Reflections in Excellence

Are you Trapped in the Learning Paradox (10 October 2001)

Our defense to the potential for embarrassment in learning something new is often to justify to ourselves that what we already know - is all that we need. The less we find out, the more we are justified in our belief that there is nothing knew to learn - and the less we find out. When this syndrome becomes part of an organisation's culture, innovation and learning comes to a standstill. But how do we break this learning paradox?

In most organisations an organisational culture exists that says: "This is the way things are done around here". There is an established routine way of doing most things. This may be explicit and written down in policies and procedures. More often the important parts are just understood. This is what defines an organisation's culture.

We all identify with these cultural norms. Even if we may not like them, they provide security for us in our work. We all know what to do and what each person's role is (whether that role is explicit or just accepted as the way things are done). Regardless of the pluses or minuses, in general it works for us.

There is however a catch with this. No matter how well things are run, or how superb the outputs are, there is always scope for innovation and change. Organisations that do not innovate and change inevitably have their environments change around them. Continued success is never guaranteed.

However, change of any description involves a challenge to cultural routines. Even with the good intentions of innovation and improvement, pointing out how things can be done better often threatens a whole cultural system of dynamics. We have a fear that conversations about such issues will inevitably lead to embarrassment or hurt, as the way things have previously been done will be called into question. Often organisations avoid such issues, exacerbating an existing problem until dramatic change is required. This is the premise of change management and its assumption is that most people don't want to change, otherwise they would have already.

The reality is somewhat different. In our work we meet people who like change. They want to succeed and they want their organisation to do well. They would like their job to be easier and also more challenging (just not more difficult). So why isn't change and innovation a natural process?

The reason for this is a complex dynamic that occurs within some organisations' cultures. It follows a pattern similar to this. Firstly, we identify a change that is required - something different that merely complying with the accepted rules won't fix. We also at that moment recognise that someone (else) should have done something differently. If we raise this, it potentially will cause embarrassment for that person. It may also cause embarrassment to us, especially if that other person will feel threatened - and may also possibly cause conflict. We think it is therefore best to just avoid the situation and 'let sleeping dogs lie'. Having been faced with the dilemma of raising the issue, or letting it go, we most often choose the easier course.

Inevitably the problem arises again. We realise that we have now become complicit in the problem by either not recognising it the first time or not acting on it sooner. We now have no room to move, as we have become part of the problem. Being part of the problem means that we can then not then be instigators of the solution. The learning paradox loop connects - the trap is complete. While not rational, it is very real.1.

Most people wish to avoid this situation, of potentially causing embarrassment to others and ourselves, at all cost. So what often occurs is that everyone unconsciously concurs to make the obvious discussion that needs to occur, undiscussable. The solution adopted is to perpetuate the problem, and all is solved - at least on the surface. The issue goes apparently un-noticed until it becomes critical. It then manifests itself in some other guise - a fall in quality, a drop in customer satisfaction or an inability to change.

Organisations may then engage external consultants to fix the problem. Change management may then deal with the immediate issue, returning the organisation back to the status quo. The consultants may even 'discover' the undiscussable issue that caused the reason for the change. But they will not often look for the underlying cultural norm that gave rise to it.

While the hidden culture of undiscussability remains, it is then not surprising that the recommendations in the reports prepared to fix the presenting problem are never implemented. If the recommendations are challenging, even when obvious, then that is a good enough reason to ignore them. Where the issue is particularly confronting, for example challenging the escalation of a bad decision, the external consultants then also become immersed into the cultural paradox. Understanding that the problem cannot be fixed, they provide recommendations that avoid the main issue. After all, this is what the client wants.

This paradox, where the more people become aware of the need to communicate a change, the more they lock into the existing way of doing things to avoid it, often becomes so entrenched that it is impossible for those within the organisation to see it. Immersed in the paradox they are unable to recognise it exists. As one person put it: It is like asking whether a fish knows what water is? While we may not be able to see it or understand it, we know it is there.

There is however a simple way out of the dilemma. The cause of the learning paradox is that we do not feel we have the confidence to raise undiscussables in a way that does not cause embarrassment or hurt. If we do, we feel we may not have the confidence to deal with the conflict that may result. Cultural defensive routines are merely that - a routine.

To ask people to be open to criticism and challenge so as to create a culture of innovation and experimentation, without also providing the skills necessary to do so, is not only unlikely to succeed, it is also unreasonable.

The higher level solution is to provide the necessary skills to change the routine. Empowering people with the capabilities, and therefore the confidence, to work outside the cultural norms, not only avoids the paradox, but breaks it. Doing this is actually not threatening. It often comes with a sigh of relief.

1. The learning paradox comes from the 30 years of outstanding work by organisational psychologists Chris Argyris and Donald Shon. See Organisational Learning II 1996 Addison Wesley, Mass. USA

William Varey
Forsyth Consulting Group
www.fcg.com.au

top of page