Clearly define team members’ roles in decision making • Clarify the boundaries of the power given to the team • Minimize interference from top management on task execution

9. Diversity of action learning teams

• Diversity leads to cultural clashes • Diversity attracts members with difficult personalities • Diversity reduces team membership

• Select team members carefully • Develop strategies to help the team manage their dynamics and emotions • Emphasize the benefits of diversity

10. Commitment of top leadership to the use of action learning

• Top management does not walk the talk • Top management is involved without a clear sense of purpose • Top management’s commitment is not complemented by adequate involvement in team meetings

• Convince top management of the true value of action learning before the project begins • Have a formal agreement with top management on their commitment • Involve top management in different stages of the project

1. Self-Concept and Self-Confidence As group members mature in action learning, their self-concept changes from being dependent on others for learning to being self-directed and independent learners. They develop an awareness of the power of their own efforts, which is the right mental frame for learning and action taking. For instance, an understanding of each member’s potential to contribute helps groups to actively engage in questions and reflection. Most important, they are able to work through their own strengths and weaknesses to develop learning strategies and apply their learning. In addition, clear goals and expectations make them aware of the impact their contribution will have on the group’s teamwork and the solutions they develop.

220

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

2. Incorporation of Past Experiences As group members engage in more in-depth and extensive action learning projects, their learning will be enriched. Each experience becomes a resource for learning through collaboration. In other words, they learn through direct contact with the mental frames of other members as they engage in discussion and reflective inquiry. In turn, they capitalize on the power allocated to the team and on its diversity to enrich their overall experience. The focus on urgent and complex issues brings out team members’ competence. Team members may not realize that they possess improvisation and innovation skills, for example, until they are confronted with resource and other constraints. As they pursue ideas that could lead to concrete experiments, they improve their knowledge and skills by doing rather than just knowing. 3. Readiness to Learn The group dynamics of action learning helps participants to understand their interactional roles more broadly, thereby developing different mental frames for different tasks. Simply put, the ongoing process of developing new insights and strategies enhances their readiness to learn. The desire to contribute is converted into concrete action when a group is led by skilled coaching and facilitation. With a readiness to learn, team members are more likely to focus on social interaction, communication, and action taking. They will also be more resourceful in looking for ways to improve their learning capability and develop strategies for overcoming “learning ambiguity.” Learning ambiguity is a situation when members are confused about what needs to be learned and unlearned. This is often caused by poor direction from the action learning coach or problem sponsor, and a lack of ownership of the problem assigned to the team. 4. Orientation to Learn Learning is driven by how individuals perceive the need to learn and by their willingness to allow learning to shape their action. The orientation to learn is enhanced when team members proactively seek opportunities to



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

221

test and apply ideas. They begin to shift their focus from the subject (the content to be learned) to the problem, which motivates their understanding of what needs to be unlearned. This shift in perspective increases their awareness of how different approaches to learning can produce different desired outcomes. There is a close link between how the learning takes place and what is achieved through the right action. This link is facilitated by two distinct practices: (a) the enforcement of norms for interactions in group settings, and (b) the formulation of timelines and expectations for the achievement of specific results. Members can then engage in active debate, share knowledge openly, receive feedback as they prepare for further action, and generate potential solutions. 5. Motivation and Commitment to Learn As group members realize the need to learn, they quickly develop a sense of responsibility about how the learning will affect themselves and the people around them. They often develop an intrinsic interest in learning for long-term competitive success. A motivation to learn is part of a mental frame that empowers learning. When they feel connected to the urgency and complexity of a problem, their new mental frame will lead to more effective strategy development. Group members will develop an inclination for active listening and reflecting as they formulate plans, test and implement solutions, and explore and evaluate alternatives for further development. These five dimensions of learning capture the key dynamics that enable learning to occur in action and after action. They are intertwined in many circumstances as individuals experience adaptive and unpredictable challenges. From this adaptive perspective, learning and action are interconnected and highly capable of producing breakthrough results (see Table .).

Action Learning and Problems— The Ideal Combination for Breakthrough Thinking and Living Complex problems provide opportunities to generate great ideas, as well as opportunities to develop great people. Action learning approaches

222

Principles and Strategies for Using Action Learning in Problem Solving

 . Developing Breakthrough Problem Solving through Action Learning Awareness

Learning Behaviors

Actionable Questions

Self-concept and confidence (awareness of the contributing power of the participant)

• Rely on goals and expectations to engage in learning activities • Apply learning in practical and meaningful ways • Work through own strengths and weaknesses to develop learning strategies

• How can you discover the participants’ expectations at the beginning of the program and address those that will not be covered? • To what extent can you provide training programs that will meet the current and future needs of the employees? • How can you partner the communities within organizations and have all team members recognized as valuable participants?

