NGOs as Learning Organisations
By James Taylor
Community Development Resource Association
1998
|
NGOs as Learning Organisations By James Taylor |
|
The concept of the "learning organisation" was popularised by Peter Senge in his book entitled "The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organisation" first published in 1990. Senge’s book focuses on the need for companies to: understand the threats they are constantly faced with; recognise new opportunities; and maintain a competitive edge. This article will not critique or draw on Senge’s conclusions but will simply make use of the concept of the "learning organisation" to share some insights that we have gained from sharing in NGO’s and CBO’s attempts to become more effective and efficient.
What is a learning organisation?
I would define the learning organisation as: the organisation which builds and improves its own practice by consciously and continually devising and developing the means to draw learning from its own (and other’s) experience.
Although a simple definition it contains within it four critical elements that merit some elaboration. Firstly a learning organisation is not defined as one which learns, but as one which learns consciously. It introduces a necessary level of conscious intent and commitment to the process of learning. The importance of this point is to note that all organisations, and all the people within them, are learning all the time. They are learning from a variety of sources and in a variety of ways. Very often the learning is taking place at an unconscious level and is therefore not effectively being captured and maximally used to change and improve future practice.
The concept of ‘the learning organisation’ is potentially undermining if it is interpreted as implying that organisations and individuals have not been learning in the past, and therefore require "imported" models and techniques in order to start the learning process. The concept is most effectively used as a reminder that the process of learning is inherent in everyone and in all organisations. The first challenge is not to start learning, but to become more conscious of how learning already takes place, in order to use and further develop this innate ability. The second challenge is to understand why the learning that is taking place is not being more effectively used to improve practice.
The second condition to qualify as a learning organisation in terms of the definition is to achieve "improved practice". This simply means that the test for whether learning has in fact taken place lies in the extent to which the practice of the organisation has actually improved. There are other forms of learning which are not measured in changed practice. In fact much of what is valued in our society is the type of learning which need not necessarily have any impact on what we "do" at all. Learning is very often measured in what we "know" or what we can "remember", it is often displayed as the ability to access information and build it into convincing argument or debate. While knowledge, information and the ability to think critically and analytically can play an important role in the type of learning which results in changed action, knowing or understanding does not guarantee changed practice. In most organisations we have known and worked with (including our own) there are many examples of this block between "knowing" and "doing". All too often we "know" (at the rational/understanding level) what our major problems and challenges are - but are unable to implement the "action" required to address them. The definition implies that we qualify as learning organisations only in the extent to which we are improving our practice, which is a step beyond having great insights and understanding.
The third aspect of the learning organisation highlighted by the definition is the ongoing nature of learning that is required of the learning organisation. In the learning organisation the process not only becomes more conscious, but also more continuous. Continuous not in the sense of becoming a totally reflective, inward looking, "navel gazing" type organisation, but in achieving an appropriate balance between reflection, learning and action. The learning organisation recognises that learning is not a "one off" activity where you find the ultimate answer and then forget about it and move on to other things. It is understood that learning is a cumulative process which needs to start where you are, and constantly progress at a pace dictated by a combination of your organisational needs and the needs of those that you serve. Learning builds on itself through improved action, which in turn opens new opportunities for understanding and further learning. Ideally the process of learning is an ongoing upward spiral through which the implementation of improved practice, when measured against expected outcomes, continually provides opportunity for new learning.
Finally the definition highlights "experience" as a source of learning. The learning organisation will draw on a variety of sources for its learning but places specific emphasis on developing the means and ability to exploit fully its own actions and experience as a primary source of learning.
NGOs as "learning organisations".
The concept of the learning organisation has specific relevance to NGOs in the development sector, in part because they have so much in common with all organisations across all sectors, and in part because there are aspects of their need for learning that are unique.
What development NGOs have in common with all other organisations is that they utilise both human and material resources in order to meet some societal need. When the resources consumed can no longer be justified in relation to the needs that are being met, the future existence of the organisation is called into question. The ability to achieve the fundamental balance between inputs and outputs at this level is dependent on the organisation’s ability to identify, understand and adapt its responses to changing needs. The response to the need must not only be effective in meeting the specific need but also be efficient in its use of the resources - otherwise the societal resources should be made available to others who can achieve more with them. Along with all other organisations the NGO’s ability to remain essentially viable over time depends on its ability to learn and adapt.
