Human Capacities

As far back as Aristotle, philosophers have described what differentiates humans from animals in such a way that includes these same three learning capacities: the ability to think critically and creatively, the ability to communicate ideas and concepts, and the ability to cooperate with other human beings in the process of inquiry and action. I call these “the Essential C3 Capacities.” To define a learning organization, therefore, we must take these capacities into account.

Let us then make two assumptions:

1. that generative learning (which includes thinking, communicating, and cooperating) is part of the essence of our humanity.

2. that to the extent those capacities are not fully developed, maintained and applied, human potential is wasted.

It follows then that for any organization to excel in the future and not waste human potential, it must apply all the essential capacities of those involved in its judgment processes and in the decisions that result. This is the case, whether an organization is developing visions and missions, goals and objectives, strategies and structures, or policies and action plans.

Learning versus Traditional Organizations

An ideal learning organization will therefore be composed of persons who think critically and creatively, considering all the factors involved in understand-ing a matter, especially the points of view of those affected. They will communicate ideas and concepts among themselves effectively, as well as describe data and desires. They will also be adept at cooperating with others in both inquiry and action by first establishing trust.

For example, Senge quotes Bill O’Brien of Hanover Insurance in describing such a person in a managerial role: “He or she feels comfortable with responsibility, digests complex ideas, weighs different positions, and develops solid reasoning behind choices. Other people listen with care to what this person says. The person has larger aspirations for family, company, industry and society.”

The learning organization is not only concerned with the Essential C3 Capacities of its members (owners, managers, supervisors, and employees). It also wishes to address human potential within the communities in which it would flourish (customers, suppliers, neighbors, government and future generations).

Traditional, hierarchical organizations are designed to provide for basic human needs: food, shelter, and belonging. By contrast, learning organizations are designed to address higher-order needs: self-respect and self-actualization.

Traditional organizations change by reacting to events. Their “reference points” are external and often based in the past or on the competition. They are often change-averse. Learning organizations, by contrast, are vision-led and creative. Their reference points are internal and anchored in the future they intend to create. They embrace change rather than merely react to it.

Traditional organizations sort people into “thinkers” and “doers.” Essentially, the doers are prohibited from thinking. Learning organizations truly engage everyone. Their fundamental challenge is seen as tapping the intellectual capacity of people at all levels, both as individuals and as groups.

What Are The Benefits?

As we have said, one benefit of becoming a learning organization is that we thereby release the enormous potential of our members. More fundamentally, the framework described above provides a foundation, a set of guiding principles in relation to which other theories (such as the pursuit of excellence, management by objectives, employee empowerment, and principle-centered leadership) can be applied.

Each of these theories has value as far as it goes, but none is founded on an understanding of the essential human capacities. Therefore putting one of these theories into practice is often more difficult, more disruptive and less beneficial than it could be.

For example Total Quality Management (TQM) theory places a great emphasis on considering the needs and expectations of the customer, as well it should. TQM places the customer above other members of a community which includes those inside and outside the organization. Thus, TQM has evolved to include everyone in the definition of a customer. Members of the organization who are not in direct touch with the pub-lic are seen as “internal” customers and, we are told, should therefore be included among those addressed by the pro-gram. Likewise, the needs and expectations of suppliers should be considered as though they were a customer. In one case study even the Internal Revenue Service in its collection capacity was deemed to be a customer. All this, so that the theory of being “customer-driven” can apply.

The learning organization follows a more fundamental principle: that we should employ the human potential of all who are affected by our judgment processes, and that we should anticipate the impact of such judgments on this potential as we make policies. It follows that a program which demands blind obedience to the decisions of senior management and which does not consider the human potential of those affected (i.e., customers, suppliers, even the IRS if need be) will be seen as dehumanizing. Moreover, the decision to implement TQM should bear in mind the Essential C3 Capacities of those whom it affects at the front end, and not after the program has been initiated.

The popular book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic by Stephen Covey provides another example. In this book, Covey describes three principles: “Think win/win,” “Seek first to understand, then to be understood,” and “Synergize (creative cooperation).”

These are wonderful principles, but Covey does not state why one should accept them. He makes the assertion that they are based upon natural principles found in every enduring religion, social philosophy or ethical system. Yet he goes no further.

Our notion of the learning organization provides the under-lying foundation for those principles. It is obvious that our capacity to think creatively and critically must be employed if we are to “Think win/win.” The ability to communicate ideas and concepts must be exercised if we are to “Understand, then be understood.” And the human capacity for cooperative inquiry and action comes into play when we engage in “Creative cooperation.”

Summary

An understanding of the essential human capacities provides a foundation for organizations to comprehend and integrate the skills, knowledge, habits, disciplines, principles and practices that management theories urge upon us. By subscribing to these ideas learning organizations will necessarily con-sider the impact of their decisions upon suppliers, neighbors, government and future generations. This results in genuine involvement, higher quality judgments and opinions, and a sense of shared vision for employees, customers, suppliers and communities alike. In the final analysis, it is this understanding which leads to:

• A greatly improved product or service
• A major decrease in wasted resources
• A motivated workforce
• The best opportunity to increase profits
• A sustained competitive advantage
• Better governmental and community relationships

Part Two: Purposeful Learning and True Empowerment

Each of us creates our world through our individual thoughts, plans and actions. The richness and challenge of management and leadership come from the fact that we make ourselves and our organizations, communities and world through the thoughts we have, the choices we make and the actions we take. We are responsible for the world in which we live. Our essential task in life then is to learn how best to think, plan and act in creating our lives and our world.