Experience (awareness of the collaborative power of teams)

• Focus on urgent and complex issues • Thrive on experiences that bring out hidden competence • Improve knowledge and skills by doing

• How effectively can you explain the “What’s in it for me?” concept? • In what ways can the participants transfer the learning immediately back to their jobs? • Do you understand the historical and cultural constraints and enablers of the system? • Do you have the skills to intervene in a messy situation, enhance the enablers, and remove the constraints?

Readiness to learn (awareness of the desire to be involved)

• Focus on social interaction, communication, and action taking • Depend on resources to improve learning capability • Develop strategies to handle learning ambiguity

• How do you facilitate the planning between the coach and the participants/team? • To what extent can you take the knowledge and experience of the participants into account? • How can you provide spaces within organizations for the articulation of understanding and sharing of stories for practice?

Orientation to learning (awareness of the power of the different approaches to learning)

• Engage in debate to provide alternative perspectives to a problem • Develop an openness to sharing ideas and receiving feedback for further action • Generate potential solutions for testing

• In what ways can you promote dynamic interaction that will enhance learning among the participants? • To what extent can you create a safe learning environment for the participants? • Can you facilitate critical reflection and reflexivity to allow the sharing and questioning of assumptions? • Are you able to integrate the diverse range of participants, particularly those that are limited by geographic boundaries, in knowledge creation and sharing?



Principles and Strategies for Breakthrough Problem Solving

Motivation to learn (awareness of the attitude that creates the power to learn)

• Develop keen listening and reflecting skills • Develop a plan to ensure the successful implementation of solutions • Explore and evaluate alternatives for further development

223

• How can you promote a learning environment that is collaborative between the coach and the participants? • In what ways can you help the participants to provide/receive feedback to/from the coach? • In what ways can you provide the space for the participants to provide/receive their responses and feedback to/from the coach?

a problem as a critical business challenge, as an opportunity for positive actions, and as a chance to learn, grow, perform, and transform oneself and others. The greatest and most significant learnings and achievements in history have occurred when people faced great challenges and problems and overcame them. We believe that action learning provides the spontaneity, flexibility, structure, rigor, collaboration, and dynamism that can take problem solving to the breakthrough dimension. Numerous organizations around the world have benefited from this simple yet powerful tool, with tremendous benefits and astounding successes. Action learning is truly the most powerful problem-solving tool of the st century.

Bibliogr aphy and Inde x

Bibliography

Argote, Linda. . Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag. Argote, Linda, Chester Insko, Nancy Yovetich, and Anna Romero. . “Group Learning Curves: The Effects of Turnover and Task Complexity on Group Performance.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology  (): –. Argyris, Chris. . Reason, Learning and Action. Reading, MA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schön. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Atwater, J. Brian, Vijay R. Kannan, and Alan A. Stephens. . “Cultivating Systemic Thinking in the Next Generation of Leaders.” Academy of Management Learning and Education  (): –. Baird, Lloyd, John C. Henderson, and Stephanie Watts. . “Learning from Action: An Analysis from the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL).” Human Resource Management  (): –. Barker, Arthur E. 1998. “Profile of Action Learning’s Principal Pioneer—Reginald W. Revans.” Performance Improvement Quarterly  (): –. Barell, John. . PBL: An Inquiry Approach. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Training and Publications. Bingham, Tony, and Pat Galagan. . “At C Level: Just Born.” Training and Development  (): –. Boeing. . “About Us.” September . http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/ aboutus. Boshyk, Yuri, and Lex Dilworth. . Action Learning and Its Applications. Houndmill, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Braye, Suzy, Marie Lebacq, Frances Mann, and Elly Midwinter. . “Learning Social Work Law: An Enquiry-Based Approach to Developing Knowledge and Skills.” Social Work Education  (): –.