But in significant respects NGOs differ from other organisations in ways that make it all the more important for them to take their own ability to learn extremely seriously. Perhaps the primary difference lies in the fundamental role and purpose that the development sector expects itself to fulfill in society. The ultimate societal need that the development sector concerns itself with is the need for social cohesion and integration, it works against the forces that increasingly marginalise, exclude and impoverish more and more of its members. Despite their stated good intentions (and best efforts) to create and distribute wealth, the economic and state sectors have proven to be ineffectual in reversing these trends. The development sector is charged with the primary responsibility for learning about these destructive forces and seeking ways of reversing them.
The private and public sectors effectively control the vast majority of society’s material and production resources and consequently its formal learning institutions. But despite this advantage they have not generated a body of theory or practice which has been effective in redressing the vast imbalances in society. The NGO development sector is therefore challenged to maximise its learning as a means of improving its impact. There are no blueprints to follow, there is no benefit of having "simple bottom lines", there are no guaranteed recipes for success. The development sector has to use its very limited resources highly efficiently to generate truly creative and innovative learning which can address the societal problems that those much closer to the resources and power are incapable of doing. Its own store of past experience, its often monumental failures and many and meaningful successes, must be recognised as its libraries of knowledge and materials for learning.
At a micro level we perpetually encounter the frustrations of individuals and organisations searching for answers to their questions and needs from outside their own organisations, their own sectors and very often their own continents and realities. While not implying that knowledge and experience cannot be transferred over great distances and from different situations, we do know that organisations are all too often disappointed in their attempts to "import" learning. There are now many specialist trainers, consultants and donor organisations identifying what NGOs need, and packaging responses to these needs. There are courses, models and packaged responses to an increasing array of NGO needs: from planning tools and methodologies to management courses, from computer based monitoring systems to fieldwork intervention methodologies - but they are often not being experienced as a great help. They are in fact often being experienced as undermining and distracting when "pushed" by those in positions of power over resources. Organisations are starting to recognise that the most effective training is that over which they have substantial control or influence, and which is directly related to their own learning processes and needs. A learning organisation is one which accepts responsibility for its own learning and does not abdicate it to others.
Another significant difference between NGOs and organisations in other sectors is the fact that they do not get their funds directly from those to whom they provide services. There is very often
no meaningful relationship, or ability to exert influence, between the recipient of NGO services and the funder of the NGO. This separation of accountability has significant consequences. Amongst them is the fact that long periods of time can elapse between a service becoming irrelevant, inadequate or inefficient and the threat of funds being withdrawn. This can remove a critical pressure for learning and provides further motivation for keeping learning in NGOs conscious and intentional.
Where and how to start.
The point at which to start is to recognise that you are already a learning organisation. To look at how and where learning takes place in your systems and procedures and become more conscious of it. For a start, any time planning takes place an opportunity is created for learning. When any form of monitoring or evaluation is added the chance that learning will take place is vastly improved. Planning is essentially a process of looking towards some point in the future and imagining, or dreaming, of an ideal situation, then identifying the steps that need to be taken to get from the present (which is known) to the unknown future. When progress and achievement are measured against a plan, learning should be the product. Increasingly NGOs are planning, monitoring and evaluating with more rigour. In so doing they are creating opportunities for learning.
To give a simple example, a budget is no more than a plan - it looks to the future and imagines how much you will spend. After the spending has taken place it is important to compare actual expenditure to planned expenditure. No matter whether you have over-spent, under-spent, or are exactly on target, questions immediately spring to mind. Questions like; what went wrong? ....... what did I overlook in drawing up the budget? ...... or what went right this month how did I manage to remain within budget? The answers to these questions must be seen for what they are and consciously captured as important learnings. Learnings that can contribute enormously to improving future budgeting. So out of the tension between planned and actual outcomes arise questions. Finding the right questions and exploring them leads to the type of learning which forms the foundation of learning organisations. Using existing planning and evaluation opportunities in organisations is an obvious place to start. In fact any situation where work is being reviewed is an opportunity for learning. Writing reports about field activity or organisational achievements (either for internal use or for other interested parties such as funders) should be viewed as opportunities for learning. Once you start looking there are limitless opportunities where learning from your own experience can dramatically improve your future practice. Imagine how those dreaded never ending meetings could improve over time if the last item on every agenda was "evaluation and learnings from meeting".
