Improvement implies change, but change does not imply improvement.
Change follows action. Action follows planning. Effective planning follows from an understanding of the system because it is required to make the wise decisions needed to achieve the purpose.
The purpose is the intended outcome.
Learning follows from observing the effect of change – whatever it is. Understanding follows from learning to predict the effect of both actions and in-actions.
All these pieces of the change jigsaw are different and they are inter-dependent. They fit together. They are a system.
And we can pick out four pieces: the Plan piece, the Action piece, the Observation piece and the Learning piece – and they seem to follow that sequence – it looks like a learning cycle.
This is not a new idea.
It is the same sequence as the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment, analysis, conclusion. The preferred tool of Academics – the Thinkers.
It is also the same sequence as the Shewhart Cycle: plan, do, check, act. The preferred tool of the Pragmatists – the Doers.
So where does all the change conflict come from? What is the reason for the perpetual debate between theorists and activists? The incessant game of “Yes … but!”
One possible cause was highlighted by David Kolb in his work on ‘experiential learning’ which showed that individuals demonstrate a learning style preference.
We tend to be thinkers or doers and only a small proportion us say that we are equally comfortable with both.
The effect of this natural preference is that real problems bounce back-and-forth between the Tribe of Thinkers and the Tribe of Doers. Together we are providing separate parts of the big picture – but as two tribes we appear to be unaware of the synergistic power of the two parts. We are blocked by a power struggle.
The Experiential Learning Model (ELM) was promoted and developed by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford (see learning styles) and their work forms the evidence behind the Learning Style Questionnaire that anyone can use to get their ‘score’ on the four dimensions:
- Pragmatist – the designer and planner
- Activist – the action person
- Reflector – the observer and analyst
- Theorist – the abstracter and hypothesis generator
The evidence from population studies showed that individuals have a preference for one of these styles, sometimes two, occasionally three and rarely all four.
That observation, together with the fact that learning from experience requires moving around the whole cycle, leads to an awareness that both individuals and groups can get ‘stuck’ in their learning preference comfort zone. If the learning wheel is unbalanced it will deliver a bumpy ride when it turns! So it may be more comfortable just to remain stationary and not to learn.
Which means not to change. Which means not to improve.
So if we are embarking on an improvement exercise – be it individual or collective – then we are committed to learning. So where do we start on the learning cycle?
The first step is action. To do something – and the easiest and safest thing to do is just look. Observe what is actually happening out there in the real world – outside the office – outside our comfort zone. We need to look outside our rhetorical inner world of assumptions, intuition and pre-judgements. The process starts with Study.
The next step is to reflect on what we see – we look in the mirror – and we compare what are actually seeing with what we expected to see. That is not as easy as it sounds – and a useful tool to help is to draw charts. To make it visual. All sorts of charts.
The result is often a shock. There is often a big gap between what we see and what we perceive; between what we expect and what we experience; between what we want and what we get; between our intent and our impact.
That emotional shock is actually what we need to power us through the next phase – the Realm of the Theorist – where we ask three simple questions:
Q1: What could be causing the reality that I am seeing?
Q2: How would I know which of the plausible causes is the actual cause?
Q3: What experiment can I do to answer my question and clarify my understanding of Reality?
This is the world of the Academic.
The third step is design an experiment to test our new hypothesis. The real world is messy and complicated and we need to be comfortable with ‘good enough’ and ‘reasonable uncertainty’. Design is about practicalities – making something that works well enough in practice – in the real world. Something that is fit-for-purpose. We are not expecting perfection; not looking for optimum; not striving for best – just significantly better than what we have now. And the more we can test our design before we implement it the better because we want to know what to expect before we make the change and we want to avoid unintended negative consequences – the NoNos. This is Plan.
Then we act … and the cycle of learning has come one revolution … but we are not back at the start – we have moved forward. Our understanding is already different from when were were at this stage before: it is deeper and wider. We are following the trajectory of a spiral – our capability for improvement is expanding over time.
So we need to balance our learning wheel before we start the journey or we will have a slow, bumpy and painful ride!
We need to study, then plan, then do, then study the impact.
One plausible approach is to stay inside our comfort zones, play to our strengths and to say “What we need is a team made of people with complementary strengths. We need a Department of Action for the Activists; a Department of Analysis for the Reflectors; a Department of Research for the Theorists and a Department of Planning for the Pragmatists.“
But that is what we have now and what is the impact? The Four Departments have become super-specialised and more polarised. There is little common ground or shared language. There is no common direction, no co-ordination, no oil on the axle of the wheel of change. We have ground to a halt. We have chaos. Each part is working but independently of the others in an unsynchronised mess.
We have cultural fibrillation. Change output has dropped to zero.
A better design is for everyone to focus first on balancing their own learning wheel by actively redirecting emotional energy from their comfort zone, their strength, into developing the next step in their learning cycle.
Pragmatists develop their capability for Action.
Activists develop their capability for Reflection.
Reflectors develop their capability for Hypothesis.
Theorists develop their capability for Design.
The first step in the improvement spiral is Action – so if you are committed to improvement then investing £10 and 20 minutes in the 80-question Learning Style Questionnaire will demonstrate your commitment to yourself. And that is where change always starts.