227

228

Bibliography

Brown, John S., and Paul Duguid. .“Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, And Innovating.” Organization Science  (): –. Business Week. . “Talent over Time.” October : –. Business Wire. . “Capgemini Completes Kanbay Acquisition.” February . Cegarra-Navarro, Juan G., and Frank W. Dewhurst. . “Learning Shared Organizational Context and Relational Capital through Unlearning: An Initial Empirical Investigation in SMEs.” The Learning Organization  (): –. Chevallier, Michel, Leslie Railey, and Tom Burns. . “Toward a Framework for Large-Scale Problem Management.” Human Relations  (): –. Christen, Clayton M. . “Making Strategy: Learning by Doing.” Harvard Business Review  (): –. Clark, Kim B., and Takahiro Fujimoto. . Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal. . “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly  (): –. Cone, Jay, and Michael Woodard. . “Action Learning Helps PepsiCo’s Sales Leaders to Develop Business Acumen and Innovation Skills.” Global Business and Organizational Excellence  (): –. Daniels, Kevin, Grahame Boocock, Jane Glover, Ruth Hartley, and Julie Holland. . “An Experience Sampling Study of Learning, Affect, and the Demands Control Support Model.” Journal of Applied Psychology  (): –. David, Ruth. . “Kanbay Founders Figured IT Out. Faces in the News.” Forbes, October . http://www.forbes.com////dsouza-kanbay-capgemini-facecx_rd_autofacescan.html. Dean, Peter. . “Why Action Learning Is an Ethical Addition to Performance Improvement: You Can Ask and You Can Argue.” Performance Improvement Quarterly  (): –. Denrell, Jerker, Christina Fang, and Daniel A. Levinthal. . “From T-Mazes to Labyrinths: Learning from Model-Based Feedback.” Management Science  (): –. Dijksterhuis, Ap, and Teun Meurs. . “Where Creativity Resides: The Generative Power of Unconscious Thought.” Consciousness and Cognition : –. Dilworth, Robert L. . “Action Learning in a Nutshell.” Performance Improvement Quarterly  (): –. DuPont. . “Company at a Glance.” June . http://www.dupont.com/Our_Company/en_US/glance/index.html. The Economist. . Schumpeter. “Why Do Firms Exist?” December : . Edmondson, Amy. . “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly  (): –. Ellstrõm, Per-Erik. . “Integrating Learning and Work: Problems and Prospects.” Human Resource Development Quarterly  (): –.



Bibliography

229

Fang, Christina, and Daniel A. Levinthal. . “The Near-Term Liability of Exploitation: Exploration and Exploitation in Multi-Stage Problems.” Organization Science  (): –. Flavell, John, ed. . Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving: The Mature of Intelligence. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum. Flood, Robert L., and Michael C. Jackson. . Creative Problem Solving. Chichester: Wiley. Funke, Joachim. . “Dynamic Systems as Tools for Analyzing Human Judgment.” Thinking and Reasoning  (): –. Fuchs, Barbara. . “Learning from Toyota: How Action Learning Can Foster Competitive Advantage in New Product Development (NPD).” Action Learning: Research and Practice  (): –. Gibson, Christina B., and P. Christopher Earley. . “Collective Cognition in Action: Accumulation, Interaction, Examination, and Accommodation in the Development and Operation of Group Efficacy Beliefs in the Workplace.” Academy of Management Review  (): –. Gould, Steve. . “Maroochy  Community Visioning & Action—A Case Study of Anticipatory Action Learning Practices in Use within Maroochy Shire, Queensland, Australia. http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/...pdf. Grant, Robert M., and Charles Baden-Fuller. . “A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances.” Journal of Management Studies  (): –. Guss, C. Dominik, and Brian Wiley. . “Metacognition of Problem-Solving Strategies in Brazil, India, and the United States.” Journal of Cognition and Culture  (): –. Harvard Business Review. . “Breakthrough Ideas for .” (February): –. ———. . “Breakthrough Ideas for .” (January–February): –. Heifetz, Ronald A., and Donald L. Laurie. . “The Work of Leadership.” Harvard Business Review  (): –. Karallis, Takis, and Eric Sandelands. . “Building Better Futures: Leveraging Action Learning at Kentz Engineers and Constructors.” Action Learning: Theory and Practice  (): –. Keating, Charles, Thomas Robinson, and Barry Clemson. . “Reflective Inquiry: A Method for Organizational Learning.” The Learning Organization  (): –. Kirkpatrick, Donald, and James Kirkpatrick. . Evaluating Training Programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Knowles, Malcolm S. . The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. th ed. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Kolb, David A. . Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kramer, Robert. . “Learning How to Learn: Action Learning for Leadership Development.” In Innovations in Public Leadership Development, edited by Rick Morse, pp. –. Washington, DC: M. E. Sharpe and National Academy of Public Administration. Kur, Edward C., and Michael Pedler. . “Innovative Twists in Management Development.” Training & Development  (): –.

