Strategic Learning - using Self Managed

Learning
LEARNING ISSUES
What is needed today is a stance which recognizes that learning issues
are at the heart of organizational survival. And, for success, learning
needs to be accelerated. As PPP healthcare puts it (as part of their
value statement) 'We grow by learning'. But such learning needs to go
beyond day-to-day operational issues. It needs to be strategic.
The problem is that too much training and education activity is
disconnected from the real needs of managers and their organizations.
What is needed is a more strategic approach to learning. This must
include the recognition that most effective learning takes place in live
work situations and that training is at best a support for such learning.
(At worst it can be counter to the needs of the organization).

STRATEGIC LEARNING
I will elaborate twelve criteria, or factors, that indicate that a strategic
approach is different from others. First, though, I will give a brief
outline of other approaches.
From research we conducted on a range of small, medium and large
organizations, in the public and private sectors, we identified four main
organizational approaches to management learning, development and
training.

APATHETIC/ANTAGONISTIC
These organizations were especially characterized by top management
apathy or outright antagonism to supporting and resource learning and
development. Many small firms fell into this category. The boss was
clear that funding and giving time to such activity was either a waste
or down right harmful. The latter position was taken by those who felt
that supporting training and development would lead people to learn
things which would make them more marketable (especially if they
obtained qualifications) or raise their sights to look elsewhere for a job.
The apathetic (the larger group) tended not to see learning as a
priority. They felt that in difficult economic times their business survival
was linked to other activities (for example, more aggressive selling)
than to their employees learning new skills and abilities through
organized development activity.
Organizations in this category not only didn't sponsor people for
courses, they also didn't foster a learning environment. There was
minimal coaching and mentoring; induction of new employees was
haphazard and there were no rewards for learning.

REACTIVE
These organizations did provide support for learning, but purely (or
mainly) on a reactive basis. If employees pushed their managers they
might get funding for an external course. If individuals took initiatives
they might find someone to coach them, or at the very least share
knowledge and expertise. At one extreme Reactive organizations are
close to Apathetic. At the other extreme, they could be quite
supportive of individual learning.
However there was no strategic imperative guiding learning, and little
or no evidence of attempts to evaluate courses or other developmental
activity. Learning was hit-and-miss with no systematic planning (though
there might be a designated training budget in the better examples of
this type).

BUREAUCRATIC
These organizations (typically relatively large) did have a training
budget and either ran internal training courses or sent people on
external courses (or both). Internal courses were highly standardized
and often linked to particular grades or levels in the organization. In
many organizations people had to go through a particular course when
they reached (or were about to reach) a particular level in the
hierarchy.
The main overt commitment to learning in these organizations was
through training. People were sent on courses if learning needs were
identified (for example in an appraisal interview). There was usually
little emphasis on job-based learning (projects, secondments,
mentoring, etc) - though this would often go on informally. In large
organizations with regional offices, we found considerable resentment
towards head office driven training. The training department would
carry out a mechanistic questionnaire-based training needs analysis
and then design courses for the whole company based on an averaging
of the identified needs. Managers outside head offices usually felt that
the standardized offerings that resulted were unresponsive to their
needs, and provided little value added to the business (and were
certainly not cost effective). However the bureaucracy required that
they conform to head office systems.

STRATEGIC
These were the minority. They encompassed small, medium and large
sized companies and they were characterized by board level
commitment to learning and development. In the medium and large
companies there was an active personnel/HR/management
development function which had access to the CEO. The people in
HR/development were typically energetic, able, committed people who
cared deeply about the business and its success. Senior managers

respected them and their expertise was regularly called upon. They
sometimes directly supported line managers in coaching and
counseling their staff. They were good networkers, well connected
inside the organization and outside. They could readily access external
sources of expertise as needed and they were knowledgeable about
current thinking on management, organizations and learning.
In taking a strategic approach to learning, these organizations would
look for direct linkage between business needs and learning activity.
They would pragmatically support learning methods that met specific
needs. They were flexible and responsive to the differing needs of
different parts of the organization.

A CASE OF STRATEGIC LEARNING

An example of an organization that I want to mention here is J.
Sainsbury. This 129-year-old food retailer realized that it needed to
make changes from the bureaucratic to the strategic in its personnel
function. This change was in keeping with the need in the company in
general to be less bureaucratic and move towards creating more of a
learning culture. The company went through a business process reengineering project and this required the personnel function to work in
a multi functional mode where the personnel professionals operated
more like internal consultants and less like narrow specialist personnel
administrators. Judith Evans, at the time their Director of Personnel
Policy, picks up the story here.
"We decided to use a Self Managed Learning approach. In this way
people would have to take responsibility for what they learnt and how
they learnt it...
After an introductory workshop, individuals worked in learning groups
of around six people. From [a 360-degree assessment] they developed
a learning contract that covered their objectives for the next six
months. This was agreed with their colleagues in the learning group
and with their manager. Each group had a [group adviser], a personnel
manager who was at the same time a member of their own learning
group. This was modeled from the top of the organization. The Retail
Personnel Director and I had our own little learning group of two with
an external adviser; and we each had our own learning group which we
were an adviser to.
In the learning group in which I was an adviser, the initial assessments
were very frank and honest, and it was easy for people to identify the
areas they wanted to develop. The early learning came from sharing
experiences and ideas with each other. What Bill found difficult, Jane
found easy. The procedure Jane was trying to design, Kate had a
manual for.