Ideally all activity or action should be part of a plan, reflected upon, learned from, and the learning built into improved future plans. In our book on action learning we present the following simple learning cycle which incorporates the steps:
Another obvious and vital opportunity for learning in organisations is with individuals, in relation to their own practice. Again there are many organisational processes and procedures through which the work of individuals are monitored, reviewed or evaluated. In learning organisations all of these will consciously be used to learn from. Enormous creative energy is released in organisations when these "supervision" type sessions can be experienced as opportunities for learning as opposed to opportunities for policing (or "snoopervision"). When performance appraisals are looked forward to as opportunities for affirmation and learning the organisation is well on its way to earning the title of ‘learning organisation’. Remember that organisations themselves cannot learn, it is ultimately the individuals within them that have to do the learning.
Why is it so difficult?
If action learning is so common sense and all organisations and individuals learn anyway - why then is it necessary to put so much emphasis on the ‘learning organisation’? The fact of the matter is that very few of these ostensibly obvious and straight forward opportunities for learning are ever utilised. The same mistakes are made over and over again. We continue implementing programmes long after we actually (secretly) know that they are not working - or are having the opposite affect to what was intended. We keep attending meetings for years that frustrate us, are inefficient in the extreme and leave us feeling disempowered.
The primary reason for it not being as easy as it sounds is that type of learning that goes beyond remembering and understanding to improved action, involves behavioural change. The moment actual changes in behaviour are expected as an outcome - all the forces that always work against change are unleashed. At the heart of it is the expectation that individuals will let go of their old, tried and tested, ways of doing things. The habits and techniques that have become second nature, and can be carried out without thinking, need to be abandoned for new ways of doing things that we are not good at or familiar with. Even when rationally we "know" that there are alternative ways of doing things that are far superior to those being used a present - the knowledge is often insufficient to get us to let go of our old ways.
In addition to the personal difficulty in taking new learnings on board there are organisational dynamics that also mitigate against learning. Two of the most obvious are both found at the level of organisational culture. As part of their unconscious identity organisations differ in the balance they display between planning, acting (or implementing), and reflecting. Some organisations seem frenetically driven to do, do, do. They view any reflection as indulgent and inefficient. Other organisations seem to be trapped in deep soul searching, navel gazing reflection which seldom delivers sufficient clarity on which practical, implementable action plans can be built. Each learning organisation needs to find the balance between action and reflection which is right for them and produces learning which continually improves their practice.
The other organisational dynamic which seriously limits learning is the tendency to undermine and threaten rather than provide challenging, supportive and trusting environments in which individuals can risk and learn. All too often organisations, despite their best intentions, end up as fairly threatening places in which to work. They reflect a broader culture in which getting things wrong is directly related to failure. A culture in which it is better to avoid and evade things that are not going too well for as long as you can, as there is the danger that they will reflect badly on your performance. To learn one needs to have a safe space in which you are challenged to deliver to the maximum of your potential, can risk making mistakes, be supported in drawing learning from both successes and failures, and in which you are joined in celebrating achievements.
Remember that learning is a cumulative process. There is no need to start with the most difficult and challenging aspect of organisational life. The challenge is to start simply by becoming conscious of what you are already doing and enter the ongoing cycle. You are already learning but you could be benefitting so much more from each experience if you do it more consciously.
About the Community Development Resource Association (CDRA)
The Community Development Resource Association (CDRA) was established in 1987 as a non-profit, non-governmental organisation (NGO) to build the capacity of organisations and individuals engaged in development and social transformation. We are based in Cape Town, South Africa and work mostly in Southern and East Africa.
Email: vernon@cdra.org.za Webpage: www.cdra.org.za
P.O. Box 221, Woodstock, 7915, South Africa
Telephone: -27 -21 462 3902
Fax: -27 -21 462 3918