230

Bibliography

Land, Susan. . “A Conceptual Framework for Scaffolding Ill-Structured ProblemSolving Processes Using Question Prompts and Peer Interactions.” Educational Technology  (): –. Laroche, Herve. . “From Decision to Action in Organizations: Decision-Making as a Social Representation.” Organization Science  (): –. Levinthal, Daniel A., and James G. March. . “The Myopia of Learning.” Strategic Management  (Winter): –. Liedtka, Jeanne M. .“Linking Strategic Thinking with Strategic Planning.” Strategy and Leadership  (): –. Li, Ying, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Wilfred Schoenmakers. . “Exploration and Exploitation in Innovation: Reframing the Interpretation.” Creativity and Innovation Management  (): –. Lohman, Margaret C. . “Cultivating Problem-Solving Skills through ProblemBased Approaches to Professional Development.” Human Resource Development Quarterly  (): –. Lynham, Susan A. . “Leadership Development: A Review of the Theory and Literature.” In Proceedings of Academy of Human Resource Development, edited by Peter K. Kuchinke, pp. –. Baton Rouge, LA: AHRD. Maier, Norman R. F., and Lois R. Hoffman. . “Quality of First and Second Solution on Group Problem Solving.” Journal of Applied Psychology  (): –. March, James G. . “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science  (): –. Marquardt, Michael. . Action Learning in Action. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. ———. a. “Harnessing the Power of Action Learning.” Training and Development  (): –. ———. b. Optimizing the Power of Action Learning. Palo Alto, CA: DaviesBlack. ———. . Leading with Questions. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. ———. a. Building the Learning Organization. rd ed. Palo Alto, CA: DaviesBlack. ———. b. Optimizing the Power of Action Learning. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey. Marquardt, Michael, S. Leonard, A. Freedman, and C. Hill. . Action Learning for Developing Leaders and Organizations. Washington, D.C.: APA Press. Marsh, Catherine, and Carrie Johnson. . “Kanbay’s Global Leadership Development Program: A Case Study of Virtual Action Learning.” Proceedings: Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Research Conference. Estes Park, CO. McCosker, Frank. . “New Innovations in IT Support.” http://www.idgconnect. com/blog-abstract//frank-mccosker-africa-new-innovations-it-support-environmental-sustainability-africa. McElhaney, Kellie. . “A Strategic Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility.” Leader to Leader (Spring): –.



Bibliography

231

McGill, Ian, and Liz Beaty. . Action Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide. nd ed. London: Kogan Page. McIntosh, Sarah, Nicole Leotaud, and Duncan Macqueen. . “Who Pays for Water? A Case Study of Action Learning in the Islands of the Caribbean.” Knowledge Management for Development Journal  (): –. McLaughlin, Hugh, and Richard Thorpe. . “Action Learning—A Paradigm in Emergence: The Problems Facing a Challenge to Traditional Management Education and Development.” British Journal of Management  (): –. Meyer, Bertolt, and Wolfgang Scholl. . “Complex Problem Solving after Unstructured Discussion: Effects of Information Distribution and Experience.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations : –. Mintzberg, Henry. . “Crafting Strategy.” Harvard Business Review (July/August): –. Mitchum, Ainsley L., and Colleen M. Kelley. . “Solve the Problem First: Constructive Solution Strategies Can Influence the Accuracy of Retrospective Confidence Judgments.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition  (): –. Morgan, Gareth, and Rafael Ramirez. . “Action Learning: A Holographic Metaphor for Guiding Social Change.” Human Relations  (): –. Murdoch, Paul M. . “ Fast Tech Report Card. Stock Focus.” Forbes, January . http://www.forbes.com////fast-tech-report-pf-ii-cx_pm_sf.html. Nielsen, Richard P. . “Woolman’s ‘I Am We’ Triple-Loop Action-Learning: Origin and Application in Organisation Ethics.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science  (): –. Nobeoka, Kentaro. . “Reorganizing for Multi-Project Management: Toyota’s New Structure of Product Development Centers.” Working paper, Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration, Kobe University. ———. . “Reorientation in Product Development for Multi-Project Management: The Toyota Case.” In Management of Technology and Innovation in Japan, edited by Cornelius Herstatt, Christoph Stockstrom, Hugo Tschirky, and Akio Nagahira, pp. –. Heidelberg: Springer. Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. . The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pedler, Michael, ed. . Action Learning in Practice. st ed. Aldershot, England: Gower. ———. . Action Learning in Practice. nd ed. Aldershot, England: Gower. ———. . Action Learning in Practice, rd ed. Aldershot, England: Gower. ———. . Action Learning in Practice. th ed. Aldershot, England: Gower. Porter, Michael E. . “What Is Strategy?” Harvard Business Review (November/ December): –. Porter, Michael, and Mark R. Kramer. . “Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Business Review  (): –.