But there were bigger issues people were struggling with: Why am I
here? What am I supposed to be doing? What do I really want out of
life?. There was some deeper self-analysis and struggling with
personal choices. Do I want to move location to further my career, or
do I want to stay here and spend more time with my family?
Everyone has discovered more about themselves; what they want out
of life, what their strengths and limitations are and who they can call
on for support. Discussing where they stand has given them greater
confidence to tackle situations, to learn new skills and to take on the
full remit of their new roles.
So Self Managed Learning has given us much more than a traditional
training course. As well as people with more skills, it has given us more
confident and able individuals who have the courage to tackle the
many tough issues brought about by a changing organization."
Some points that are important to raise here include:
1. The learning was strategic for the individual and for the
organization. People comment that Self Managed Learning helps them
become more strategic in their careers through exploring some
fundamental questions in depth and over time.
2. The development was holistic. Judith Evans quotes people becoming
more courageous, for instance. Developing courage isnt usually part
of a business school curriculum but there is no doubt that it is
important in working in changing environments.
What Judith Evans did not say was that this SML program went right
through the 700 professional staff in the personnel function, and
evaluations of the program have shown significant benefits not only to
individuals but also to the business.

CRITERIA FOR STRATEGIC LEARNING

In order, though, to exemplify further this strategic approach I will
suggest twelve criteria by which to judge if an organization is taking a
strategic view.
1. Organization wide commitment
Learning needs to be high profile, centrally resourced, and across-theboard. There should be no sense of it being a marginal or peripheral
'extra'. (Sainsbury's conducted their program across all 700 personnel
professionals).
2. Top management giving demonstrable support
CEO's and Directors especially need to show that they are continually
learning. (This was an important feature in Sainsbury's).
3. Linked to strategic direction and cultural change

A learning approach should be directly integrated into the change

process at all levels. (Sainsbury's were clear that they needed a
learning based approach to help people move into a new mode of
working).
4. Large scale development
It is not a case of picking a few managers to go off on a course, but
rather an integrated, strategic initiative. (In Sainsbury's we were clear
that piecemeal development would not work - everyone had to be
involved).
5. Development of organizational capability
Developing coaches and mentors is often a start point for widespread
development of organizational capability to support and foster
learning. With the growth of flatter organizations (and the concomitant
reduction in time that leaders can spend with people who report to
them) peer group support for learning is starting to loom larger as a
priority in Strategic Learning.
6. Multi-functional development
There is enormous value in bringing together people from different
functions in the organization to address learning issues. In a learning
group (in Self Managed Learning) people get to know each other in
depth and learn how to support learning across different departments
and disciplines. This encourages an integrated approach to learning
across the organization through networking. This isn't just a spin-off
from a program (as is often the case on training courses). Self
Managed Learning encourages the open exploration of live issues. This
is infinitely superior to telling 'war stories' in the bar between sessions
on a training course as a way of getting to know people in other
departments.
A strategic approach to learning has to encompass the development of
a learning culture across the whole organization. It may seem
paradoxical to focus on the personal learning needs of individuals, but
when people in a learning group start to see the similarities of some of
their problems this enhances the in-depth development of a learning
culture. People feel less isolated and more able to be open with
colleagues.
7. Long term not quick fix
Firstly, Self Managed Learning programs usually need to last at least 4
or 5 months to show real, significant benefits. But as most of the time
is doing the normal work this is not an insuperable intrusion into
people's jobs. However by continually looping between live action, and
then reflection and analysis in learning groups, people's learning is
greatly enhanced. This is different from the 'quick-fix', go to a two day
seminar and learn all you need to know about X (X can equal TQM,

Performance Management, or any technique you care to mention).

Someone on an SML program may go to such a two-day seminar. But
they will do it as part of an agreed learning contract with agreed
learning goals, and a report back to their learning group afterwards on
what they have learned.
8. Cascading down the organization
Strategic Learning means involving everyone in appropriate learning.
SML approaches need to cascade down the organization involving
other staff. Strategic Learning does not stop with managers (though it
usually needs to start there).
9. Part of the organizations competitive advantage
Strategic Learning is becoming a key part of organizations' competitive
advantage. Top managers are realizing that unless their organization is
learning better and faster than ever before, they will be at a
disadvantage. Organizations are starting to make this more explicit.
10. Visibility
Strategic Learning is being made visible outside as well as inside the
organization. It is recognized as part of the strategic direction of an
organization, and is something organizations feel proud of.
11. Integrating strategy and tactics
Strategic visions and missions are unhelpful without a link to tactical
action. The long term and the short term need to be synchronized.
Motivation to stick with long term goals can come from short-term payoff (which is seen as part of a bigger picture).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Organizations need to accept that any change they initiate - no matter
how small - will require people to learn. If the change is minor (a new
form to fill in) the learning might be quite simple. If the change is large
(developing a new culture) the learning will be complex and long term.
And organizations will need to commit ever-increasing resources to
learning as the complexity of changes in the environment increases.
In this article I have made a case for a Strategic Learning approach and
indicated how the use of Self Managed Learning (SML) is part of this
stance. Self Managed Learning is not an easy option - but the evidence
is that it can play a powerful role in supporting organizational change.
Ian Cunningham
February 1999
Professor Ian Cunningham chairs the consultancy Strategic
Developments International and the not-for-profit Centre for
Self Managed Learning. Ideas in this article are taken from
Ians book The Wisdom of Strategic Learning (2nd edition

now out, published by Gower). Ian can be contacted on 01273

703691 or by email at cunning@pavilion.co.uk.
Published in 't' magazine 2000.