It is the awareness that we are responsible for our lives that separates us from planets and plants and atoms and animals. For example, few of us would hold the canyons responsible for fires in Southern California, or an ocean responsible for storm damage, or an animal for failing to live up to its potential. But we do claim to be accountable for the visions we hold and the actions we take. Why? Because unlike hillsides and oceans and animals, human beings have their own purposes, visions, values and goals. We choose among various courses of action, and we act toward achieving those goals. So when we reflect on the events of the day we have a sense of whether the day was for us a success or a failure. Moreover, because we choose, we are not predictable. People learn, develop new visions, adopt new values and goals and simply change their minds for reasons often unclear to anyone including themselves.

For managers and leaders these are fundamental truths. If employees cannot take responsibility for their own visions, values, goals and action plans, if they have not learned how to create their own futures, they are not living their own lives. Ultimately, being responsible for one’s own life and learning how to create it is what employee empowerment is all about. When management tries to build a shared vision, dictate organizational values or tell employees what they must do without involving them in the decision process that led to this initiative, it will fail.

Purposeful Learning as Problem-Solving

We can define a problem as an existing or anticipated state of affairs where the present or expected situation does not match the desired situation. We solve a problem by reducing or filling that gap. Discovering how is the purpose of real learning. The goal of real learning is to change our modes of thinking, planning and acting such that we may more effectively or efficiently reduce the gap between our visions and our view of reality.

If we proceed in good faith, reducing the gap between vision and reality can be accomplished in one of three ways. First, we may change our visions to match our view of reality; that is, we de-cide that the benefits of achieving our existing vision are not worth the cost. Second, we may learn what courses of action are available to us to fill the gap, choose one and act; that is, we decide to do something about the uneasiness we feel. Third, we may learn that our view of reality is faulty and that reality does in fact match our vision; that is, we find that our reality is in sync with our vision after all.

There is one other alternative, of course. We may decide just to live with the gap that exists because every course of action seems to increase the uneasiness we feel for one reason or another. Here, we may hold to the vision and view of reality we have and decide to do nothing about reducing the gap between them. We will continue to live with that uneasiness, but only until the situation becomes intolerable or we learn what other courses of action are available. This is where otherwise good men and women do bad things out of frustration or anger.

If human action is purposeful then we always act with our own ends in mind. More specifically, we act only when there is a gap between our vision of what is good and right and our view of what reality is. Otherwise there is no need to act. But, since there always seems to be a gap (wrong job, wrong boss, wrong employees, wrong spouse, not enough time, not enough money, too cold, too hot…), we usually feel the need to act, to do something. There is usually some problem we need to learn how to solve.

Our challenge in life then is to learn with our purposes in mind. Peter M. Senge’s “generative” learning that we described last issue - learning that expands our individual capacities to create the results each of us truly desires - is purposeful learning. Through purposeful learning we define and refine our visions, values, goals and action plans. We also bring them into sync with the rest our lives. Additionally, to live as effectively and/or as efficiently as we desire, we learn to harmonize our purposes with those of the people with whom we live and work.

Training, Education and Development as Learning

Real human learning is something more than merely acquiring knowledge. Here lies the challenge for Human Resource and Training and Development professionals. If we live in a world of change - we change, our communities change and the world around us changes - what do we need to learn to make the most of our individual and organizational lives?

As presently structured, most organizational training and development programs are not adequate. Training typically focuses on changing skills in the present job and assumes that learned skills can be applied immediately. Education typically focuses on changing knowledge that will prepare employees for their next position with the organization. Development typically focuses on changing attitudes or values important to the organization for use in the future or in future positions.

If we intend to realize maximum human potential, organizational education and development must include learning to learn. Moreover, even the purposes of the individual and the organization must be open to reflection and inquiry. For real learning to occur, it is not enough to lay out a comprehensive program of training, education and development. The skills and knowledge provided must translate into individual com-petence such that employees are able to consciously manage their own visions and realities. This is particularly true in large organizations where the widest gap between vision and reality can often be found. The demands of large organizations are often incompatible with the visions of their members, especially when those demands ignore the personal and family lives of employees.

Purposeful Learning and Leadership

Learning that is not deeply purposeful - in the sense that it is consciously chosen as a part of one’s life plan - is little more than programming. The same notion applies to employee empowerment. It is seldom the case that employees cannot be trained, educated and developed to make pragmatic judgments that work. In fact, for the powerful reasons of their working knowledge of and proximity to the problems, employees should be the ones empowered to make such judgments. Yet organizational leaders often fear their employees do not share the vision, values, and goals of the organization and thus feel uneasy about employee empowerment programs.

In lieu of true empowering, management then decides to delegate some small portion of decision-making authority without involving employees in purposeful learning. And when success therefore is not achieved, everyone ends up frustrated and confused over what was meant by “empowerment.” True employee empowerment is possible only if there are shared purposes, visions and values, as well as the willingness and ability to learn what is required to live them.

Conclusion

The notions of purposeful action and purposeful learning are fundamental to this process. If we would motivate employees to act, we must show them a vision they can embrace and show them why they should embrace it. Furthermore, we must instruct them in learning how to realize that vision. If we would solve a problem, all must have the same purpose in mind and be adept at learning how to reach quality judgments. If we would communicate effectively and efficiently, all must have the shared purpose of understanding each other’s point of view. If we would cooperate in inquiry or action, all must maintain the shared purpose of doing so and be adept at learning how to work more effectively together.

The most important acts of leadership that management can perform are to clearly articulate the organization’s values while developing a solid understanding of the personal visions held by its employees. From there, leaders must work to foster a mutual recognition of the different realities faced by the organization and its employees. Once this has happened, a leader’s day-to-day task becomes managing the creative tension required to match reality with personal visions and organizational values.

Through shared purposes, visions and purposeful learning people with diverse talents, values and backgrounds can create the best possible future for all. Only an organization whose members are adept at purposeful learning is equipped to meet the challenges ahead and create its own future. The future belongs to the learning organization.