232

Bibliography

Quiamzade, Alain, Gabriel Mugny, and Celine Darnon. . “The Coordination of Problem-Solving Strategies: When Low Competence Sources Exert More Influence on Task Processing Than High Competence Sources.” British Journal of Social Psychology  (): –. Raelin, Joseph A. . Work-Based Learning: The New Frontier of Management Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Reynolds, Michael. . “Reflection and Critical Reflection in Management Learning.” Management Learning  (): –. Reynolds, Michael, and Russ Vince. . “Critical Management Education and Action-Based Learning: Synergies and Contradictions.” Academy of Management Learning and Education  (): –. Revans, Reg. . Developing Effective Managers. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts. ———. . The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Lund: Chartwell-Bratt. ———. . ABC of Action Learning. London: Lemos and Crane. Rigano, Donna, and John Edwards. . “Incorporating Reflection into Work Practice: A Case Study.” Management Learning  (): –. Rosman, Pavel. . “M-Learning as a Paradigm of New Forms in Education.” E+M Ekonomie a Management (): –. Rudolph, Jenny W., J. Bradley Morrison, and John S. Carroll. . “The Dynamics of Action-Oriented Problem Solving: Linking Interpretation and Choice.” Academy of Management Review  (): –. Schein, Edgar H. . “How Can Organizations Learn Faster? The Challenge of Entering the Green Room.” Sloan Management Review  (): –. Schön, Donald. . The Reflective Practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schwandt, Thomas A. 9. “Constructivist, Interpretivist Persuasions for Human Inquiry.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, pp. –. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Senge, Peter M. . The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Random House. ———. . “Is Toyota Abandoning Toyotism?” Debate Michel Freyssenet—Koichi Shimizu, La Lettre du GERPISA (Groupe d’Etudes et de Recherches Permanent sur l’Industrie et les Salariés de l’Automobile) [Research Letter of the Permanent Group for the Study of the Automobile Industry and its Employees], p. . January –. Shotter, John. . “The Social Construction of Our Inner Selves.” Journal of Social Constructivist Psychology  (): –. Siegel, Donald. . “Green Management Matters Only If It Yields More Green: An Economic/Strategic Perspective.” Academy of Management Perspectives (August): –. Skinner, Burrhus F. . Beyond Freedom and Dignity. London: Cape. Skyttner, Lars. . General Systems Theory: Problems, Perspectives, Practice. nd ed. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing. Teece, David J., and Gary Pisano. 1998. “The Dynamic Capabilities of the Firm: An



Bibliography

233

Introduction.” In Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness, edited by Giovanni Dosi, David J. Teece, and Josef Chytry, pp. –. Buckingham: Open University Press. Trehan, Kiran, and Michael Pedler. . “Critical Action Learning.” In Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Development, edited by Jeff Gold, Richard Thorpe, and Alan Mumford, pp. –. Aldershot: Gower Press. UNEP. . “About UNEP: The Organization.” July . http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID= Van de Ven, Andrew H., and Douglas Polley. . “Learning while Innovating.” Organization Science  (): –. Van Looy, Bart, Thierry Martens, and Koenraad Debackere. . “Organizing for Continuous Innovation: On the Sustainability of Ambidextrous Organizations.” Creativity and Innovation Management  (): –. Vince, Russ. . “Organizing Reflection.” Management Learning  (): –. Waddill, Deborah. . “Action e-Learning: An Exploratory Case Study Examining the Impact of Action Learning on the Design of Management-Level Web-Based Instruction.” In The Challenges of Educating People to Lead in a Challenging World, edited by Michael K. McCuddy, Herman van den Bosch, Wm Benjamin Martz, Alexei Matveev, and Kenneth O. Morse, Vol. , pp. –. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Waddill, Deborah, and Michael Marquardt. . The e-HR Advantage: The Complete Handbook for Technology-Enabled Human Resources. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey. Waddill, Deborah, Shannon Banks, and Catherine Marsh. . “The Future of Action Learning.” Advances in Developing Human Resources  (): –. Weick, Karl. . Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Williams, Eirwen. . “Agrisgôp: Action Learning for Welsh Farmers.” Action Learning: Research and Practice  (): –. Yeo, Roland K., and Ursula Nation. . “Optimizing the Action in Action Learning: Urgent Problems, Diversified Group Membership, and Commitment to Action.” Advances in Developing Human Resources  (): –. Yue, Lorene. . “Kanbay Shareholder Sues to Stop Capgemini Deal.” Crain’s Chicago Business, December . http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/.

Index

AAL, see Anticipatory Action Learning Action E-Learning (AEL), – Action learning: action component, –, –; advantages, –, , –; critical, ; development, ; elements, –, –; as problem solving method, , , –, –, ; purpose, , ; questions as focus, ; structured nature, , –; Systems Alpha, Beta, and Gamma, –; theoretical basis, –. See also Breakthrough problem solving; Case studies Action learning teams, see Teams Adaptation problems, – Adaptive problems, – ADAS Wales,  Adopt-a-Business, , , ,  AEL, see Action E-Learning Agriculture, see Rural development Agrisgôp project, – AIDS, see HIV-Free Generation Project Airbus,  American Society for Training and Development (ASTD),  Analogies,  Andracchi, Frank, –, , –

Anglo American Mining, , –,  (table) Anticipatory Action Learning (AAL),  Ashridge Consulting,  ASTD, see American Society for Training and Development Attitudes, – Australia, Maroochy Shire, Queensland, – Avoidance,  Ban Ki-moon,  Banks, –, – Beatty, Liz,  Behavioral learning theory, ,  Belgium, economic improvements,  Benson, Ezra Taft,  Bergh, Kobus,  BMS, see Bristol-Myers-Squibb Co. Boeing, , –,  (table) Born, Ross, – Breakthrough problem solving: by action learning groups, , –; characteristics, –; framework, ; principles, –; questions, , – ,  (table); selecting problems, 235

236 Index

 (table), –; stumbling blocks, –, – (table) Breakthrough thinking, –, , , ,  Bristol-Myers-Squibb Co. (BMS), –,  (table) Business Process Reengineering, – CANARI, see Caribbean Natural Resources Institute Capgemini, see Kanbay–Capgemini Caribbean islands, National Bank of Dominica, – Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI),  Caribbean Water Action Learning Project, , –,  (table) Case studies: corporate culture and ethics, –; environment and sustainability, –; national and community development, –; organizational change and learning, , –; overview, –,  (table), –; product and services innovation, –; sales and marketing, –; talent management and development, –; technology applications, –; virtual settings, – Cegarra-Navarro, Juan G.,  Challenging ideas, generating,  Chalmers, Kathy, – Change: in competitive environment, –, –; cultural, , ; organizational, –; radical, . See also Innovation Clark, Kim B.,  Coaches, action learning: in case studies, , , , , ; influence, , , –; roles, –,  (table); training, , ; in virtual settings,  Cognition: mental frames, , , ; meta-, , , –; perception, ; strategic thinking, –

Cognitive learning theory, – Cognitive passivity, ,  Collaboration, international, – Community development: case studies, –, –; use of action learning,  Complexity, of situation,  Complex problems: adaptive, –; characteristics, –; solving, , –, –, –; in st century, , –; types, –,  (table) Complex systems, – Cone, Jay, – Conflict resolution, – Connectivity, – Constellation Energy, , –,  (table) Constructivist learning theory,  Contexts: of knowledge, ; of problems, , , – Cook Islands, health system development, –,  (table) Corian production process, – Corporate culture: case studies, –; change in, ,  Corporate social responsibility, –, –,  Courage, – Creativity, – CRG Consulting, – Critical action learning,  Culture, see Corporate culture Customers: needs, –, ; participation in action learning,  Customer service staff, – David, Ruth,  Dean, Peter,  Decentralization,  Deconstructing problems, – Deep listening, – Deliberation,  Detrick, Kirsten,  Deutsche Bank, –,  (table) Dewhurst, Frank W., 

Index

Dialogue, , , ,  Differentiation, – Dilworth, Robert L.,  Double-loop learning, ,  Downer Group, –,  (table) Downsizing,  D’Souza, Cyprian,  Dunbia,  DuPont, –,  (table) Dynamics, – Eckels, Jim,  EDGE, see Executive Development for Global Excellence Education: higher, –, –; public health, –, – Empowerment, – Energy efficiency, , –, – Enterprise Resource Planning,  Environmental uncertainty,  Environment and sustainability: case studies, –; corporate commitments, , ; growing interest in, –; international collaboration, – Equifinality,  Ethics: action learning and, ; case studies, – Executive Development for Global Excellence (EDGE), Goodrich Corporation, – Executive support, –, –, , , ,  (table), –. See also Sponsors Existentialism,  Experiences: learning from, ; sensemaking, –; structured, – Experiential learning,  Exploitation, –,  Exploration, –,  Facilitators, see Coaches Farmer, Matthew,  Farming, see Rural development

237

Feedback loops, –, , , , ,  Frames, see Mental frames Fuchs, Barbara, –, , , ,  Fujimoto, Takahiro,  Fuyuki, Seki,  George Washington University (GWU), –,  (table) GIBS, see Gordon Institute of Business Science Global Leadership Program (GLP), Boeing, – Goal attainment problems, – Goldson, Helen, ,  Goodrich Corporation, –,  (table) Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS), , ,  Gould, Steve, ,  Governments, use of action learning, – Gross, Liora,  Group dynamics, , ,  Groups, see Teams GWU, see George Washington University Hackett Group,  Hayasaka, Megumi, , ,  Health systems, case studies, –, – Heifetz, Ronald A.,  Hewlett-Packard (HP), –,  (table) HFG, see HIV-Free Generation Project Hierarchies,  Higher education, –, – Hispanics, marketing to,  HIV-Free Generation Project (HFG), –,  (table) Holism,  Holliday, Chad, – Hong Kong, see Union Church Hong Kong HP, see Hewlett-Packard Humanist learning theory, 

238 Index

Ideas: generation, , ; life cycle, – IIED, see International Institute for Environment and Development Implementation: challenges, –, –; planning, ; teams,  Inaction moments,  Incremental problem solving,  India, technology services companies, – Information: creating knowledge from, , –; negative, ; overload, . See also Knowledge Information systems, see Technology applications Innovation: case studies, –; creativity and, ; need for, ; new products and services, –; use of action learning, – Inquiry, see Questions; Reflective inquiry Integration problems, , – Intent focus,  Interactive Associates, , ,  Interconnectedness, – Interdependence,  International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), ,  Internet, see Virtual settings Japan: Kirin Brewery, –; Panasonic, –. See also Toyota Motor Corporation Japan Institute for Action Learning (JIAL), ,  Just Born Candy, –,  (table) Kanbay–Capgemini, –,  (table) Karallis, Takis, – Kentz Engineers & Constructors, –,  (table) Kenya: HIV-Free Generation Project, –; Microsoft partners, –, ; UNEP headquarters building, , –,  (table); Virtual City, – Kirin Brewery, –,  (table)

Knowledge: contexts, ; creating from information, , –; exploration, ; learned actions and, –; new combinations of existing,  Kraft, Rebecca,  Krones, –,  (table),  (table) Kullman, Ellen,  Lam, Perry, , – Latency problems, ,  Laughlin, Bobby,  Laurie, Donald L.,  Leadership development, . See also Talent management and development Leadership development, action learning in: benefits, ; case studies, –, –, –, –, –, –, –; increased number of programs, ; virtual teams, – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),  Learned actions, , – Learning: application of, ; double-loop, , ; motivation, ; organizational, , , ; organizational context, ; problembased, , , , ; reflection in, ; stages, ; by team members,  (table), –, –, – (table); through action, ; un-, –, . See also Action learning Learning curves,  Learning management systems (LMS), – Learning organizations,  Learning Pathway, – Learning questions,  Learning theories: behavioral, , ; cognitive, –; constructivist, ; humanist, ; learning curve, ; social, – LEED, see Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Lexus, –,  (table)

Index

Liedtka, Jeanne M.,  Liew, Jasmine, – Life cycle, of ideas, – Listening, deep, – LMS, see Learning management systems Lockheed Martin,  Malaysia, Ministry of Education, – Management development, see Leadership development Manufacturing, –, , ,  Marketing, see Sales and marketing Maroochy Shire, Queensland, Australia, –,  (table) Marsh, Catherine,  Matsushita, Konosuke, ,  McCosker, Frank, – McElhaney, Kellie,  McGill, Ian,  Means-end analysis,  Mental frames, , , , . See also Cognition Mental models, ,  Mentor a Busnes,  Metacognition, , , – Meyer, Bertolt,  MHG, see Morgans Hotel Group Michelin,  Microsoft: action learning use, –,  (table); partners in Kenya, , , –, –, ; UNEP headquarters building and, ,  Mindsets, – Mintzberg, Henry,  Mobile technologies, –. See also Technology applications Morgans Hotel Group (MHG), –,  (table) Mourillon, Vow, , – Multifinality,  Nation, Ursula, ,  National Bank of Dominica (NBD), –,  (table) National development: case studies,

239

–; economic policies, –; education, – Nationwide Insurance, , –,  (table) NBD, see National Bank of Dominica New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,  Nike,  Nokia, , , ,  Norms, group, , ,  (table) Nosek, Jon, – Novartis,  Opaqueness,  Organizational change and learning: case studies, , –; importance, ; theories,  Organizational culture, see Corporate culture Organizational dynamics, , , ,  Outsourcing,  Panasonic, –,  (table) Passivity, cognitive, ,  Pedler, Mike,  PEPFAR, see U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief PepsiCo, Inc., –,  (table) Perrie, Tammy,  Phenomenology,  Planning,  Polytely,  Porter, Michael E.,  Problem-based learning, , , ,  Problems: adaptation, –,  (table); adaptive, –; as catalyst for learning, –; contexts, , , –; focal area, ; goal attainment, –; integration, , –; latency or tension management, , ; selecting, –; technical, , ; urgent, , –. See also Complex problems Problem solving: of adaptive problems, –; approaches, –; benefits, –; of complex problems, ,

240 Index

–, –, –; incremental, ; methods, –,  (table); reflective inquiry, –; systems thinking, –, , ; of technical problems, . See also Breakthrough problem solving Product development: case studies, –; use of action learning, –,  (table), –, –. See also Innovation Public health, case studies, –, – Queensland, Australia, Maroochy Shire, – Questions: in breakthrough problem solving, , –,  (table); importance, –; learning, . See also Reflective inquiry Raelin, Joseph A.,  Reconstructive analysis, – Recycling, – Reflection, ,  Reflective inquiry: in action learning groups, –, , –,  (table), –; elements, –; formulation stage, , ; generative stage, , ; integrative stage, –, ; resolution stage, –,  Regulation,  Restructuring, , – Revans, Reg, , , , , ,  Reynolds, Michael,  Ritz-Carlton Hotels,  Ruptures, , , ,  Rural development, case studies, – Sabine River Works Project, – Sainsbury’s,  Sales and marketing, case studies, – Scholl, Wolfgang,  SCLF, see Strategic Customer Leadership Forum Second Life (SL), – Self-concept, 

Self-confidence,  Senge, Peter M.,  Sensemaking, –, –, , – Services innovation, case studies, – Skinner, B. F.,  SL, see Second Life Social learning theory, – Social responsibility, –, –,  South Africa: Anglo American Mining, –; Gordon Institute of Business Science, , ,  Spencer, Raymond,  Sponsors: in case studies, , , , –, , , , ; expectations set by, ; roles, , –,  Steiner, Achim,  Strategic Customer Leadership Forum (SCLF), PepsiCo, – Strategic thinking, –,  Structured experiences, – Sustainability, see Environment and sustainability Systems, complex, – Systems Alpha, Beta, and Gamma, – Systems perspective,  Systems thinking,  (table), –, ,  Talent management and development: case studies, –; growing interest in, –. See also Leadership development Teams: assigning problems to, –; diverse membership, , –, –,  (table); expectations, –,  (table); feedback loops, ; group dynamics, , , ; implementation, ; leaders, ; learning dimensions, –, – (table); mindsets, values, and attitudes,  (table), –; norms, , ,  (table); power and responsibility, –,  (table); presentations, , ; sizes, ;

Index

timelines, –,  (table); virtual, –, –. See also Coaches Technical problems, ,  Technology applications: Action ELearning, –; case studies, –; educational video games, ; energy efficiency, , –; Enterprise Resource Planning, ; simulations, –; virtual settings,  Tension management problems, ,  Tolman, Edward C.,  Top management, see Executive support Total Quality Management,  Toyota Motor Corporation: Future Project , –; Lexus, –; new product development, –,  (table),  (table); production system, ,  Trehan, Kiran,  Triple bottom line,  True, Tony,  Uncertainty, environmental,  UNEP, see United Nations Environment Programme Union Church Hong Kong, –,  (table) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): mission, ; Nairobi building, , –,  (table)

241

U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR), ,  Unlearning, –,  Values: latency problems, ; of teams, – Vatsyayann, Suresh, ,  Virtual City, Kenya, –,  (table) Virtual settings: case studies, –; teams, –, – Waddill, Deborah, ,  Waibochi, John,  Wales: Education and Learning Council, –; rural development, –,  (table) Wal-Mart, – Warner Brothers,  Warrier, Jayan, ,  Water management projects, see Caribbean Water Action Learning Project WIAL, see World Institute for Action Learning Williams, Eirwen, –,  Woodard, Michael, –,  World Health Organization,  World Institute for Action Learning (WIAL), , 